Scale up scenery resolution at lower altitudes

Hey there,

I had the idea that it would be nice to increase the resolution of global scenery so that flying planes such as a Cessna will be more fun to fly as it’s nicer with some detail on the ground. Now I already hear everyone thinking, but Bas… we can’t possibly run this one our devices! And I think that would hardly be the case, I think that if Infinite Flight found a balance between resolution and altitude and the range of detailed scenery required around a plane it would be possible to balance out performance with quality. As it may be unclear to some what I mean by this, I made a quick sketch up in paint to explain what I mean.

Let’s discuss!

Edit: In case it’s unclear, the dot is your plane.

Great idea! Don’t really get the illustration, but I definitely get the concept

It’s just a simple illustration at what ranges you should expect a certain quality of scenery to show up, but I get that it can be a bit confusing.

1 Like

I’d say this is similar to the topic below, feel free to vote for that:

I think the current limitation is actually finding scenery data that IF LLC can actually purchase for a reasonable amount and stream to our devices. Also, IF generally keeps a cache of the scenery, so higher resolution scenery would be a storage issue.

1 Like

I feel that they’re two seperate suggestions since he’s suggesting a way higher level of quality then I’d ever expect, but I’ll leave it up to the mods to decide.

1 Like

Either way, it’s the same request for at least some better quality. Like you said, up to the mods.

I’d agree,but these are things that can be balanced out as I said by only making small area’s around the airplane high quality, and downscaling those the higher you go. Therefor they wouldn’t have to cache said graphics once you reach a certain altitude which means they can be wiped from the cache.

2 Likes

I believe that already happens. That’s called streaming.

If we didn’t have that, our devices would spontaneously combust.

1 Like

My first point still stands and is the biggest hurdle here. Sourcing higher quality scenery and having to pay for it all, then storing it on an upgraded Global server that has the capability of storing and distributing the larger scenery data.

With the method you currently suggest, the caching system would have to be modified to delete scenery after passing over the area. Which would work, but may end up using more of the end user’s internet data and would be a bigger strain on the Global scenery servers.

All of this makes things more expensive for users.

1 Like

Like I said, the whole thing he suggested already applies, quality of scenery goes down the further you are from it or if you are not looking at it, or you are high enough, the scenery qualoity ticks down as you are seeing more. That’s like the point of streaming.

The sourcing point however, I undeniably agree with that.

1 Like

I do recall Seb mentioning that IF uses a content delivery network in which the scenery data is distributed across servers across the world for faster access for local users. Adding more data just makes things more complex and at risk of causing crashes due to the increased strain on hardware, the code (handling more data) and the internet.

Paying for more storage across the delivery network just compounds the cost.

1 Like

Exactly, we already have an issue with crashes on most iOS devices anyway. Best not to add the gasoline to the fire.

1 Like

It’s definitely a nice idea in theory though. Higher quality terrain is definitely needed, but again, on mobile devices. That’s the issue creating all these other issues, because of the storage and internet limitations, and also how willing people are to pay more for a mobile-based service.

1 Like

I see one of my requests being MISUNDERSTOOD.

I’m not advocating for Google Earth type scenery, I’m not that mental. I used a screenshot of Google Earth to show just how bad the current terrain looks at low level.

@EyesSkyward has mentioned a few issues with the idea, and he’s correct, especially regarding price. Ninety something percent of the IF userbase don’t care about VFR flight or quality scenery at low level. They won’t want to pay extra for something that they won’t use.

2 Likes

If you want my honest opinion, IF was not designed for low altitude, VFR flights with planes such as the XCUB. I can see where this could help increase the popularity of it but until we get some ground feature such as trees or buildings then it isn’t completely worth it. It’s a great idea but I just think it’s the wrong time.

1 Like

Hey!

Will be closing this in a while, and you’ll understand why.
But from a purely curious perspective i have to ask;

Do some of you believe that we would not have a higher resolution if it was possible? Some of these requests seems to assume that we’re deliberately have ignored or implement “lower quality” features for no reason :)

Our goal will always be to have the most realistic (within reason) and beautiful simulator for mobile you can find! But being on mobile, comes with it’s restraints. Heck, no desktop sim comes out of the box with the ground scenery we have. You have to purchase quite expensive, but amazing looking add-ons to get that :)

Oh, and we already do exactly what this feature requests asks for :)

4 Likes

I think the problem is you guys deliver too good


Obviously Infinite Flight can only be as good as the mobile devices allow, but IF pushes the limits and balances performance and graphics perfectly.
Of course with todays technology theres better resolution possible, but not for our platform… at least not for now ;)

also I believe the current engine the sim is running on sets some limits as well, but thats why we can look forward to project metal for some improvements

I’d be happy if the scenery was a tad bit better. It’d never be able to run as quality scenery as MFS2020, but I think it could handle a bit better scenery.

It is without doubt for me that you guys do whatever lies in your power to improve infinite flight, was just wondering if something along these lines was possible on a more detailed level. But thanks for the hard work and keep it up. I’m sure everyone here 100% appreciates what you guys are doing.

2 Likes