Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jfri

Megascenery Earth question

Recommended Posts

Since I have recieved an offer to buy Megascenery earth with 50% off I would like to ask a little about it. First how does it compare to Megascenery USA for FS9 (I have some of those titles)? Considering my system (listed belove) which area would be best to try out? I'm somewhat worried about blurries.My systemAMD X2 6000 3.1 Ghz4 Gb PC6400 RAMGTS250 1Gb7200 rpm HDWin 7 x64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest firehawk44
Since I have recieved an offer to buy Megascenery earth with 50% off I would like to ask a little about it. First how does it compare to Megascenery USA for FS9 (I have some of those titles)? Considering my system (listed belove) which area would be best to try out? I'm somewhat worried about blurries.My systemAMD X2 6000 3.1 Ghz4 Gb PC6400 RAMGTS250 1Gb7200 rpm HDWin 7 x64
I don't think you'll have many blurries with those specs as long as you are conservative with your scenery sliders (MegaScenery Earth has some recommended settings). The scenery detail is much more detailed than in the MegaScenery series but not that much. I have the MegaEarth sceneries for the Grand Canyon and I think it is awesome. To compare the sceneries you can check out for yourself the detail between MegaScenery and MegaEarth sceneries on the PC Aviator site. No systems are equal so I can't guarantee no blurries but with 50% off and the fact each sector only costs about $8 it's worth checking it out. I would get just one area like the Grand Canyon first and check it out. If you like, then you can start exploring and building.Best regards,Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you'll have many blurries with those specs as long as you are conservative with your scenery sliders (MegaScenery Earth has some recommended settings). The scenery detail is much more detailed than in the MegaScenery series but not that much. I have the MegaEarth sceneries for the Grand Canyon and I think it is awesome. To compare the sceneries you can check out for yourself the detail between MegaScenery and MegaEarth sceneries on the PC Aviator site. No systems are equal so I can't guarantee no blurries but with 50% off and the fact each sector only costs about $8 it's worth checking it out. I would get just one area like the Grand Canyon first and check it out. If you like, then you can start exploring and building.Best regards,Jim
To clarify one thing - Megascenery for FSX and Megascenery Earth are the same company - In fact, the existing Megascenery for FSX products have been rolled into the megascenery earth products. For example, Megascenery Earth offers the state of California. Two years ago Megascenery put out a product called Megascenery Southern California. The megascenery california product was used in the megascenery earth production. They even say as much on their website.One other thing - The megascenery products were in my opinion a decent quality, but the newer megascenery earth product line is not quite of the same quality. I highly recommend you do a google search for Megascenery Earth reviews and then you will see what I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify one thing - Megascenery for FSX and Megascenery Earth are the same company - In fact, the existing Megascenery for FSX products have been rolled into the megascenery earth products. For example, Megascenery Earth offers the state of California. Two years ago Megascenery put out a product called Megascenery Southern California. The megascenery california product was used in the megascenery earth production. They even say as much on their website.One other thing - The megascenery products were in my opinion a decent quality, but the newer megascenery earth product line is not quite of the same quality. I highly recommend you do a google search for Megascenery Earth reviews and then you will see what I am talking about.
After such a search I read that the quality seem to vary between areas to a high extent. I was thinking about the area in southern California situated just to the north of the Megascenery Southern California (which I have for FS9) since I got maps for that region (from Megascenery USA). But how is quality for that particular area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After such a search I read that the quality seem to vary between areas to a high extent. I was thinking about the area in southern California situated just to the north of the Megascenery Southern California (which I have for FS9) since I got maps for that region (from Megascenery USA). But how is quality for that particular area.
I am not sure. I own Megascenery Southern Cal for FSX and I am relatively pleased. I tried a few parts of megascenery earth around colorado and I was not pleased at all. Since you can purchase these areas in small parts, why not just purchase one area directly north of the Megascenery SoCal area and see how it compares. I would be curious to know.Eventually the guys at ORBX will get to California. At that point all bets are off. After flying around the ORBX pacific northwest scenery nothing else even compares. I laugh when I say this but it is true - ORBX has ruined my flight sim experience outside of the areas they have developed. Their scenery is so far beyond what others are doing I am stunned more developers have not changed techniques. I think once ORBX does an area you can bet nobody else will even try because they cannot compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure. I own Megascenery Southern Cal for FSX and I am relatively pleased. I tried a few parts of megascenery earth around colorado and I was not pleased at all. Since you can purchase these areas in small parts, why not just purchase one area directly north of the Megascenery SoCal area and see how it compares. I would be curious to know.Eventually the guys at ORBX will get to California. At that point all bets are off. After flying around the ORBX pacific northwest scenery nothing else even compares. I laugh when I say this but it is true - ORBX has ruined my flight sim experience outside of the areas they have developed. Their scenery is so far beyond what others are doing I am stunned more developers have not changed techniques. I think once ORBX does an area you can bet nobody else will even try because they cannot compete.
That ORBX really looks interesting. My only concern is performence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That ORBX really looks interesting. My only concern is performence.
This much I can tell. It is the absolute best I own, hands down and without question. Performance will be very similar to regular FSX. They offer a free trial of large region of their PNW coverage area. It is a very big area and includes something like 40 airports, and it never expires. Of course, their hope is you like so much you purchase the rest. Trust me. You will end up buying it. If nothing else, you can test performance.HERE IS A LINK TO THE FREE DEMO PAGE if you care to take a look. And join the forums there also. The community is second to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This much I can tell. It is the absolute best I own, hands down and without question. Performance will be very similar to regular FSX. They offer a free trial of large region of their PNW coverage area. It is a very big area and includes something like 40 airports, and it never expires. Of course, their hope is you like so much you purchase the rest. Trust me. You will end up buying it. If nothing else, you can test performance.HERE IS A LINK TO THE FREE DEMO PAGE if you care to take a look. And join the forums there also. The community is second to none.
I have now installed and tried that demo. First according to the advice in the documentation I raised some of my sliders. Still the performence was fine and smooth even on my fairly weak system. But of course the demoarea is outside city regions. When I get to Seattle will my performence be killed? From what I understand some sliders shouldn't be lowered if I wan't to benefit from what this scenery has to offer. So for example if I can't have scenery at extremely dense and 7 cm texture resolution it might be a foolish thing to spend money on it.Otherwise orbx defenitely seems a better way to spend money on than megascenery earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought MegaSceneryEarth for parts of Southern New York State and Cape Cod, MA. I think each piece cost about $7.50. Have to say you get what you pay for. It's cheap but the quality is low. I think they use some sort of semi-automated process as there are a lot of errors, like unmapped waterways and lakes for instance. There is a big lake full of trees right next to KHPN. But at least they seem to fix the airport elevations which some other competing products have so far fail to do. The night lighting looks pretty good too. Certainly better than the default.Since its going to be some time until Orbx gets to NA Atlantic Northeast it'll have to suffice for now as, at least for this area of the globe, there isn't any alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bought MegaSceneryEarth for parts of Southern New York State and Cape Cod, MA. I think each piece cost about $7.50. Have to say you get what you pay for. It's cheap but the quality is low. I think they use some sort of semi-automated process as there are a lot of errors, like unmapped waterways and lakes for instance. There is a big lake full of trees right next to KHPN. But at least they seem to fix the airport elevations which some other competing products have so far fail to do. The night lighting looks pretty good too. Certainly better than the default.Since its going to be some time until Orbx gets to NA Atlantic Northeast it'll have to suffice for now as, at least for this area of the globe, there isn't any alternative.
Are they going to do Europe or is it only USA and Australia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have now installed and tried that demo. First according to the advice in the documentation I raised some of my sliders. Still the performence was fine and smooth even on my fairly weak system. But of course the demoarea is outside city regions. When I get to Seattle will my performence be killed? From what I understand some sliders shouldn't be lowered if I wan't to benefit from what this scenery has to offer. So for example if I can't have scenery at extremely dense and 7 cm texture resolution it might be a foolish thing to spend money on it.Otherwise orbx defenitely seems a better way to spend money on than megascenery earth.
I don't know if they will ever do Europe. Maybe some day.Regarding large cities, your FPS will take a fairly big hit, not because of Orbx but because of FSX. That is what happens. It might be a little more than default FSX, but it would be similar to what you have now. If you can do big cities now with no problem then you will be fine. If you can't do them now then the Orbx scenery won't do any better.But wow does it look good. And the PNW region is mostly rural anyway. If big cities are an issue stay away from Seattle and Vancouver.Oh, and one other thing. You can move your scenery and autogen sliders around and the effect will be minimal in rural areas. Also, the 7cm is mentioned to give you the sharpest road textures. Again, if needed you could raise this and not notice much of an effect, especially if you are flying over 1500 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have MegaScenery Earth for my area (NJ) and I gotta say he quality is very good. Of course, I lack comparison with other products besides what I've seen in screenshots but as an actual resident of the scenery I'm flying over I can say that VFR flights are a joy with this scenery. I can literally take a photo in FSX then go on Google Maps and find out exactly where I was flying if it's part of the state I don't recognize from above. I looked at the Sim-Savvy scenery and that seems to be a nice-looking alternative although the quality to me from the screenshots seems on par with MSE and MSE has excellent night textures as well as water masking - although the masking does seem to be a bit random for some reason - for example part of a river will be masked but another part will be satellite photo. The water masking issue is really the only (very minor) complaint I have with MSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if they will ever do Europe. Maybe some day.Regarding large cities, your FPS will take a fairly big hit, not because of Orbx but because of FSX. That is what happens. It might be a little more than default FSX, but it would be similar to what you have now. If you can do big cities now with no problem then you will be fine. If you can't do them now then the Orbx scenery won't do any better.But wow does it look good. And the PNW region is mostly rural anyway. If big cities are an issue stay away from Seattle and Vancouver.Oh, and one other thing. You can move your scenery and autogen sliders around and the effect will be minimal in rural areas. Also, the 7cm is mentioned to give you the sharpest road textures. Again, if needed you could raise this and not notice much of an effect, especially if you are flying over 1500 ft.
Unfortunately it has turned out to be impossible to fly in Seattle area with the slider settings suggested by ORBX. I got stutters and fps around 10-12. I also experienced that if I turned down road traffic from 16 to 0 and GA traffic from 20 to 0 (all traffic off) things improved somewhat. Fps went up to about 15-17 and stutters decreased somewhat. But if I then turned down texture resolution scenery density and water (three steps!) very little changed with regard to fps and smoothness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Based on what I've experienced, photoscenery is much easier on computers than those sceneries with plenty of autogen features

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After such a search I read that the quality seem to vary between areas to a high extent. I was thinking about the area in southern California situated just to the north of the Megascenery Southern California (which I have for FS9) since I got maps for that region (from Megascenery USA). But how is quality for that particular area.
I have Tile 89 from that area (Fresno/Clovis/etc..) and I like it. I received the 50% off offer in the mail as well and am thinking about picking up that same section you mentioned (I live in Clovis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,Based on what I've experienced, photoscenery is much easier on computers than those sceneries with plenty of autogen features
This is a matter of you get what you pay for.I can't fly with any photoscenery because I either fly helicopters or planes that fly low and slow. Photoscenery looks so flat and fake it completely ruins my experience. Scenery with realistic autogen like Orbx WILL RUN SLOWER, but holy crap does it look good. I can barely fly anywhere else now that I have flown ORBX PNW and AUSTRALIA. I also suffer from very low frames around seattle and vancouver and a little in portland. I just plan my flights not to land there. I can fly through and suffer from stutters for a few minutes and continue on.It boils down to how you fly. If you fly high and fast than just buy flat photoscenery. You are too high to tell it looks fake. If you fly low and slow then you have a choice to make. And if you do a lot of bush flying the answer is easy. Outside large cities ORBX performs as good as or better than default FSX. That is a fact mentioned in every major review, including the latest issues of both PC Pilot and PC Aviator magazines. But everyone uses the sim for their own reasons, so to each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately it has turned out to be impossible to fly in Seattle area with the slider settings suggested by ORBX. I got stutters and fps around 10-12. I also experienced that if I turned down road traffic from 16 to 0 and GA traffic from 20 to 0 (all traffic off) things improved somewhat. Fps went up to about 15-17 and stutters decreased somewhat. But if I then turned down texture resolution scenery density and water (three steps!) very little changed with regard to fps and smoothness.
Sounds like you have a decent graphics card but are lacking in the CPU department. Running lots of AI traffic will chew up your CPU cycles and slow your framerates. FSX isn't that intensive for modern day graphics cards (unless you jack it up with a ton of HD REX textures) but it still can chew up a modern day processor. Intel is supposedly cutting the prices of i7s in half very soon to match AMDs price cuts and I got my eyes on a quad core i7....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a matter of you get what you pay for. Scenery with realistic autogen like Orbx WILL RUN SLOWER, but holy crap does it look good. I can barely fly anywhere else now that I have flown ORBX PNW and AUSTRALIA. I also suffer from very low frames around seattle and vancouver and a little in portland. I just plan my flights not to land there. I can fly through and suffer from stutters for a few minutes and continue on.
You suffer from very low fps with that system where all amin components are significantly faster than mine. I have been thinking in upgrading my 6000X2 to a Phenom II quad 3.4 GHz like you have. But there seem to be little point in that.
Sounds like you have a decent graphics card but are lacking in the CPU department. Running lots of AI traffic will chew up your CPU cycles and slow your framerates. FSX isn't that intensive for modern day graphics cards (unless you jack it up with a ton of HD REX textures) but it still can chew up a modern day processor. Intel is supposedly cutting the prices of i7s in half very soon to match AMDs price cuts and I got my eyes on a quad core i7....
In big city regions it isn't sufficient to completely turn off all AI traffic even if it improves things somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megascenery is the real deal - actual photos of the area, so what you see is identical to real life. And you can turn on the autogen if you like. That goes for all photoscenery. And the nightlighting works on sim savvy and megascenery.There are some very fervent Orbx fanbois around who think nothing else comes close. I have all orbx products and just about every photoscenery prouduct made for FSX as well. So I am not biased. Orbx stuff is not photoreal, its just FSX scenery done as it should have been done - IE with more varied textures and those and the autogen and landclass area properly placed. And it does look good. BUT it does not look as real as the photoscenery. After carefully trying out both, I prefer to fly with photoscener, but if you like the orbx stuff, fair enough. But do try out the best of photoscenery first. Sure there are areas of photoscenery that the source imagery is not great, but conversly, there are some fantastic areas and when its good, its unbeatable.You can try Vero-fs for california here: http://vero-fs.com/ this is top quality stuff with seasons, nighlighting and its cheap.. They are rolling out the whole of California.Sim Savvy, already mentioned, excellent value product an at 2m resolution, wont tax your machine at all.Have a look at the links in my sig, to my screen shots and videos on you tube - all done with photoscenery. You will be impressed I am sureChers,Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the MegaSceneryEarth area you are talking about - just north of the SoCal area, it covers the Mojave west to the ocean and south just to Cajon Pass.The quality is good. It's overly orange/red. One BIG IMPORTANT note about MSE scenery. It is not actually complete. This scenery in particular does not go all the way to the Colorado River. Similarly, the Central Arizona scenery I purchased does not got all the way to the river, nor does it go all the way east to New Mexico. So you're stuck with no scenery in between - they need to make that clear. They say California and Arizona are complete but that is false advertising. I stopped at that point and will not purchase anymore MSE until they fix this.I am developing freeware scenery for NM and even when I overlap the NM/AZ border, there is still about 50 miles of NO scenery west into Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am developing freeware scenery for NM and even when I overlap the NM/AZ border, there is still about 50 miles of NO scenery west into Arizona.
When some one I know was mentioning buying the Arizona MSE, I asked about the gaps. It's funny, because there is source material available for all of Arizona. Same applies for California. Maybe the developer of MSE is allergic to the Colorado River? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megascenery is the real deal - actual photos of the area, so what you see is identical to real life. And you can turn on the autogen if you like. That goes for all photoscenery. And the nightlighting works on sim savvy and megascenery.There are some very fervent Orbx fanbois around who think nothing else comes close. I have all orbx products and just about every photoscenery prouduct made for FSX as well. So I am not biased. Orbx stuff is not photoreal, its just FSX scenery done as it should have been done - IE with more varied textures and those and the autogen and landclass area properly placed. And it does look good. BUT it does not look as real as the photoscenery. After carefully trying out both, I prefer to fly with photoscener, but if you like the orbx stuff, fair enough. But do try out the best of photoscenery first. Sure there are areas of photoscenery that the source imagery is not great, but conversly, there are some fantastic areas and when its good, its unbeatable.You can try Vero-fs for california here: http://vero-fs.com/ this is top quality stuff with seasons, nighlighting and its cheap.. They are rolling out the whole of California.Sim Savvy, already mentioned, excellent value product an at 2m resolution, wont tax your machine at all.Have a look at the links in my sig, to my screen shots and videos on you tube - all done with photoscenery. You will be impressed I am sureChers,Mark
To be fair, I have nothing against photoscenery and like I said above I own some myself. I think the main question here is how you fly. If you fly low and slow, at about 1000 ft in a chopper or something similar like I do, then photoscenery just looks way too flat for my taste. Orbx and Flytampa are probably the two best scenery's for my style of flying. Orbx has the best coverage for the $ but it is not photoscenery as you mentioned.If I was flying at higher altitudes then I guess it wouldn't matter. But for my style of flying photoscenery does not look good. However, I have not tried the Vero product but I have heard good things. Would it look good at in the 500-1000 ft range? And does it have full autogen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megascenery is the real deal - actual photos of the area, so what you see is identical to real life. And you can turn on the autogen if you like. That goes for all photoscenery. And the nightlighting works on sim savvy and megascenery.There are some very fervent Orbx fanbois around who think nothing else comes close. I have all orbx products and just about every photoscenery prouduct made for FSX as well. So I am not biased. Orbx stuff is not photoreal, its just FSX scenery done as it should have been done - IE with more varied textures and those and the autogen and landclass area properly placed. And it does look good. BUT it does not look as real as the photoscenery. After carefully trying out both, I prefer to fly with photoscener, but if you like the orbx stuff, fair enough. But do try out the best of photoscenery first. Sure there are areas of photoscenery that the source imagery is not great, but conversly, there are some fantastic areas and when its good, its unbeatable.You can try Vero-fs for california here: http://vero-fs.com/ this is top quality stuff with seasons, nighlighting and its cheap.. They are rolling out the whole of California.Sim Savvy, already mentioned, excellent value product an at 2m resolution, wont tax your machine at all.Have a look at the links in my sig, to my screen shots and videos on you tube - all done with photoscenery. You will be impressed I am sureChers,Mark
One thing that scares me off MSE is that I have seen info about corrupted scenery like misplaced objects. Sim Sawy is to expensive for me. Vero fs has interesting low pricing.
To be fair, I have nothing against photoscenery and like I said above I own some myself. I think the main question here is how you fly. If you fly low and slow, at about 1000 ft in a chopper or something similar like I do, then photoscenery just looks way too flat for my taste. Orbx and Flytampa are probably the two best scenery's for my style of flying. Orbx has the best coverage for the $ but it is not photoscenery as you mentioned.If I was flying at higher altitudes then I guess it wouldn't matter. But for my style of flying photoscenery does not look good. However, I have not tried the Vero product but I have heard good things. Would it look good at in the 500-1000 ft range? And does it have full autogen?
I mostly fly at 3000-6000 ft sometimes as low as 1500 ft but rarely below 1000 ft except of course during landing and take off. A thought here. Photoscenery might look flat but what about autogen? Isn't that oversized i.e to high instead of to flat. So we seem to have two unrealistic options to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Simsavvy too expensive. 200 $ for 34 US states, It makes 5.9$ per states including a 500Mb hard disk drive.In my opinion, it is one of the best bargain on the sim market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...