I've got FSX tweaked pretty well with UTX/GEX/and REX 2.0. The aussie scenery FTX orbx guys are putting out is simply amazing. I was wondering if there are plans afoot to expand FTX into US or Europe? Barring that, what is the "best" photoreal scenery out there that covers portions of the US?Also, is there any reason to get a mesh program and can I install it over UTX/GEX?Thanks!Rich Perryi7 965 Extreme Quad Core (oc'd 3.8Ghz)Nvidia GTX 285 (2 GB GPU)6GB OCZ DDR3SB X-Fi extremeRaptor 10000rpm HDVista Ultimate 64

From my understanding FTX are working on the Pacific Northwest area right now, so that is something to look forward to. As for other photoreal areas, there are lots to choose from, but many are lacking in resolution/seasons/autogen. FS9 max is 4.7 meter/ pixel, FSX can display much more detail, but it usually means much larger file sizes and so far these types of resolutions are used for the area right around the airports and not larger areas.I am eagerly awaiting the next FTX airport, Tamworth which will have 7 cm/pixel, just amazing! Check out the videohttp://www.flightsimstore.com/product_info...hgefv3rh7uam2j4One worth checking out is the megascenery HawaiiYou shouldn't have any problems with mesh and GEX, but you might with UTX as it defines the landscape and it's definition might be different than what the mesh follows giving you those ugly shear cliffs next to water.

The aussie scenery FTX orbx guys are putting out is simply amazing.

Agreed. Nobody can match what they are doing, there is simply no one else. There is no one with the same attention to detail, feel for textures, colors, etc. And they have limited human resources so don't expect them gobbling continents one after another.

FTX products are certainly outstanding. This will be in my Orbx collection as soon as it is released for sure.

Hi Guys, gonna chip in here. I agree, FTX stuff is good, but in my opinion, with it set up properly there is NOTHING to beat photoscenery for reality. You will need plenty of disc space as well and a well sorted set of hard drives.However, once that is a given, you can expect to see stuff like this:and this:FSDreamscapes are doing amazing stuff as well. For only $40 you can get the whole state of Utah including hi def ( 4.75m) mesh in beta form. Its 100GB !! But Look:You dont need the frame grabbing autogen and you get total reality. What more do you want? !!!Here is a link to my photobucket page, all the shots there are with photoscenery, go and browse and you will be converted!!http://s499.photobucket.com/albums/rr353/CoBMrTube/?start=0cheers, Mark

Hi Guys, gonna chip in here. I agree, FTX stuff is good, but in my opinion, with it set up properly there is NOTHING to beat photoscenery for reality. You will need plenty of disc space as well and a well sorted set of hard drives.

I fully agree. FTX is nice but it's still generic (apart from the extra addon airfields, of course). I can't help getting very annoyed by the repetitive textures and roads and waters cutting buildings and complete area's in half and so on... It's just so NO real. (Talking about generic textures here, not specifically FTX, which is the best generic addon there is.)No generic addon, not even FTX, can beat this imho (click pics for full screen pics):NO WAY a generic addon can look as good as this! There is simply NO repetition at all and everything looks good. No roads cutting through houses, no rivers splitting buildings in two, etc. You see details a generic addon would never show (of course). It just looks real and you'll never get bored of looking at it.This is VFR GenX btw, so England and Wales, not the US... Okay, it looks best at > 3500 ft or so, but most of my time is spend in a plane up high in the air, so I don't care if it doesn't look perfect at 500 ft. ;) You can get the whole of England and Wales for the price of something like three FTX airports, so compared to that it's an absolute bargain too. ;)

there is NOTHING to beat photoscenery for reality........NO WAY a generic addon can look as good as this! There is simply NO repetition at all and everything looks good.

Sorry guys I am not impressed! I am not impressed by colors (Switzerland X is OK), blurriness at lower altitudes, poorly done airports (if at all), poor night lighting (if at all). Actually its is quite telling what your screenshots don't show. They may be acceptable for daytime flights at higher altitudes - but on approach to airports the fun comes to a screeching halt and visuals during approaches are VERY important to me. I do know about Switzerland X - no, I am not impressed by its poorly done night lighting and crude autogen incompatible with photo textures. Maybe, maybe if I never heard of FTX I would be mildly impressed by your images. And my GOD, Switzerland is a tiny country, unless you happen to fly circuits in a Cessna 172 you will be out of it in minutes, and how much does it cost and how many bytes it takes?. If however you like to fly high circuits over Swiss Alps and stare at walls of granite - this could be your ideal scenery. All these photo-sceneries simply fall short in multiple categories IMHO. And extremely bloated amount of disk space further makes them unattractive to me. But I am glad someone likes them - all developers deserve their share of a market.

Ok, Michal, what you are saying is simply not true. You want some more? BTW J van E, nice shots!!! I have GENX and love it too...!!How about this for low level airport approach:Or this for nightime:Or this one for low level:I have both types of sceneries, including all the UTX, GEX and Scenery tech landclass addons for the areas not covered by photoscenery and when you fly out of an area covered by photoscenery and into the normal stuff, BOY, do you notice it!! And there is NO difference in texture resolution at low level, tell me what resolution standard FSX textures display at ? I think you will find that hi res photoscenery using 1m per pixel is exactly the same, if not better.The one thing photoscenery cant do is seasons, and granted, not all of it is brilliant. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, thats just my opinion and everyone has their own ideal. For me, I want to look out the cockpit and see reality, not some blocky repetitive attemp at it. The final point to emphasise again, is that you really need a good system properly tweaked to get the best from it, so again, it might not suit all. Oh, and in answer to the OP question, yes, you will definitely need better mesh to get the most out of ANY scenery. FSGlobal is good, also FSgenesis and not forgetting NextMap from FSDreamscapes. Rgds,Mark

IMO nothing looks better than FTX. The scenery included in their payware airports is nothing short of amazing. You can be at tree top level and the scenery still looks amazing.

Mark, your images are outstanding and from that altitude, I agree, amazing stuff. But I'm with Michael that I also need autogen and seasons on top of this or it ruins it for me. Resolution is also VERY important for me, especially since I fly helicopters mostly and rarely get over 1000-2000 ft. Now that I have a new rig with plenty of HD space and have been converted my the Megascenery Hawaii, I have been doing my research and looking for photoreal addons that meet my criteria and they are few and far between. IMO if a product is just photoreal scenery and nothing else, they are being lazy as the autogen annotator isn't hard to use, just tedious and seasons are possible. When I see proiducts they have the disclamer, "using a meduim resolution for the best performance on all systems, blah, blah" that is just an excuse for not being able to get their hands on quality imagery or they just ported what they had for FS9 to FSX, that dog don't hunt.

Im with Michael as well..I just un installed the entire UK stuff because a) the colours are a joke and :( its only great IMO at certain altitudes, its pointless having lovely mountains and hills appealing to a bush pilot that just become odd looking angled (even if they are clear) photo textures with zero autogen once you get down in those valleys..

Photo-real textures are great for 3000AGL and above, but once you get lower then it's icky. No autogen is a big negative for me.Low level to me means like ground level to 2000 AGLLet's see some of those ;)

I fully appreciate that a lot of this is subjective and down to what people find acceptable and appealing. Personally, I hate the autogen, I think it just looks so unreal, repetitive little badly drawn houses and trees sprouting out at strange angles and in the wrong place. But thats just me. I am at work now, but as soon as I get in, I will post some more shots at lower heights. Really, photoscenery looks as good or better than standard textures at the same height, if you have it set up right. The shadows etc also give a good feeling of depth that only really dissapears really near the ground. If you have autogen buildings on at this height, they look so unreal that they dont really help in the illusion of reality either. I realise I will be only preaching to the converted, but I just feel I have to make people realise how good FSX can look. I look at so many screenshots of fantastically textured planes and wonderful clouds and sky, that could be real they look so good, and they are flying over really crappy looking scenery. Let me see what I can post later, to back up my assertions!! cheers,Mark

Im with Michael as well..I just un installed the entire UK stuff because a) the colours are a joke and :( its only great IMO at certain altitudes, its pointless having lovely mountains and hills appealing to a bush pilot that just become odd looking angled (even if they are clear) photo textures with zero autogen once you get down in those valleys..

I am sorry, but are you really saying that those pictures J van E posted of VFRGENX2 above are a joke ???? That the colours are terrible ??? I thnk you need some new glasses!! :(

I use VFR Generation X Version 2 (England and Wales), and I can state with confidence that the photographic scenery looks amazing, even at an altitude of only 1000 feet. In addition, the superb 5 metre resolution terrain mesh reveals subtle undulations in the landscape, even in relatively flat areas. IMO, this product is far superior to any combination of generic textures. There really is no comparison.

I don't have this (yet!) but based on what I have seen in screenshots and what it features, this is the kind of photoscenery I am looking for, just wish it was more than an island, LOL.Alderney from Earth Simulationshttp://www.earthsimulations.com/information