How realistic do you want a scenery to be?

[Devinci 0]

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 :(

[MMartinov 48]

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..

[Devinci 0]

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..

Unfortunately not everybody can afford a powerful computer! And not all airports can be made by one good company as Orbx :)

[WestAir 2,522]

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!]

[Devinci 0]

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 :)

[Wynthorpe 51]

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

[Chock 17,769]

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

[trisager 2]

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

[internerd 1]

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.

[niyoko 7]

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.

[member111333 8]

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.:(

[Chock 17,769]

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

[curt1 79]

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.

[andysim 0]

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.

[Devinci 0]

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 :)