I am using FSX to practice flying until I can start my lessons for real. I realize the inherent limitations of FSX for training (staring at guages too much and no "seat of the pants" feelings) and that it is MUCH more helpful for IFR versus VFR. So what will be better for learning VFR...GEX/UTX (or other better mesh/landclass/texture packages) or photoreal? I like being able to recognize objects in photoreal but it is expensive (only Sim Savvy covers western pa) or may not be legal (FS Tiles). I think UTX/GEX etc will actually look better with autogen and more coherent but less realistic in terms of spotting landmarks. I have UTX and like the UTX looks and was about to add GEX (and REX to either package). What would be better in your opinion?

UTX will really help with things like:Familiar roadsRiversLakesA landclass upgrade might help recognizing city centers vs smaller communities.Also the default FSX does a good job of showing obstruction antennas which can be helpful at night or day.

UTX will really help with things like:Familiar roadsRiversLakesA landclass upgrade might help recognizing city centers vs smaller communities.Also the default FSX does a good job of showing obstruction antennas which can be helpful at night or day.

I forgot...I did get Xclass USA for the more rural landclass that UTX lacks. Seems to work ok. UTX has made a big difference with more roads and rivers. That certainly makes VFR flights easier. Funny you mention the antennas...since I have been using FSX more I notice just how many cell towers and other towers dot the hills around me and on the way to work.

If you know where you are going to be learning to fly, then I would say definitely go for photorealistic scenery of that area. You would be amazed how easy it is to completely lose sight of an airfield (even a big one) when flying a circuit in an unfamiliar area at a field you are not used to seeing from the air. There is absolutely no question that drilling a good picture of the surrounding terrain into you for when you go for it in real life would be of immense use, since it will be one less thing you have to think hard about when learning to fly.If there would have been photorealistic terrain of the airfield I learned to fly at, and a suitable flight simulator for it when I did that, I would have jumped at the chance to use it as a learning aid. You might also want to consider using Google Earth as a similar study aid too, as I suspect that would be useful as well, and of course that won't cost you a cent.Al

Hi FolksAssuming from your username FSUKLEEthat you're UK based,and therefore more than likely will be training in the UK, then for -- England, Horizon's GenX photoscenery is the way to go.- Scotland -- - unless training in the Outer Hebrides or Northern Isles, then again GenX,- - otherwise, UTX would be likely be best choice, (possibly plus ScotFlight).HTHATBPaul

Hi FolksAssuming from your username FSUKLEEthat you're UK based,and therefore more than likely will be training in the UK, then for -- England, Horizon's GenX photoscenery is the way to go.- Scotland -- - unless training in the Outer Hebrides or Northern Isles, then again GenX,- - otherwise, UTX would be likely be best choice, (possibly plus ScotFlight).HTHATBPaul

Not UK. Western Pennsylvania. I wish I lived in UK...they seem to have way more VFR scenery. I am not familiar with ScotFlight....off to google I go!!

You can stay right here on Avsim for a taste of ScotFlight if you like, I did a review of their RAF Bases scenery for Avsim some time ago. And that's a rather good product actually, particularly if you like modern military airfields. Moreover, it gets truly excellent FPS, so is ideal for fast jet operations, where you certainly want rapid frame rates with the autogen on when at low level. Since it includes bases where air forces other than the RAF frequently visit, it is suitable for a wide variety of modern military aircraft too.Al

I am currently training for PPL. I have been flying MSFS since the mid 1980's, and have thousands of hours on MSFS in various aircraft. The funny thing is, every new version that came out, I always said...."Wow..This is the most realistic sim ever!!!".. Now that I have flown for real, now all I can say is..."It looks realistic....but why doesn't it feel like it?". In my short 9.1 hours of real world flight so far, I have learned that for GA flight in small single engine aircraft (such as the Cessna 172 which I am training in), the simulator does a pretty good job of simulating the procedures, be it just can't simulate the feel of flying a real plane. I am using my sim mainly for practicing maneuvers, and pattern work for to get the process and procedures down, but it just doesn't have the realistic feel. It's possible that a sim cockpit on a motion platform would fix that, but if I put money into something like that, I wouldn't be able to fly for real! ;)Now, if you are instrument rated, and want to practice approaches, etc.. FS9/FSX is excellent for that with one of the nicer addon aircraft with more realistic GPS. After I get my PPL, and start getting ready to for the instrument rating, I am going to buy the Reality XP Garmin GNS 430W addon as all of the aircraft in the flying club I am in are equipped with the Garmin GNS 430W.-m@

I'm also working on my PPL here with about 37 hours completed. Just gotta do my long cross country. But I have to say that photo real is bar none a greater tool than UTX alone. my reasons:1. I live in central Florida and there are lakes everywhere. The way FSX represents these bodies of water by default makes them very contrasted against the land. it makes their shapes almost too well defined and easily spot-able. In real life I find that due to certain conditions(visibility is hardly ever "unlimited") that these objects at a distance are a lot less discernible and defined (shorelines can change). 2. Roads are also too easily spot-able in FSX + UTX than in real life. Again, because the roads are way too contrasted over the land. In real life flying at about 3000ft. I find that the shapes twists and turns of major highways look VERY similar. The only thing you really can rely on is their general direction (NSEW)3. You might notice a magenta pink building along your route within photoscenery that you can use as a checkpoint. Autogen can't do that.4. You might notice flat land across your route in photoscenery that you can use to land on if anything ever so happened.5. No autogen = high FPS. Landing (the most important phase I feel :( ) will be alot more fluid just as it is in real life. You wouldn't believe how shocked I was when approaching the ground for the first time. Flying a 172 in FSX makes it seem like its the slowest thing in the world compared to the big jets, but you're pretty much going highway speeds toward that big chunk of concrete. All in all you're doing yourself a favor by going with photoscenery. It trains you to be a lot more alert to your visual references outside the cockpit. and with photoscenery you've got tons more visual references to deal. Hopefully the scenery is up to date, but if not it still has an edge over UTX. FSX with UTX is do-able, but I feel as though it makes it a bit too easy. Good luck with everything!

I'm also working on my PPL here with about 37 hours completed. Just gotta do my long cross country. But I have to say that photo real is bar none a greater tool than UTX alone. my reasons:1. I live in central Florida and there are lakes everywhere. The way FSX represents these bodies of water by default makes them very contrasted against the land. it makes their shapes almost too well defined and easily spot-able. In real life I find that due to certain conditions(visibility is hardly ever "unlimited") that these objects at a distance are a lot less discernible. 2. Roads are also too easily spot-able in FSX + UTX than in real life. Again, because the roads are way too contrasted over the land. In real life flying at about 3000ft. I find that the shapes twists and turns of major highways look VERY similar. The only thing you really can rely on is their general direction (NSEW)3. You might notice a magenta pink building along your route within photoscenery that you can use as a checkpoint. Autogen can't do that.4. You might notice flat land across your route in photoscenery that you can use to land on if anything ever so happened.All in all you're doing yourself a favor by going with photoscenery. It trains you to be a lot more alert to your visual references outside the cockpit. and with photoscenery you've got tons more visual references to deal. Hopefully the scenery is up to date, but if not it still has an edge over UTX. FSX with UTX is do-able, but I feel as though it makes it a bit too easy. Good luck with everything!

I agree.It for me comes down to how you want to use the sim. Do you want the "flavor" and fun of flying-or do you want the reality.As some have mentioned-the photo scenery doesn't look good down low, and most has no autogen. On the other hand-it depicts reality, and nothing is more real than reality.The generics give a great feel of reality-but they just are not. The autogen while fun in many respects imho is as bad looking tradeoff (cartoony) for the most part as the flatness of the photoreal down low-and it certainly doesn't depict reality. The photoreal is depicting reality-and if you are looking to practice reality-I'd go for that..Orbx PNW scenery takes a compromise between both, and I have to say I like it the best for now.If I had my druthers I'd prefer photoscenery with google earth cities and autogen, trees placed that match reality.Until then my preference in fs in order is :PNW type sceneryphotoscenerygenerics souped up with gex/utxAlso depends a lot where you fly. In my home state of Michigan the generics actually do a better job of creating reality than the present photoscenery-but then the scenery in this part of the world is pretty generic. Get to the Western Us though and the photoscenery blows the generics away. I also like water from photoscenery much better than what generic fs water generates.I have all three types in my scenery and switch back and forth depending on my mood on the flight-reality vs. feeling..