Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mudhendriver

Photoreal Recommendations?

Recommended Posts

Edit, I just looked at the site again and you have updated it from the single page I saw a few months back, so please ignore my comments regarding that. I am trying a sample now, will report back. Cheers,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I've tried almost every type of scenery and with the exception of Portland for fs9, nothing has comes close to FTX.You get what you pay for AND I will never, ever, install a megascenery on my hard drive.


A pilot is always learning and I LOVE to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ArtieLange
Using 1 meter resolution would quadruple the size and slows the perfomance somewhat.
You'd be better off with a little compression than making it 2.38 M. I'm not trying to put down your product, but why would I chose it over megascenery ?Saying that 1m vs 2.38m slows the performance is something I find hard to believe, unless you are talking about load times. I'm downloading the Seattle area right now and if freeware imagery was used then it will be the exact same as megascenery, but less resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have ftx/gex and I have photoscenery.It really is a matter of what you want-and they both look great.Do you want something that gives the impression of real but doesn't really match it 100%, or do you want real 100% with certain limitations like lack of season change and autogen-but that matches reality house for house and bush for bush. (Actually xplane allows photoreal scenery with autogen-but I personally just don't like autogen-especially when it covers the real stuff in a random fashion).Some of the things photoscenery accel at are roads-they just look like the real thing-not like vectored lines draped over a texture. Also landmarks that are for instance on my local vfr charts (rock pits, auto proving grounds, ski hills) appear in all their brilliance-and I can navigate by looking out the window. If I am taking an ifr flight-am going to be mostly on instruments with real weather-I love the look of gex/ftx-it looks very real if you are not looking closely for total reality and can give the flavor better than photoreal.If I want to lay a vfr chart across my lap and be able to navigate by what I see on the chart and a high resemblence to reality-then I use photoscenery.If I am going to take an ifr chart and only casually look at the scenery I may crank autogen up and use a generic of some kind. The mountain west of the United States just is clearly superior with photoreal when you add the magnitude of color, salt flats, colors of mountains etc that generics can't do. In the midwest where I live-the generics sometimes can look superior to the photoreal-especially if the sampling is poor on the photoreal and the scenery is rather regular.As with all things in flight sim I don't think anything has to win or be proven better. More choices, more options, and different realities-perhaps depending at that moment on how you want to fly. Maybe one day there will be only one reality that has all-until then-glad to have all the choices.By the way-for photoreal-bluesky scenery is some of the best and is free (donations accepted however).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that no one's mentioned here - and that's a big negative for me when it comes to photoscenery - is that it often doesn't blend well with the aircraft and the cockpit environment. You can see this a little in the screenshot of the Lionheart Quest Kodiak, which is a beautifully done aircraft but, against the photoscenery, seems hand-drawn and looks as though it came from a different reality. I've found that when flying a drawn/painted aircraft over photoscenery, there are too many kinds of rendering in view and, for me, it ruins the sense of disbelief. I'd rather things be consistent - which often means that I prefer a conventional scenery that blends better with a conventional aircraft environment.Obviously, as has been said here already, it's all subjective, so take that as my subjective point, nothing more.Alan

Either your joking and trying to score a (very) cheap point or have a very odd idea of what has to be done to a these images before they can be used.. I am talking about the colour pallette that has been chosen on the UK stuff which has a rather poor saturation and colour curve choice (IMO) especially when compared with what other products have recently showed what can be done in thsi field..
To your point, ightenhill - I just quoted the great street photographer Garry Winogrand in another thread. He famously said, "A photograph isn't the object photographed. It's a new fact." Speaking as a photographer, I think it's a bad idea to confuse photography with reality.But the point of FSX scenery for me isn't always reality - it's immersion. A conventional scenery can be more effective than a photoscenery if (as sometimes happens) it gives you a better sense that "you are there."Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CDR_Shark

Scott967,Great MacDill AFB scenery! Payware/Freeware; who makes it?I've got several MegaScenery X, including SoCal, Vegas, Reno, and Hawaii. The SoCal textures/scenery is very accurate. Even though "flat" the photo-real stuff isn't too bad. I usually tour with helo (MH-60, MD-500, or CH-53E after I install new scenery. I get a chance to go low and slow, then hit the collective to get some altitude. 2k isn't bad for photo-type stuff. :( Shark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the FS Dreamscapes Hawaii photo stuff. You really do not even need the synthetic FSX runways. You can land on hi-res mesh sloping runways with adequate resolution. I have done my own Half Moon Bay, CA. photo scenery with 6cm source and it looks great. But no seasons and only structures and trees that you place for effect. It is all a matter of taste/goals.


regards,

Dick near Pittsburgh, USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd be better off with a little compression than making it 2.38 M. I'm not trying to put down your product, but why would I chose it over megascenery ?
Thanks for the feedback. My intensions for the scenery are simply to aid pilots using simulators by providing photoreal scenery of areas not covered by other vendors. I strive to do as well as Megascenery. Blue Sky was my original inspiration. And my real aspiration is to improve the web-site with other tools for Pilot-Simmers. My three computers and I have spent 1500 hours (9mo/40hrs wk) generating this scenery as a start to this ultimate goal. Megascenery is 1 meter and costs about $20 for 5000 sq mi. 5000 sq miles of Massive Scenery cost five cents. That's the big difference. The higher resolution scenery can be loaded on top of Massive Scenery using both consecutively. Concerning performance, Yes loading times & redraw after simulation-rate changes are more intensive on my computer when using 1 meter resolution for large areas. FSX settings & individual computer performance certainly vary. I setteled upon 2.38 meter for size & performance issues both. Thanks again for your feedback but I'm still missing one piece. Has anyone tried the scenery and do you like it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am downloading a sample now. Shame the speed is only 30kbs, so will report later.Concerning the lower photoshots, here are 4 shots taken at lower altitudes, as promised.2009-7-29_22-40-24-591.jpg2009-8-1_16-36-1-999.jpg2009-8-20_22-7-14-852.jpgOn the last 2, even though there is no autogen, the shadows etc of the trees and vegeation and also the houses make it look real and have real depth. 2009-9-4_22-11-42-359.jpgWhat was that you were saying about no nightlighting, and blurry textures at low level?????????Now, this is interesting: here are 3 shots, of the same view ( approximately) First is with standard scenery, second standard scenery plus autogen extremely dense and the third, photoscenery plus autogen.2009-9-5_21-11-48-562.jpgLooks ok at first glance, but look at the complete patchwork of random textures, blocks of different urban units and the way the airport just sits over the edges of the textures. 2009-9-5_21-15-24-941.jpgAutogen - more real ? 2009-9-5_21-21-15-859.jpgBTW, sorry for the bad picture quality, I am having issues getting my new Radeon card to look good. I may be going back to Nvidia, even though they break every few months...Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks again for your feedback but I'm still missing one piece. Has anyone tried the scenery and do you like it?
Actually yes, I did and I do enjoy the Utah and Taos, N.M. demos and while they did look great at altitude, when I landed and thought about adding some buildings and such to the airports, I then realized the resolution could have been much better, at least in the areas where you are closest to the ground. As for performance, there was no issue at all with what I tried, loaded fine, load times were normal, no blurries, no problems. I had wished that in the Utah demo that the water mask had been added to make the rivers have water and not a photo, is this done with the final state products? Overall based on the demos I tried, I think they're ok/good products, but better resolution, water masks, some autogen and even just night textures would make them great products.BTW great shots Markutahapache2.jpgutahapache3.jpg

Best, Michael

KDFW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Woodson, I have had a chance to look at the Montana sample you posted and have the following comments:Generally it performs pretty well. However, you need to do some serious work on the colour pallette, the montana stuff looks very washed out and much too green. Here are some comparison shots between BlueskyScenery and your stuff, at the same place. Personally as well, I think you have made a mistake going for less resolution. I want detail, not the opposite. Its got to look right close up or at VFR distance and as you have the choice, i would concentrate more on the quality, colouring and resolution as opposed to pumping out large areas of not so good stuff. For example , there are at least 3 states you have done that no one else has touched yet - Idaho, Oregon and Nevada. I would offer an option for the higher quality 1m res stuff as well, If you can make it as good as blue sky, i would buy the lot. I would not mind paying more either for a quality product. But Quality should be your priority, any top quality add on will sell well, not so sure about the mediocre stuff. If you are charging for it, it has to be as good or better than equivilant freeware.Anyway, here are the screenshots, which clearly illustrate my point:Yours2009-9-6_10-51-33-822.jpgBlueSky2009-9-6_11-25-51-32.jpgYours2009-9-6_11-32-29-657.jpgBlueSky2009-9-6_11-29-18-799.jpgYours2009-9-6_11-33-24-202.jpgBlueSky2009-9-6_11-35-40-248.jpgBut well done for doing this, its a great idea, you just need to make sue the product is good quality. My wallet is waiting!!!...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Woodson, I have had a chance to look at the Montana sample you posted and have the following comments:Generally it performs pretty well. However, you need to do some serious work on the colour pallette, the montana stuff looks very washed out and much too green.
I agree - Montana is too green and New Mexico is too blue and California is all different colors. I was only able to color correct in a general sense. For some reason the national aerial photos came out colored differently for each state. Washington - Oregon are the best quality but Montana was rather green. Still Blue Sky did it so why can't I? I can and will if conditions allow. My bgl files are gridded out at 24 each per USGS 100K Quad. Each one takes about 30 minutes worth of work to generate a Geotiff and compile to bgl. Montana has 382 of these 30 minute pieces (171hrs = 7 days (24hr)). Persuing it 8hrs a day would take 3 weeks (download time of 60hrs for the state not included). Closing in on my 10th state I just have to call it good enough for now. If financial conditions improve I'l redo them all with store-bought color corrected aerials that cost $2500 per state. But I'm not Microsoft even though I'm doing their work. Until then I thank you all for your feedback. Now I know where I stand with the consumer. Leave a mailing address at my contact web page and I'll send you a "free copy" of one state on a 16G flash drive. A large area makes a difference & you could provide me with consumer reviews. Suggest Colorado - avoid Montana, Nevada. New Mexico & Wyoming are in progress which is what I need to get back to doing now. Happy Flying Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woodsonly - I am sorry to say but based on the images above I would never install this scenery - even if it were free. You have to seriously improve quality or I doubt it will appeal to very many. The coloring alone is simply awful, it reminds me of the old East German camera film company - ORWO which was the standard for east-block countries at the time since Kodak was then practically unavailable to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
woodsonly - I am sorry to say but based on the images above I would never install this scenery - even if it were free.
Based upon your response of declaring something insufficient without trying it my scenaries told me their feelings are mutual & they don't want to be on your computer either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based upon your response of declaring something insufficient without trying it my scenaries told me their feelings are mutual & they don't want to be on your computer either.
Hmmm...that's seems like a pretty harsh stance for a developer to take. Probably won't help your sales much.For what it's worth, I did try the same demo scenery downloads the pictures posted above represent, and I have to agree with the comments made by those who also tried them. The colors (particularly Montana) are way off. If it is your choice to produce a product like that, then that is your choice. But to criticize a possible customer for bringing this to your attention, especially after you ASKED for feedback from your potential future customers, is kinda strange. In any case, I removed the demos from my hard drive because I don't intend on using or purchasing the scenery in it's present form.Now, that said, I have spent (and will continue to spend) lots and lots of money on scenery addons for FSX. Many of which cover the same geographical areas, but in different forms (UTX vs photoscenery for the same areas, etc). I will continue to purchase quality addons for the same areas in the future, if I think they are worth the cost or provide a suitable enhancement for the area. Right now, I don't see that happening with your sceneries. You are in competition with many other developers who's photosceneries are not as "off color" as yours are right now. You are competing for my consumer dollars. Right now, based on your demo downloads I did try, I can't justify spending my money to purchase them.There's the feedback you wanted. Take it or leave it. Respectfully submitted,FalconAF

Rick Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...