I do certainly agree that it would be nice to have more articles related to the development of some sort of feature we use in Infinite Flight. Jason also explained about the topography error viewed on the certain areas. “Flying North of 60”. There is a reason behind to why parts of Norway (for example) does not have more mountainous areas.
And now this article explains even further, on how it all works, and to know that it is ran through programmed servers which add to the cost of a Pro subscription.
To add to that, it would be nice to see on how exactly a livery is created in certain aircrafts. Or else how does the developers create the physics of certain aircrafts.
The story may continue and it’s very nice to have some understanding in using the Flight simulator and be aware on certain issues that exist.
Sounds like a great and efficient system. Those bandwidth costs from the CDN provider must be a lot. Another idea for a blog post would be some information digging down into how other parts of the Infinite Flight data transfer protocol works (like aircraft positions, and airport data) Aircraft positions would be interesting because of latency issues and how that comes into play (and if CDNs are still used)
Partitioning it in this way helps to reduce the amount of data we need to fetch in order to display the scenery around the aircraft. As you fly, we only fetch the visible tiles based on their distance to the camera. For closeup terrain we will fetch the highest level tiles. For distant terrain we fetch the lower level ones since we don’t need as much detail there until we get closer to them.
I have to admit that I also can only push buttons and this is quite interesting to know. What all happens in the background is fascinating.
The question I have is: Adding clouds and therefore reduced visibility while flying through them or above them for example above an overcast cloud layer, without being able to see the ground, will it help to improve performance or does the rendering of the clouds alone will reduce the performance so at the end… is it equal or depending on the layers of clouds displayed?
For my understanding the performance of the simulator for several scenarios would be like this:
Flying over an overcast cloud layer: Good performance
Flying over an few, scattered or broken layer: Bad performance, as clouds/ scenery have/ has to be rendered at the same time
Approaching a cloud: Bad performance, the closer we come the more detailed the cloud. Then, entering the cloud and finally flying through it ( having just a grey white wall in front and around you ): Good performance
Or more simple: Does adding clouds or having low visibility equals each other - performance ( frame rate ?) wise… ?