Rivers and Roads

**ddclud** · 06-20-2003, 02:55 PM

Do the rivers now follow the valleys or do they still run up the sides of hills?

Do the roads wind over the hills or do they still go straight up and down?

These are 2 of the things that have alway bugged me. Thanks.

Daryl Crowley

**blink355** · 06-20-2003, 06:57 PM

I dont know if rivers follow valleys or if the roads wind, but I do know that the roads will always be flat, instead of just being pasted on to the sides of hills and cliffs. That was something that really bugged me with FS2002. Im not sure, but I think that the roads will also have telephone polls along them.

**dsert66** · 06-21-2003, 10:07 AM

Do y ou think or do you know?

**blink355** · 06-22-2003, 12:48 AM

Im not absolutely certain, but I have seen screenshots with roads "carved" into the sides of hills instead of being slanted, and if you look at close-up shots of roads you can see telephone poles. Im not sure if the telephone poles are just in N. America, or if they are all over the world. Sorry I couldn't provide more solid info, all I have to go off of are screenshots.
-Scott Armstrong

**rhumbaflappy** · 06-22-2003, 09:02 AM

Hi Daryl.

I actually don't expect too much improvement in FS2004.

The placement of roads and streams in FS2002 ( and FS2004 ) is made automatically from GIS data. To code or trace this by hand would take forever. The data is then checked in the sim. In FS2002, Prince Edward Island was overlooked in the checking process, and was underwater. There are other anomalies in the data.

=========================

In the US, detailed data is freely available ( US TIGER data ). Accurate, free, Canadian GIS data is also available, I believe.

Detailed European data is available, and MS has access to it ( MapPoint, for example ), but they purchase a license for that data... so I don't know if FS will have access to it.

For the rest of the world, little quality road and stream data is available.

Microsoft has relied on the free Digital Chart of the World data. This data is a little crude, and that leads to the mistakes in placement. Also, the default mesh was from GoToPo30 data ( or it's equivalent )... and that DEM source is also a bit crude. That adds to the problem with roads and stream going up and down mounatins... the mountains are misplaced and so are the roads and streams.

Lakes and coasts in FS2002 have a flatten capability that prevents them from creeping up mountainsides. It may be that roads in FS2004 will have this capability as an option. This doesn't help in the placement, but "masks" the inaccuracy. If great mesh is available, flattens are not needed.

I believe Microsoft will take advantage of the freely available NED data for US mesh in FS2004. This will be a great improvement if true.

===================

Higher quality freeware data for mesh is becoming available for the whole world, as SRTM data. But it may be years before this data is "cleaned" and corrected by mathematicians and geographers. I don't know when accurate ( and free ) Worldwide vector data will be available for roads and streams.

Dick

**ddclud** · 06-23-2003, 02:52 PM

I understand the large task of getting rivers to follow roads but it seems that a routing parameter could be applied that would stop a river from gaining elevation. Without tracing it it should be able to act like water and seek the lowest level within a specified range.

I like having the rivers but whole effect is destroyed when they go flowing up the side of a mountain.

I also would like to see the autogen place more housing around lakes as we all know that lakes in populated areas of the country are quite built up. It also stands out when you see a big lake near populated areas with absolutly no houses on it. That would be great in real life, but it is not realistic.

Thanks.

Daryl

**ladamson** · 06-23-2003, 03:39 PM

>I understand the large task of
>getting rivers to follow roads
>but it seems that a
>routing parameter could be applied
>that would stop a river
>from gaining elevation. Without
>tracing it it should be
>able to act like water
>and seek the lowest level
>within a specified range.
>

If that was done, the rivers would appear to be dis-jointed from the air, which would be worse IMO. Considering the simulation doesn't/can't use enough elevation datapoints to cover all smaller river beds, it's a much better compromise. Many lakes also look better from altitude, when they actually follow some up-hill terrain from a water level view. Since this is basically a flight simulation instead of a boating sim, I'd go with the altitude compromise ----- again IMO.

Ladamson

**Flyboy2** · 06-24-2003, 07:47 AM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 08:40AM (EDT)[/font][p]>If that was done, the rivers would appear to be dis-jointed from the air, which would be worse IMO.

I don't follow. Since when were rivers ever "jointed to the air"? What does that mean?

> Considering the simulation doesn't/can't use enough elevation datapoints to cover all smaller river beds

Prove it. What data do you have to support that statement?

>Many lakes also look better from altitude, when they actually follow some up-hill terrain from a water level ... again IMO.

Yes. Your opinion. I sure wouldn't opt to see lakes "following up-hill terrain". How unrealistic is that?

**facted** · 06-24-2003, 08:41 AM

I know. There are screenshots that answer this specific question at simflyers. Evidentally fs2004 has flatten switches for roads so that the land next to it is flat, so no more roads that are at a 70 degree angle off the side of the mountain. instead, they're still in the mountain, but the mountain semi-conforms to the roads. You'll have to see the screenshot to really understand. check out their forum or maybe nels can provide a picture here if he can find a good example :)