As the owner of possibly all the existing FSX photosceneries I must say that I may be alone in finding the quality of Megasceneryearth Florida Keys, well....terrible ! The quality reminds me of what photoscenery looked like in FS9. I recall the comments in the forums about how flat etc photosceney was and then came FSX and my first view of Horizon GenX england/wales. I was amazed at the sense of depth and almost 3D effect they achieved where hedgerows and buildings "appeared" to have height. This "effect" was similarly produced in GEXnHanced and again in FTX. This new offering by Megasceneryearth does not IMHO reproduce the standard or benchmark that I would expect, especially for the price.MegasceneryX SoCal is of a better quality without the wishy washy colours and FLAT appearance.I admire the "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary" (Tile Proxy was Revolutionary!) concept of having the Earth available on tap to download but will have to wait and see how long things take to get done. The current limited offerings are of areas already covered in great detail by others and we are still scratching only the tip of the USA. I wish them well and look forward to being a regular customer but only if the end product improves in quality.Am I alone with this opinion?Regards and merry christmas to you all.

I just got a Michigan one and I agree-not the same quality of the Western States that I have tried today-and a step back. Obviously this picture is not in the same league as the ones I submitted above. From having worked with Tileproxy I am pretty sure what is happening is the data for some areas of the US is not the same quality yet from the server they use. For instance where I live in the Detroit area-Google is excellent until about 40 miles north of the city-then it isn't very good at all. The area of Michigan I just tried looks more like the low quality Microsoft server areas I tried with Tileproxy.What would be nice is to know which sectors are made from the good quality data, and also have an automatic upgrade when better data becomes available. Of course one can use google earth and snoop around first and possibly get a good idea.As far as one season-I'd rather have greater reality in one season than a less greater reality in four seasons. For the reasons I mentioned above I don't think database generic textures will ever be able to match up with the infinite of real life. This is why the western US fares better as the variety of colors are more noticed than in an area like say Michigan. As for seasons I always run fs in summer only as the other seasons look not as real to me-and I hate flying in the winter-but that is me.

Are you sure about that? If so I won't be purchasing any areas but I ask because on the MegaSceneryEarth site it says this:What About Seasons??It's an almost impossible task to create scenery for all four seasons. The data isn't available and it would quadruple your install size. Most images in Megascenery are taken in the spring and the same scenery will display regardless of whatever season you have set.Todd

My bad and you are correct. To go back to seasons you go to scenery manager and uncheck it.

As the owner of possibly all the existing FSX photosceneries I must say that I may be alone in finding the quality of Megasceneryearth Florida Keys, well....terrible ! The quality reminds me of what photoscenery looked like in FS9. I recall the comments in the forums about how flat etc photosceney was and then came FSX and my first view of Horizon GenX england/wales. I was amazed at the sense of depth and almost 3D effect they achieved where hedgerows and buildings "appeared" to have height. This "effect" was similarly produced in GEXnHanced and again in FTX. This new offering by Megasceneryearth does not IMHO reproduce the standard or benchmark that I would expect, especially for the price.MegasceneryX SoCal is of a better quality without the wishy washy colours and FLAT appearance.I admire the "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary" (Tile Proxy was Revolutionary!) concept of having the Earth available on tap to download but will have to wait and see how long things take to get done. The current limited offerings are of areas already covered in great detail by others and we are still scratching only the tip of the USA. I wish them well and look forward to being a regular customer but only if the end product improves in quality.Am I alone with this opinion?Regards and merry christmas to you all.

That's exactly what I'm seeing in Central Florida!! Obviously in other areas like Geoff has posted, the quality is much better. Like all Photoreal scenery your limited to the quality of the source data, which in Florida doesn't look to good, conversely Utah looks great!!!

The word is getting out fast on what areas have good data to work with. Before you buy, I would think it would be wise to 1) Ask the distributor to put up screen shots of each region that is available 2) They need to post which areas are 1.2 meters resolution, with are 2.4 meters resolution. You can already see the huge difference it makes with clarity, plus the poor colors in some areas with the data 3) Have they realigned ALL of the airports to match the photoscenery, including taxiways, ramps, etc? The price point is pretty high, but I imagine if its your home area and you really want to fly using photoscenery in that area, it's worth it.

I thought this was going to be available at a resolution of up to 30cm per pixel for certain areas.

Bzzzzzt, sorry, suffers the same problems that just about every large scale photoreal product does: low res, no seasons, huge file sizes, poor autogen, dodgy colour correction, etc.I'll wait for FTX for North America, thanks.

Bzzzzzt, sorry, suffers the same problems that just about every large scale photoreal product does: low res, no seasons, huge file sizes, poor autogen, dodgy colour correction, etc.I'll wait for FTX for North America, thanks.

The low resolution and dodgy color is only in some areas-as the Utah shots and Mt. Ranier shots show above it is extremely high resolution-all the way to the ground. I am thinking it was a poor decision on their part to put out areas that don't have the resolution-as that will sour a lot of people.As far as seasons-I'd rather have 1 that matches reality than 4 that don't-but that is my preference.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=238101

As far as seasons-I'd rather have 1 that matches reality than 4 that don't-but that is my preference.

Me too Geof. My only other wish (and this would glean LOTS of money from me) would be if these could be used in FS9 some way...

Me too Geof. My only other wish (and this would glean LOTS of money from me) would be if these could be used in FS9 some way...

I don't think fs9 supports the resolution. I suppose they could come up with a lower res fs9 version-but then it would look like the bad shots above..

The low resolution and dodgy color is only in some areas-as the Utah shots and Mt. Ranier shots show above it is extremely high resolution-all the way to the ground. I am thinking it was a poor decision on their part to put out areas that don't have the resolution-as that will sour a lot of people.As far as seasons-I'd rather have 1 that matches reality than 4 that don't-but that is my preference.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=238101

Geofa, Some observations. I only purchased 3 tiles of Wash state. Have only done a little flying to test it out. I do not like the fact that at the one airport...KESW was right next to an FSX default area. Kind of messes things up for me but I do understand that is all I bought. I read in one of your post how stunned you were about the deforestation in Utah. I got that same impression flying out of KESW. I was quite shocked really. I don't know much about photo-real scenery but to cover an entire state would be a huge amount of data. A little side note that I thought about something you put in a post I read...had to do with icing. I just bought a new plane...Aerosoft Bush Hawk XP. While I was cruising around 7000 ft over the new Mega Scenery I noticed ice crystals start to build up on my wind screen! The controls were also becoming sluggish. Not a real pilot so don't know what that is like but it was pretty neat. Had to scramble around in the cockpit looking for heat and defrost....once on the ice soon melted away. Did not notice an actual build up of ice on the wings but maybe was not airborne long enough or maybe it is not built into the plane. One of the tiles I bought seems to have good resolution while the other one I tested does not....Seattle of all places.

I think again they should be only putting out the good hi res areas (which there are plenty) and leaving the low res ones blank until they eventually get filled in by the servers. For my next purchases I think I will go to google earth and Microsoft check out if thegood coverage is there first.I was planning to buy my whole state of Michigan-but after trying the Traverse City area I will only be doing Detroit area which I know is good.As for icing-it is unpredictable and a lot more fun in the sim than real life! The Flight One Mustang does rime a great way-the windscreen starts filling quite rapidly-then you start seeing some on the wing, and eventually the side windows get covered-and the leading edge of the wing gets a good coating-very realistic!I had my first encounter with clear ice a few months ago. In that case I was just above the cloud layer-but after passing lake erie the clouds started rising. I asked atc for higher-they said in 15 nm. In that 15 nm just skimming in and out of the tops (the worst place to get ice) at 200 knts. ground speed,we got a layer of clear ice-on everything. It came so fast I was amazed. A baron handles ice pretty well so I didn't really notice much performance wise-but it took a good 20 minutes to sublimate once we were above.

The low resolution and dodgy color is only in some areas-as the Utah shots and Mt. Ranier shots show above it is extremely high resolution-all the way to the ground. I am thinking it was a poor decision on their part to put out areas that don't have the resolution-as that will sour a lot of people.As far as seasons-I'd rather have 1 that matches reality than 4 that don't-but that is my preference.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=238101

I agree Geof.I bought CO and WA but don't plan to purchase anymore until I know the area has good source. FL is out for me... Although I want this area badly. Even in Goggle, the area looks awful.Manny

From the same area, late Novemeber. Kennecott copper mine in background. This pic is a bit farther south.L.Adamson

From the same area, late Novemeber. Kennecott copper mine in background. This pic is a bit farther south.L.Adamson

Looks like you will have to responsible for doing some rw, mega, and default fs compares Larry!

If MegaScenery is a Spring only product, I'm curious what you observe if flying from Buffalo, NY to Boston, MA using real weather (ASX) and you purchased all of Massachusetts from MegaScenery? Would you get a winter wonderland on December 24th through NY with a Spring landscape as you view Massachusetts coming from NY? Do you get snow conditions in Mass falling on a Spring-time landscape??