Archived

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

Devinci

How realistic do you want a scenery to be?

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I have a question for those of you who have many scenery (paywares or freeware). How realistic do you want a flight simulator scenery to be? We all agree that the more realistic the better. But it also means (usually) less frames rates friendly and so the need of a more powerful computer. So do you for example want the buildings around the airport to be modeled as close to the real ones? Do you want grass around the airport? Peoples? What do you think is more important for a flight simulator airport? Thanks for your replies . That will help me a lot to make the best FS scenery :(

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

ORBX(FTX)-Realistic for terrain and airports is good enough for me...+Aerosoft-Realistic for some airports.Grass - yesPeople - yesP>S> Powerfull computer to run all that - yes.. Batting%20Eyelashes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
ORBX(FTX)-Realistic for terrain and airports is good enough for me...+Aerosoft-Realistic for some airports.Grass - yesPeople - yesP>S> Powerfull computer to run all that - yes.. Batting%20Eyelashes.gif
Unfortunately not everybody can afford a powerful computer! And not all airports can be made by one good company as Orbx :)

Share this post


Link to post

Good question. I recently discovered AES (Yes, I'm late to the party)so I decided to grab Fly Tampa's KTPA (FSX) Scenery to compliment some AES ground vehicles I bought to go with it, only to find that (Unlike my FT Boston scenery that sits at 20 FPS on the ground facing the scenery) FT's KTPA gives me a stunning FIVE frames/sec at all times on the ground!It looked gorgeous, but I can't help but feel like I threw $30 into the trashcan. I have a 9800 GT Graphics card with an i7, Windows 7, and 6GB RAM, but the realism of FT's new scenery left my PC in the dust. You can't enjoy a scenery if the scene is a slideshow.I think I'll make a new phrase here: Realism is always important in a simulator, but never more important than functionality. :( [EDIT: Note, the above is not meant to show FT in a negative light. Those guys are awesome and I recommend anyone who wants some HQ Scenery!]

Share this post


Link to post
I think I'll make a new phrase here: Realism is always important in a simulator, but never more important than functionality.
+1. I've come to that conclusion myself. I mean it's not hard to make the airport look like some "GTA" game it just take more time. But it's also better that you can have a good FPS airport. I usually prioritize that in my scenery (what the pilot can see?). So there are some things that do not really need to be "perfectly modeled". Unless you intend to drive a car in FS they would be to much details :)

Share this post


Link to post

Orbx make lovely scenery but on a lot of the airports I hate the ground textures on the runways and taxiways, they just end up a blurry mess, I want super Sharp textures and authentic models. Love people flow really adds to the experience and think a lot of devs could learn from this

Share this post


Link to post

I think that just the odd little detail can make a world of difference. For example, I landed at one of UK2000's UK Airports Volume 3 airfields the other day in my Lionheart Socata Trinidad, and taxied up to the tower, outside the door to the tower, there was an animated guy stood there with some suitcases talking on a mobile phone and waving his arm around looking as though he was annoyed about where his chartered air taxi was. Great little touch.Al

Share this post


Link to post

I love detailed scenery, the more detail the better. I just use different settings depending on what airplane I fly, to ensure playable FPS.

Share this post


Link to post

all the buildings in the right place and for it to look right and it to look okayAnd moving aero-brigdes can't forget them.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to take where we are now in FSX on the grounds of scenery and airport quality and add better auto-gen that fit the location and real-time lighting at the airports. I wuld also like to fly out of Tokyo and see the city and its building stretched into the distance and the highways and train tracks that run out of the city. The roadways are still so flat. All of this is kind of demanding on current engine.

Share this post


Link to post

A modern scenery should offer the possibility to work either as low end fps friendly version and highend for best visual appearance. Scalability is the key word. I bought sceneries from almost every developer available for fsx and I have to say that airports/sceneries from UK2000 and Orbx can be adapted very nicely on the system you have. Going extreme with UK2000 sceneries means almost no autgen exclusion ( a huge problem for me on lots of other airports), scenery fits perfectly into surroundings, wet fsx runways in most cases, working aircraft shadows on the ground and a stunningly beautiful night lighting that is unmatched. Especially Manchester xtreme has an ultra realistic runway lighting and blue edge lights with ground reflections like on Flightbeam's KSFO, the best fsx airport available so far in my opinion wen you are addicted to heavies.:(

Share this post


Link to post
A modern scenery should offer the possibility to work either as low end fps friendly version and highend for best visual appearance. Scalability is the key word. I bought sceneries from almost every developer available for fsx and I have to say that airports/sceneries from UK2000 and Orbx can be adapted very nicely on the system you have. Going extreme with UK2000 sceneries means almost no autgen exclusion ( a huge problem for me on lots of other airports), scenery fits perfectly into surroundings, wet fsx runways in most cases, working aircraft shadows on the ground and a stunningly beautiful night lighting that is unmatched. Especially Manchester xtreme has an ultra realistic runway lighting and blue edge lights with ground reflections like on Flightbeam's KSFO, the best fsx airport available so far in my opinion wen you are addicted to heavies.:(
Yup, UK2000's Manchester Xtreme is my favourite FSX airport, partially because it is my home airport in real life it is true, but mostly because it is tremendous, as indeed are most UK2000 products.Al

Share this post


Link to post

Glad to see you're designing KSAN, a very fun airport to fly into! It's a fun airport because of the pilot's view on approach, with the various buildings, car traffic in front of the airport, and just a lot of eye candy from the final approach point to landing. In my opinion, that's where the most emphasis should be placed; capturing the feel of this unique airport on final. If you can do this with decent fps, then you will have a winner in the FS world. If it's not getting good frames, then I would reduce features until it's rather smooth.

Share this post


Link to post

Well if im flying VFR (which happens alot since the A2A spitfire came out!) I fly around Orbx PNW scenery. If im flying heavys I use 6 main airports that are aftermarket. Most of them have AES and that adds so much to the feel, along with Fs2crew voice and Radar Contact4. I have plans to collect a few more airports that are further away from my base (Uk2000 EGCC)so I have some short and some medium haul. Not too keen on long haul which is where the PMDGNGX will come in very handy. Im currenty buying 1 airport per month so its spreads the cost over time. Of course I understand some people just dont have the PC that can handle it but technology moves fast and prices drop fast on PCs that can run FSX with 3rd party addons.

Share this post


Link to post
Glad to see you're designing KSAN, a very fun airport to fly into! It's a fun airport because of the pilot's view on approach, with the various buildings, car traffic in front of the airport, and just a lot of eye candy from the final approach point to landing. In my opinion, that's where the most emphasis should be placed; capturing the feel of this unique airport on final. If you can do this with decent fps, then you will have a winner in the FS world. If it's not getting good frames, then I would reduce features until it's rather smooth.
Yeah, I'm 50% done with the ground polys and it's looking very good to me so far :)

Share this post


Link to post

I would exchange every detail in a scenery for a sloped runway!

Share this post


Link to post
How realistic do you want a flight simulator scenery to be?
I am all for realism but it should be smart realism. I absolutely hate big difference in scenery resolution - for example sharp buildings or trees set on otherwise fuzzy ground. If things don't blend well - it actually IMHO diminishes realism. Ultimately I would prefer scenery that would gradually change resolution - the closer to the airport, the higher resolution scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
I would exchange every detail in a scenery for a sloped runway!
You cannot have Ai Traffic with sloped runway I think.

Share this post


Link to post
You cannot have Ai Traffic with sloped runway I think.
strange as it AI dont seem to mind sloped taxi ways. One of the German Airports from aerosoft has a slope taxiway that goes over a motorway (freeway) and they dont seem to fussed+ :( But yes sloped runways would be awsome. I dont supposed for a second than MSflight would allow it but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post

realistic enough that I get vertigo by looking out the side window during a steep bank

Share this post


Link to post

Satellite imagery is surprisingly frame-rate friendly. If I could have good high-quality satellite imagery + airport buildings and large city buildings, then I would be quite happy! In other words, if tileproxy just didn't result in a mess of blurries after about 20 minutes, things would be great!There's really only three scenery requirements for realism while flying heavies:satellite imageryairport and city buildingstrafficWell, I guess good clouds, sky, and water are important to. Ok, everything! But really, satellite imagery is the only thing truly missing at this point. Default FSX ground scenery is such an eyesore!

Share this post


Link to post
Satellite imagery is surprisingly frame-rate friendly. If I could have good high-quality satellite imagery + airport buildings and large city buildings, then I would be quite happy! In other words, if tileproxy just didn't result in a mess of blurries after about 20 minutes, things would be great!There's really only three scenery requirements for realism while flying heavies:satellite imageryairport and city buildingstrafficWell, I guess good clouds, sky, and water are important to. Ok, everything! But really, satellite imagery is the only thing truly missing at this point. Default FSX ground scenery is such an eyesore!
There are some good companies like Orbx that make excellent scenery with satellite imagery for large area.

Share this post


Link to post