FS Altitude

[bobbyjoh 11]

I fly only heavies and have seen the work by FS Altitude. I am curious have any of you installed this software and what did you think of it. How much does it improve ground textures.ThanksBob

[renevirgo 0]

I fly only heavies and have seen the work by FS Altitude. I am curious have any of you installed this software and what did you think of it. How much does it improve ground textures.ThanksBob

I bought the Europe one and was disappointed with it. It's quite low res and the cone effect is disturbing as soon as take off is done. I mean I would like to look at UTX, GEX and others fine features at low altitudes, and wait for around FL180 to see FSaltitude as it name means. The good things is it cover huge areas, and if "as in the manual describes" you always look through the windshield at a certain zoom level, then evrything's fineThe other good thing is that the price has falled.RV

[John F 2,401]

I've been using FSAltitude Europe and like it a lot. It has been more satisfactory than I expected. Above 20,000 feet or so, the blurriness of the lower res textures is not very noticeable. And as long as you don't look down at too sharp an angle while using the exterior view, the default cone below is not visible. Also, there's no need to use the extreme wide-angle zoom setting they show in all their screenshots. The .50 or .55 zoom is perfectably acceptable and looks more natural.A big plus is that you can fly almost indefinitely in any direction and not "run out" of photoreal coverage the way you do with smaller areas. And seeing the "real" world down below instead of generic textures tends to spoil you for anything less. I'm liking it enough that I went ahead and bought Western USA/Mexico and Eastern USA when the price was reduced (but I haven't installed them yet).John

[John F 2,401]

Should also add that at least from what I've seen so far, the color correction and matching is excellent.John

[MindYerBeak 73]

I have fsaltitude europe+us 1 and 2. The scenery looks too blurry even from 35000 imo.I tried all the tricks that came with instructions but it still looks soso.Not too sure I'd buy it again.

[Den19 0]

I too have the W Europe volume. I eventually removed it from my system after several months of trying to get rid of the blurries and failing. My system is a quadcore Q6600 with twin 8000 graphics cards so I don't think it was system causing the problems. I use a lot of photographic scenery and none of them have the same problem.Den

[bobbyjoh 11]

I too have the W Europe volume. I eventually removed it from my system after several months of trying to get rid of the blurries and failing. My system is a quadcore Q6600 with twin 8000 graphics cards so I don't think it was system causing the problems. I use a lot of photographic scenery and none of them have the same problem.Den

Is FSAltitude photographic scenery and is there a frame rate hit? I am getting 40-50 fps with the LDS 767, ASE, RC4.3 and default scenery with FSGenesis mesh.Bob

[John F 2,401]

Yes, it's photographic scenery. I'm not getting any frame rate hit, and wouldn't expect any with photoreal stuff.John

[ESzczesniak 128]

I got the Eastern USA on sale and have also been less than pleased. The resolution as pointed out, isn't awesome. That one is a bit of a toss up though, as you get lower resolution textures but get rid of the tile effect.My big issue is that the transition cone from default (or GEX or whatever) to FSAltitude is not smooth and actually quite visible. I can see the borders of this transition area from about 1,000' AGL to about FL200-220. A bit distracting.

[dogs53 1]

I also have FSAltitude USA East and USA West.. and I am not sure that I am using it to an optimal area. From the Spot view, I can see the scenery c hanging beneath the aircraft at higher altitudes, but I don't see the cone that everyone seems to refer to. Also, the scenery beneath the plane is generally cleared and probably more accurate than the scenery a bit further away. I would think that scenery further away would be a bit clearer. Any ideas?ThanksBob

[dogs53 1]

I might have just answered my own question. I went into the Scenery Library and unchecked FSAltitude and then the entire screen went to what was in the area beneath my aircraft. So, I guess that the "cone" that others refer to is actually what it would look like w/o FS Altitude. I guess that the FS Altitude is more realistic in that it uses actual information, not just a repeating pattern, but it is a bit blurry.. but then I would expect it to be so at FL370/.

[bobbyjoh 11]

I might have just answered my own question. I went into the Scenery Library and unchecked FSAltitude and then the entire screen went to what was in the area beneath my aircraft. So, I guess that the "cone" that others refer to is actually what it would look like w/o FS Altitude. I guess that the FS Altitude is more realistic in that it uses actual information, not just a repeating pattern, but it is a bit blurry.. but then I would expect it to be so at FL370/.

How would you compare the scenery in FS Altitude to say GEX or other sceneries? So far the comments have not been very favorable to FS Altitude.Bob

[John F 2,401]

Bob,I guess I'm one of the few that likes FS Altitude a lot. Yes, there is some blurriness but with my visibility set at 50 miles it looks quite natural. Last night I flew through your area -- from Toledo up past Detroit and then over toward Flint -- and I felt I was looking at the real world. GEX and default textures are too repetitive for me now, and don't reflect what's actually there. I find that rural areas, farmland, etc. look fairly crisp in FS Altitude but metro areas appear quite blurry with "big box" stores mostly appearing as white blobs. It's a trade-off; I'm giving up some sharpness in exchange for more of a feeling of actually being there. Out west of the Mississippi in southeastern Iowa the look of the countryside from 34,000 feet feels spot-on, very immersing! And I've just begun to explore. Incidentally, most all of eastern Canada is included in the Eastern USA product, sort of an unadvertised "bonus."John

[GSalden 4,655]

Bob,I guess I'm one of the few that likes FS Altitude a lot. Yes, there is some blurriness but with my visibility set at 50 miles it looks quite natural. Last night I flew through your area -- from Toledo up past Detroit and then over toward Flint -- and I felt I was looking at the real world. GEX and default textures are too repetitive for me now, and don't reflect what's actually there. I find that rural areas, farmland, etc. look fairly crisp in FS Altitude but metro areas appear quite blurry with "big box" stores mostly appearing as white blobs. It's a trade-off; I'm giving up some sharpness in exchange for more of a feeling of actually being there. Out west of the Mississippi in southeastern Iowa the look of the countryside from 34,000 feet feels spot-on, very immersing! And I've just begun to explore. Incidentally, most all of eastern Canada is included in the Eastern USA product, sort of an unadvertised "bonus."John

For FsAltitude I was a beta tester.If you set the zoom not higher than 0.4 and the visiblity not above 60 mls than it looks very good from high-altitude ( 20000 ft + ), which it was made for.For multi-moniotor outside views it is not suited as the image gets blown up ( 2 screens=2x and 3 screens=3x) and becomes unsharp. Perhaps sometime they will realease FsAltitude Xtra with a 2x higher resolution.The only drawback would be lower performance and to 4x up the price.

[coturnix 1]

Incidentally, most all of eastern Canada is included in the Eastern USA product, sort of an unadvertised "bonus."John

Oh, didn´t know this, thanks for the tip. Have you tried it with western Canada :( ?Another happy user of FSAltitude here, John has explained very well why. Photoscenery junkie so i´m biased, generic terrain doesn´t cut it for me at all.