Terrain mesh in mountain areas

I totally agree with the OP and have zendesked it as well. There‘s definitely much room for improvement here. I don‘t expect to ever see a realistic representation of extremely spiky mountains such as Tre Cime di Lavaredi or Fitz Roy by default, but I expect the majority of mountains to be at least recognizable. I hope we hear something about that in the next feature discovery video.

1 Like

Yes I hope it too, or in the upcoming „world update series„. :+1:t3:

Ah, yes, „world update series“ it is called.

I will have to slightly disagree with my own statement regarding iconic Peaks.
Actually peaks in the Everest region are looking more realistic. Although the resolution and mesh density requires much improvement, overall contour, elevation and shapes almost match real world. I have included side by side images of various areas around Everest for quick comparison.
(Real world images are from web search and credit to their respective photographers)

1. Mount Thameserku from Namche Bazaar/Syngboche Airport

MSFS version of Thameserku

2. From same region (Namche Bazaar): Mount Kongde Ri

MSFS Version Mount Kongde Ri

Sunrise same mountain

3. Nearer to Everest Region

MSFS Version

MSFS version Sunrise Everst, Ama dablam foreground right

MSFS version Everest and Khumbu Glacier

Everest and Gokyo Lake (If I am not mistaken)

  1. North View from VNPL (Phaplu). This is another popular everest trek region.
    Mount Numbur and PT

MSFS version from VNPL Airport with Mt. Numbur and PT

flying VNPL region with Mount Numbur, small peak of Everest etc(need to know the names :slight_smile:

Overall there is a lot of improvement!!!


Perhaps you already gave it a shot but I wonder if using the zoom level of the drone a bit more would make some of the MSFS captures more telephoto like some of the real world shots were (distance foreshortening). The amazing resemblance was clear but the relative focals lengths of the “cameras” used sometimes seemed a bit different and the drone zoom might compensate for that.

Thanks for the comparison! Really interesting.

1 Like

Good point. I shall give it a try.

I believe it may be because of the scale of those mountain range is on another level compared to Alps and Dolomites. So the current mesh is enough because a cliff or a peak is 5x or 10x (or a similar multiple) bigger than in the Alps. As an example I measured on the map (hence not considering inclination) the distance between the Everest base camp and camp 4 (just in term of distance between the two points without considering elevation difference). It is about 8.4 km. As a comparison, the distance between Pordoi pass and Piz Boe (the summit on the Sella group, one of the biggest group in the Dolomites) is just 2.6 km.

I don’t think it is a bug. It is just either a low quality DEM that is the only available to Asobo or it is because the sim lowers the DEM detail when you are far away. Custom scenery DEMs are specifically sourced for a relatively small area from 3rd party sources.

Are all those pics in ULTRA setting with 200 drawing detail?

Asobo most likely uses the general global DEM available from Bing. Sourcing a custom DEM for each mountain range in the world is just not feasible at this point. That requires LIDAR data taken from a helicopter or airplane, not DEM based on satellite imagery. Hopefully, specific areas of the world will be slowly updated with some more custom data in the upcoming world updates. Asobo said those are focused on smaller and specific areas one at the time.

1 Like

Hi. No not ultra but high with terrain detail 100, and render scale 110. I will try with everything important in ultra and render scale 200 and highest terrain scale. I am planning to check other mountain regions too. Was flying over Dolomites, not familiar with the area though, just to understand the location of different mountains.

1 Like

I think you’re right, the Alps (and in particular the Dolomites) have sharp peaks that the current mesh is unable to match. I was flying over the beautiful SeiserAlm (Alpe di Siusi) in the Bolzano region, and although I could recognise the Sella group, the Sasslong and the Platkofel (Sasso Piatto), the Schlern (Sciliar) group was just not there, as the two characteristic towers were just meshed together with the body of the mountain.

Some mountains definitely need work. In Afghanistan, some mountains look great, while others are rounded and look more like hills. Bluffs are worse though, especially when they have trees on the straight-up slope.

Did you modify something ?
They don’t look like this for me
I have almost to ULTRA, 4K…

No, I have not modified anything.

One interesting thing I have noticed is, Everest Region is more accurate than other mountain regions like Annapurna. I am still getting my bearings around Dolomite/Alps.

Also, very pointy mountains need much better resolution like mentioned in many posts above. I am no Bing map, DEM expert , therefore difficult to say why some regions are more accurate than others, probably it is just a work in progress (world series update).

1 Like

Not sure about the unfeasibility of higher resolution DEM. Again, in X Plane I have higher resolution DEM (but not highest). Cannot say exactly the mesh resolution but a 1 deg lat x 1 deg lon area including ortophotos at ZL17 and high res mesh is a 127K file, not that big. I would think that the amount of data streamed is much higher for FS2020 for a similar sized area (but it is an assumption). That X Plane mesh is quite satisfying, I feel in FS2020 it could probably be even higher without impacting too much data streaming. And that mesh is available for free (actually I have two tiles, one I did generate but don’t remember how I did , if it was Google)

I can tell you it is not recognizable and again (sorry for reiterating) in X Plane the tiles I have, which is not extreme mesh, it’s very very good, the Toni Demetz hut at Forcella Sassolungo (Sasslong) and the canyon/trench, as well as the entire area but not only that, fully depicted (I was there in late July…)

Well, let’s hope they do it, we raised it, as it makes really a lot of difference, shape of landscape is paramount to get a really immersive experience. It’s one of the essential dimension of realism in the environment

Keep in mind that many of us are not travelers, esp. world-wide, so regarding details of where we have not been, physically, we would not know the difference. That said, in my city here in Ohio, USA, there are waaay too many trees. Can’t even find my house even, so I feel you guys. It only hits us where we live or have roamed.

I believe that too!!! And hopefully World Series update addresses these issues from region to region without breaking the sim.