I have read a lot of praise for the photoscenery portland. I wonder why because my experience with photoscenery is not the best.Got three Megascenery and two megacity titles (PNW NC SC) and problems with blurries makes them quite useless. You have to look backwards to see the textures fill in (urban in NC SC but all in PNW)In addition to that they only looks good at certain altitudes and the area of coverage is small so you soon leave them.Can really a photoscenery be a good idea. Is $35 for FlightZone 02: Portland really a good investment?

There's a reason why it's so praised. :)It's not like MegaScenery or MegaCity or whatever... take my word for it.It's the best scenery released to date. Best is subjective, sure, but not only does it look amazing but it has amazing performance.If you purchase it from Flight1, there's a 30-day money back guarantee. So why not get it and see if it's right for you?Have you seen [a href=http://www.flightscenery.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=869]my video[/a]? ( I'm sure some people are tired of me linking it, but I love the scenery so much that's why I made the movie... helps to spread the word!! )When you watch it, skip to just over 2 minutes into the movie if you don't care to see the start-up procedures in that plane.

what do you get with mega scenery? just scenery AFAIK...with FZ2 you also get some badass looking airports (actually the best looking airports that I know of actually)check out the screenshots (especially of the airports)http://216.25.73.93/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=14

I'll tell you why it is so praised - it's because it sets a standard to others that shows you how good FS scenery *can* be. It demonstrates what is possible within the confines of the simulator, as well as artistic flair that sets it apart. Try it out and you won't be sorry! :-)

>with FZ2 you also get some badass looking airports (actually>the best looking airports that I know of actually)>But what about performence? I ask since I have Scandinavian Airports II and discovered that they lowered my fps with about eight and introduced stutters. Can I have the best looking airports without low fps and stutters?My systemAMD 64 3200+1 gb 400 MHz dual channel RAMNvidia 6600GT 256M DDR3

>Have you seen [a>href=http://www.flightscenery.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=869]my>video[/a]? ( I'm sure some people are tired of me linking it,>but I love the scenery so much that's why I made the movie...>helps to spread the word!! )>>When you watch it, skip to just over 2 minutes into the movie>if you don't care to see the start-up procedures in that>plane.I watched it and the airport with its surrounding looks great but that is a very limited area. I wan't to fly more than a pattern.

It's not just 1 airport my friend. :)It's the entire Portland area.Here is the coverage area of the actual PhotoScenery. http://www.flightscenery.com/flightzone02/images/map.jpgEven outside of this area is a custom-made, very accurate mesh that extends outwards 50nm in each direction. Couple that with Holger Sandmann's freeware Columbia River/Gorge package and you have one #### of a large area to fly around in.Like I said, you have a guaranteed 30 days to return it if you aren't happy. Take a chance.. I promise you won't regret it.

It's highly praised because it's the best scenery ever made for microsoft flight simulator.It's not a "photo scenery" in the sense they take aerial terrain photos and lay them down as texture tiles in FS. The "photo real" for this scenery is more for the objects such as terminals, runway taxiways, etc. The ground textures aren't photos and they blend into the larger area very nicely. It's a different animal compared to the sceneries mentions in your original post.Look at the numerous screenshots.

>It's highly praised because it's the best scenery ever made>for microsoft flight simulator.>>It's not a "photo scenery" in the sense they take aerial>terrain photos and lay them down as texture tiles in FS. The>"photo real" for this scenery is more for the objects such as>terminals, runway taxiways, etc. The ground textures aren't>photos and they blend into the larger area very nicely. >>It's a different animal compared to the sceneries mentions in>your original post.>>Look at the numerous screenshots.Well, some parts of it are photos :) Take Portland for example.Look at the grass textures / runway / taxiway textures. ;)

I have FZ01, which is quite nice.I also have FZ02 Portland which is insane. The detail is just wonderful. Landing at the FZ02 airports are the best(!) landing experiences I've had in any flightsim. The scenery area is small, but it is of such astounding quality that you're happy to just plop around between the three of four included airports. One thing, this scenery is for low and slow flights. Much more fun to buzz around in a Piper Cub than fly at 20K' in a 737. I like to hammer around the airports in my Shockwave P-51. Touch and goes, acrobatics, repeated landings and takeoffs. Really great fun.I have the MegaScenery PNW edition, which covers a huge area but I have infinitely more fun with the FZ02 scenery.A few screens of mine.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/hor...130portland.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/FZ02G.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/fz02A.jpg

>>with FZ2 you also get some badass looking airports>(actually>>the best looking airports that I know of actually)>>>>But what about performence? I ask since I have Scandinavian>Airports II and discovered that they lowered my fps with about>eight and introduced stutters. Can I have the best looking>airports without low fps and stutters?>My system>AMD 64 3200+>1 gb 400 MHz dual channel RAM>Nvidia 6600GT 256M DDR3the perf is GREAT! i loose more perf with flytampa KMIA etc (which doesnt look as nice imo) then the FZ series

I too was a little skeptical of the glowing reviews this scenery gets. I finally went out and took the plunge and let me say...well first let me say that I am very finicky when it comes to scenery. If it causes slowdowns or stutters, then it simply isn't for me. Anyway, this scenery is great. The hit on fps is very reasonable and the detail is amazing. It is also great for GA and heavy iron flyers as well, as it has a few smaller GA airports along with KPDX. Of course there are lots of other sceneries available in the Pacific NW area as well, so there are lots of places to fly to and from.

>I too was a little skeptical of the glowing reviews this>scenery gets. I finally went out and took the plunge and let>me say...>I didn't find any reviews. Where are they?>Anyway, this scenery is great. The hit on fps is very>reasonable and the detail is amazing. It is also great for GA>and heavy iron flyers as well, as it has a few smaller GA>airports along with KPDX. >What is reasonable -2 fps? So I can fly afast plane into this area without blurries like whay we have in megascenery?

>>I too was a little skeptical of the glowing reviews this>>scenery gets. I finally went out and took the plunge and>let>>me say...>>>I didn't find any reviews. Where are they?>>>Anyway, this scenery is great. The hit on fps is very>>reasonable and the detail is amazing. It is also great for>GA>>and heavy iron flyers as well, as it has a few smaller GA>>airports along with KPDX. >>>>What is reasonable -2 fps? So I can fly afast plane into this>area without blurries like whay we have in megascenery?A lot of that depends on your machine. If your machine is a 2 gigahertz machine then no you'll see more than a 2 FPS drop. If your machine is mid-range or higher than you will hardly see any FPS hit.What do you consider a fast plane? If you mean fly 300+ knots 200 feet from the ground and don't have a mid-range machine or higher, then you might get a bit of blurries... The reviews haven't come out yet but are due out very soon. The scenery hasn't been out THAT long yet.It's about time for you to just try it and stop asking questions. :)

Jeff,Does that overwrite 'Vancouver+' scenery.