Allen: There are some very interesting setting you're using that are way different from mine; one in particular and a couple of other things I would like to ask about. First, Autogen. Having this at none...does that hurt the scenery quality we're seeing in you pics? Second, I thought I had to set filtering to tri-linear due to my video card (9800XT). Third, I thought MScenery had to have MIP Mapping at 8. Last, and most important, I do not think either MS or I checked off add-on dynamic scenery. Does that have to be on to use MS? I don't think it needs to be there to use FSGenesis' mesh and landclass, which I am.Thanks in advance for any and all insight.sjKEWR

>Allen: There are some very interesting setting you're using>that are way different from mine; one in particular and a>couple of other things I would like to ask about. First,>Autogen. Having this at none...does that hurt the scenery>quality we're seeing in you pics? Second, I thought I had to>set filtering to tri-linear due to my video card (9800XT). >Third, I thought MScenery had to have MIP Mapping at 8. Last,>and most important, I do not think either MS or I checked off>add-on dynamic scenery. Does that have to be on to use MS? I>don't think it needs to be there to use FSGenesis' mesh and>landclass, which I am.>>Thanks in advance for any and all insight.>>sj>KEWR>SJ:Re: Autogen...I personally like MS for being able to see the "real" roads and varied geography as they exist in the real world...and it you fly high enough (over 5K min) I don't think you need autogen...as it drops random buildings all over the exact roads and other visible features that make MS unique....obviously it's nice to see some tall skyscrapers jutting outta Manhatten, but personally I like to fly this and S. Cal with Autogen at zero. Try looking over some roads without autogen...then pause the sim and hit Alt + enter to go into windows mode...from the menu on top...select "Options...then Settings...then Display". Reconfigure your autogen density to very dense. After it loads...take a look and see what you think. To me it looks less realistic so I prefer to fly wihtout it while using MS scenery.The reason I have the "add-on scenery" at dense is that I'm using add-on airports...namely LGA...this setting has no impact on MS itself. And if I turn my Mip-mapping up to 8...I get shimmers so bad that it seems the whole scenery is full of worms, so I have to leave that at 4, which also seems to reduce the amount of "barber pole" effect seen in the buildings. Not sure why they're so dogmatic about the mip mapping...my scenery look crisp and sharp set at 4...much less shimmering.Your system is faster than mine...so I have no doubt that if you tinker a bit with your settings, you can get very decent FPS and good looking scenery together...good luck!Allen

I prefer the So Cal to NY Megascenary...Even the So Cal there are two types.. Some areas are dark.. others a pale..The dark areas are simply awesome... Go to airport "Ramona" in So cal.. near San Diego and climb out.. those areas are slightly dark and see how awesome they are...Most of the NY scenes are very pale.. maybe its due to more urban sitting..but then even the gree fields are pale in comparison the So Cal.

I got an AMD1500+ here with a RADEON 9000 and MS LA works well. Having mip mapping at 8 is ridiculous (at least on ATI cards), a level of 4 is probably best with AF (about 8x should work well). I keep autogen at low - I like the occasional tree here and there, and as a matter of fact the package has its own autogen areas defined. It ain't perfect, but adds some life I think. Frames are rather good compared to the standard stuff. THe problem really is the huge amounts of texture data. And the textures aren't as crisp as I would like - I tried to improve them a little (posted this in the scenery builders forum), but it's a hassle. THe MS guys really should have done a little photoshoppe magick before release. I don't think I'll get the NY scenery anytime soon. -Daniel

>If so, how is it?I realy like it! I live in Poughkeepsie (about 70 miles north of NYC) and I was afraid that the scenery would stop south of me but it doesn't. It stops around HydePark, just north of the Mid-Hudson bridge! So Dutchess Airport is there which I have flown out of a few times in real life. From around 3000' and up, it looks just like real life. It is relatively new scenery too must be because some buildings which have gone up in the past couple of years are there. I have flown a little bit in winter but not enough to make any comments yet on it. I also have the So CA scenery.The scenery does take a while to load. But once loaded, it looks great. I can follow real roads to get around and everything else looks ok. Maybe I am too easy but I have no issues with the colors or how it looks. There are a few things I don't like, however:1. bridges are 2 dimension from the Tapazee north.2. some times the scenery detail doesn't load untill I am relaitively close (happens more with the So CA scenery than NY)3. from 3000' looks good but don't try to buzz your house, once you get low it all becomes a big blur. BTW, I did find my house and street but my house was hard to see since we have alot of trees aroundMy system is a 5 month old Dell XPS 3.06 gh, 1 gbyte RAM, ATI Radon 9800 Pro. I have everything max out using the settings that have been posted here in the past for the ATI card. I like to fly in cockpit view with the "W" option so the whole screen is scenery. Frame rates are beautiful with no detectable slow downs.

Finally got mine in the mail last night and took a quick spin this morning. So far... It gets a thumbs up. I didn't think I would get the "WoW" factor this time because I have MegaScenery SoCal and knew what to expect as far as looks and limitations. This I noticed with just a quick first spin:1. Seems to update and sharpen textures faster than SoCal. Maybe that's part of their new technology. Waiting oin the SoCal patch.2. I have to fly at a higher altitude with NYC to get out of the "blurries", say 4000-5000 where SoCal was pretty good even at 2500-3000. That could be related to the data source.3. Also because that area is just so darn flat we're depending on the buildings to give us the 3-d effect. I think this type of scenery works better with greater geographic differences(ie: moutains, valleys, etc.) Will have to fly North of NYC to see if it that changes.Just a quick first impression...

With the requirement of flying high, doesn't that make it hard to land, i.e. seeing the runway clearly? Also, for VFR approaches where you need landmarks, are you too low to be able to make them out?Thanks,sjKEWR

Hello,I don't feel so bad now. A lot of the things I've read here hold true for me too. The degrading of the textures over time really disappointed me. I was going nuts trying to figure out what I had changed in FS2004 to cause the degrading in quality and couldn't figure it out.I played around with the settings on my video card and that improved it somewhat, but it's a pain to have to do that just for some scenery. For whatever reason, the scenery loads better for me when I view it out the window, using the W key, versus using the spot view. Also, my frame rates never suffered for some reason, in fact I noticed no reduction at all.BTW, I just got RealScene2004 to replace my FSGenesis 38 meter scenery as well as FSGenesis Landclass. Both sceneries are very similar in quality, there appear to be no major differences between the two that I can see, so far.Sincerely,Hans Groenewold

Has anyone got this scenery and the UK VFR Photorealistic scenery? How do they compare?

Hey SJ3,No, it doesn't get that blurry as your coming in to land. And runways and airports are still as sharp as before because that is different scenery than the mesh.And Richard, I have flown on the UK VFR and there was A LOT of difference. The scenery did not seem as sharp to me (again may be due to original data), and they had no autogen if I recall. As I flew in lower and lower to land I lost all perspective of my height because everything was so flat - to me unrealistic. Weth Mega, as you get in lower the augengen comes into plas so even though the groound textures get blurry you retain your felling of depth.Try this, I thought NYC was just a tad to flat so I d/l the new 160 meg NYC & New England terrain mesh by "Rick at JHB Aerospace". Wow, added a lot more contours to Mega... I like the effect - nopt so flat.

Another thought:I have purchased things that are not perfect but represent very good ideas once perfected (the eye point system where you put the dot on your head is a good example) in order to encourage more development and refinement. I don't regret my Megascene purchase in the least, even though I do have real texture degradation issues. The future of flight simming is going in the direction of high res satelite and arial photos. It will continue to get better and better. Colin

Got mine yesterday and installed it without a hitch. Dusted off my 172 and took off from Hartford-Brainard in search of the house I grew up in. Unfortunately, I've just been away too long and couldn't find a good landmark to hone in on. Oh well I'll try again later.As for the performance issues I didn't have any. Or maybe I'm just not as picky as others. I don't pay too much attention to frame rates but rather smoothness of the action. Flying along at 3500' I found the sim very smooth without any stutters even in sharp turns using the VC. As for resolution it seems that it was a bit duller than So Cal at 3,500' I'll try it again at 5,500'.Bottomline, I'm very happy with the product. The only regret was spending the extra $$ on the chart package. The book of charts was pretty well done but there are a lot of places you can get the same thing free. The sectional charts I thought were of poor quality and very difficult to read because of the color renditions. For a few dollars you can obtain fresh ones.System Specs:P4-2.66, WIN98SE, 512ram, T-4800FS2002

After flying NY Megascenery I am thinking it is a little flat. I fly around Dutchess County airport. The Mid-Hudson bridge entrance on the west side has a sharp curve cut out of a hill. In FS2004 it looks almost flat. The end of runway 24 at Dutchess is right near a large cliff. Pilots coming in to low onto runway 6 can hit the side of the hill. Yet in FS2004 it looks almost flat.I would love to try Rick's New York mess. Where can I get from? Thanks.JC>Hey SJ3,>>No, it doesn't get that blurry as your coming in to land. And>runways and airports are still as sharp as before because that>is different scenery than the mesh.>>And Richard, I have flown on the UK VFR and there was A LOT of>difference. The scenery did not seem as sharp to me (again>may be due to original data), and they had no autogen if I>recall. As I flew in lower and lower to land I lost all>perspective of my height because everything was so flat - to>me unrealistic. >>Weth Mega, as you get in lower the augengen comes into plas so>even though the groound textures get blurry you retain your>felling of depth.>>Try this, I thought NYC was just a tad to flat so I d/l the>new 160 meg NYC & New England terrain mesh by "Rick at JHB>Aerospace". Wow, added a lot more contours to Mega... I like>the effect - nopt so flat.