When flying a jets like a320 on high altitude like FL320 the ground become blurry even on high res ares. I remember before the patch (i can’t remember which patch) when flying on high altiude the ground are more and clearer.
So at what FL is good for flying and the ground still not loosing ground texture?
I feel that the sim stills looks very pretty up to about 9,000 ft and thereafter the loss in quality starts to become more noticeable.
Im pretty sure the devs have mentioned at some point that they are working on making the sim look a lot better at high altitude.
As they should. There are a lot less objects to render at this altitude so even modest PCs could handle a boost in visuals.
There are actually more objects to render, as any view of the ground will cover a larger area the higher you go.
What I presume you mean is that the sim will only render the visible (i.e. larger) objects and textures, which will indeed reduce the workload. Unfortunately, the sim may still need to interrogate all the objects to see which ones need to be rendered (though this will depend on exactly how the sim works - it may keep a library of objects by size, which would speed the program somewhat). So it is swings and roundabouts.
False. Object are not rendered at high altitude so there’s nothing to render except earth photo.
Surely they need to be rendered at higher altitudes than about 10000 feet. I know that X-Plane with great orthoscenery but 3D models turned down to minimum looks extremly flat and fake up to rather high altitudes.
xplane 11 doesn’t render objects either.
Please read carefully.
I refer to objects AND TEXTURES. The “earth photo” as you call it is actually the texture of the earth surface, modified by the clouds and mist, scaled by the altitude, adjusted for the curvature of the globe, and illuminated by a complex light source i.e. the sun partially shielded by the clouds, modified by the angle of incidence and shadows from the terrain, plus ambient light from the environment.
What you refer to is what I alluded to in its simplest form - an altitude at which it decides not to render any actual objects. This would give an abrupt change at that altitude which may very obvious - perhaps this is what the OP is referring to. However, a better way to do it would be to have a stepped change more like I described. I do not know which method they have used to implement this, but given their expertise in AI it could be quite intricate.
My basic point is that a simple assumption that it should be easier to render at high altitudes may or may not be correct, but I would certainly need more information before agreeing. In my experience, once I get above a few thousand feet (where larger buldings are still visible), my fps stays pretty constant.
At what altitude? I’m pretty sure it does at 10 000 feet but I don’t really feel like setting it up to check the cutoff altitude right now.
It renders the texture. Otherwise you wouldn’t see anything. It’s only blurry when you zoom in. It doesn’t render objects at high altitudes because that’s pointless.
No, not 10 000ft of course. Much much higher. There are no objects. But even if they were there you wouldn’t be able to see them. Flat texture is as good as full rendered texture with objects at 30 000ft+.
30000 ft over Dubai, zoomed in. Pointless or not, large buildings still being rendered.
This one from inside the cockpit.
