Mesh add-on vs Photoreal scenery

Hi,

Is there any added value for a Mesh-package in an area/country/state when there is a Photo-real addon active for that area?

In default areas it indeed gives better edges in mountains etc, but I am inclined to believe that de-activation of the mesh for a photoreal area is positive for performance. Or is the priority-sequence of influence?

Please help me out, in my opinion there is no difference for this question between FSX and Prepar3D V 1 - 5.

with kind regards,

Piet de Geus

Netherlands

Hi,

Is there any added value for a Mesh-package in an area/country/state when there is a Photo-real addon active for that area?

In default areas it indeed gives better edges in mountains etc, but I am inclined to believe that de-activation of the mesh for a photoreal area is positive for performance. Or is the priority-sequence of influence?

Please help me out, in my opinion there is no difference for this question between FSX and Prepar3D V 1 - 5.

with kind regards,

Piet de Geus

Netherlands

Do not confuse Meash with Photoreal. One does not imply the other. Not in ANY of the sims...

Do not confuse Meash with Photoreal. One does not imply the other. Not in ANY of the sims...

I am not confusing things. Mesd defines altitudes, Photoreal shows sceneries. My question is Do I need Mesh in a photoreal scenery?

Piet

You always have Mesh , it comes with the Flight Simulator .

It creates the valleys and mountain terrain elevation features , the scenery is draped over the mesh.

If you add an aftermarket mesh it usually (1) improves the accuracy of the terrain elevations

(2) improves the resolution sharpness or detail so that smaller terrain features are modelled.

As far as I know Photo real has a much greater impact on performance / frame rates than

mesh ever will have.

If you are after performance improvement it would be better to get rid of or de activate the

Photo real scenery .

Cheers

Karol

You always have Mesh , it comes with the Flight Simulator .

It creates the valleys and mountain terrain elevation features , the scenery is draped over the mesh.

If you add an aftermarket mesh it usually (1) improves the accuracy of the terrain elevations

(2) improves the resolution sharpness or detail so that smaller terrain features are modelled.

 

As far as I know Photo real has a much greater impact on performance / frame rates than

mesh ever will have.

If you are after performance improvement it would be better to get rid of or de activate the

Photo real scenery .

 

Cheers

Karol

Karol,

No, I am not after performance, but the outside view of the scenery is important to me. I just was wondering what the influence of the quality of the picture would be when removing the influence of a add-on mesh on the actual look of the Photoreal scenery.

I tried it in one occasion and could not see a significant difference. I have Prepar3D V5

Hi Degeus,

if you want "improved" photoscenery you should consider using an utility like FsEarthTile.

This program connects on a server, it downloads photorealistic tilemaps and then you can generate realistic terrains with appropriate terrain meshes.

The drawback of this, it takes a lot of time to generate tilemaps.

I don't know if it works with Prepar3d.

This utility is suitable for FSX

I tried it in one occasion and could not see a significant difference.

Once you have a half-way decent mesh, improved versions refine smaller details, perhaps giving small ravines and gullies, subtle rises and drops in farmland, more detailed mountain peaks, etc. If you're flying at higher altitudes you'll never see the difference, but when flying at low level (say, under 500 feet) you'll see considerable changes if you pay close attention, but even a perception of improvement even if you don't.

So it depends on how much you care and/or what you feel is "just fine."

Hi,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it.

Piet

Mesh can sometimes not be a match to the scenery. You could end up with some mountains showing farmland and houses on the top of them. Or main roads running straight up a mountain.

You want your mesh to match the installed scenery.

FreeMeshX is a fully freeware mesh. Maybe try that out to see what mesh does.

(it's very detailed mesh, so if you have the mesh resolution setting in your Fsx-options-settings-display menu too high it will cost fps.)

I'll just throw my penn'orth in...

Mesh dictates the shape of the ground's topography. It has only a very slight effect on performance. An addon mesh package would probably increase the level of detail as Larry stated. If you've already tried an addon in P3d v5 and haven't noticed a difference then the stock mesh is perfectly adequate.

Photoscenery is just that: aerial or satellite photographs draped over the topography. The detailed individual textures can have a much bigger impact on framerate. Also, each image takes much longer to load to a high level of detail than does any mesh. As il88pp indicated, a horizontal mismatch between mesh & photoscenery can look strange if you prefer low & slow flight. The problem also affects coastlines and lake-shores.

if you're thinking of Orbx True Earth photoscenery (my assumption as you mentioned P3d) then you shouldn't have a problem: the packages already include matching mesh and reworked coastlines. Similarly, Just Flight's UK Next Gen photoscenery includes its own mesh, as does France VFR.

If you're looking at a freeware download photoscenery, you may end up hunting around for a suitable mesh but in any case, as above, if you fly high it won't matter.

D

(I know you understand what the two scenery elements are, but for anyone else doing a search...)

I'll just throw my penn'orth in...

 

Mesh dictates the shape of the ground's topography. It has only a very slight effect on performance. An addon mesh package would probably increase the level of detail as Larry stated. If you've already tried an addon in P3d v5 and haven't noticed a difference then the stock mesh is perfectly adequate.

 

Photoscenery is just that: aerial or satellite photographs draped over the topography. The detailed individual textures can have a much bigger impact on framerate. Also, each image takes much longer to load to a high level of detail than does any mesh. As il88pp indicated, a horizontal mismatch between mesh & photoscenery can look strange if you prefer low & slow flight. The problem also affects coastlines and lake-shores.

 

if you're thinking of Orbx True Earth photoscenery (my assumption as you mentioned P3d) then you shouldn't have a problem: the packages already include matching mesh and reworked coastlines. Similarly, Just Flight's UK Next Gen photoscenery includes its own mesh, as does France VFR.

 

If you're looking at a freeware download photoscenery, you may end up hunting around for a suitable mesh but in any case, as above, if you fly high it won't matter.

 

D

 

(I know you understand what the two scenery elements are, but for anyone else doing a search...)

I'll correct an anomaly: Complex MESH most assuredly DOES affect performance.

Logically, if your setup has to calculate three times as many triangles, fps WILL suffer...

Hi,

Yes I have FreeMeshX as well, but investigating actually its usefullness in well detailed photosceneries. In default scenery it adds value.

Piet

I'll correct an anomaly: Complex MESH most assuredly DOES affect performance.

That is, of course, correct, with the more simple meshes having little effect and the most detailed ones having a large effect on performance. But even that effect can, to a degree, be reduced by reducing certain display settings which, of course, reduces your incentive to install them, but may be a bit more accurate even at the lesser settings.