CONDOR

Hi all, especially scenery creators,
long time I am thinking about it and I just experimented a little with Google Earth, where u can set sharpening of terrain (altitude). In Google u can find it in Tools -> Options -> Terrain Quality -> Elavation Exaggeration.
I am using 1.5, default is 1. With this value seems hills in Czech or Slovak e.g. very similar to RL view. With default seetings it seems like in Condor and it means that terrain curly is lower like in RL. Look at picture.

So my question is if would not be better using any multiple of altitude value in Condor sceneries??

of course it would be better, but unfortunatelly I do not know any way how to do it at the condor.

_________________

You are using any public data for terrain alt, so maybe just modified altitude data about any multiple as it makes Google Earth. Any smart program can solve it or not?

As I said, I do not know any program, which is able change altitude at the trn file (alhough is not hard write program, which can do it with knowledge of trn structure - I do not know it). But if we will able do it, so altitude will be increasing 1.5 or so - then hill will not have 2000 but 3000m and it could be a also unrealistic. Hard do say - I do not know how to bring "sharpness" to condor. Maybe anybody will be able find good solution and describe technology for us others.

_________________

So than it seems like any Condor engine limitation and using too sparse matrix..or why hill with 1500m seems like 1000 m hill?

matrix is too sparse, about 60m? (maybe 90, I am not sure now) between height points. It is not good enough for sharpen terrain.

_________________

I believe Condor uses elevation points every 90m... So, not only is there some "rounding" / averaging of hills, (interpolation between the points) but I think even the conversion to .trn files induces even more 'rounding' from the original SRTM data, and the hills tend to be lower than in real life... especially for steep hills. Unless one of those 90m elevation points is coincidentally at the peak of a ridge line, the resolution of the mesh will always give lower elevations than the real hills.

Also another issue (though minor) is focal length of the image taken. It seems like the screenshot taken with google earth at 1.5 magnification is closer in focal length to what the camera used in taking the real picture... where as the condor screenshot seems to have been taken with a much shorter focal length, (larger field of view) thus making everything seem smaller--even if apparently spanning the same distance from one edge of the picture to the other. Regardless, it's obvious that Condor's hills are not as big or as well defined.

_________________
CN: TXS
TX-ScubaSteve

..all pics are made from same point of view, there is field crossroad and is possible find it also in Condor scenery Slovakia 4. Condor view is not zoomed, just standard Condor view, so maybe it causes irelevant terrain view. Anyway in RL these hills have around 240 m from this point of view. Its pity how Condor works with these low hills, because normaly with NW wind around 10 m/s it is regular ridge hill for 8 planes, if I remember it ecaxtlly and I made there my retrainned to ridge flying. (Yes, it was in our training rules in 90 years )