Simsavvy has closed up shop. Not sure if larry will be back, hope so. Best of luck to him.Fs dreamscapes was producing photoscenery for hawaii and cali. No sign of them since the 'server migration' late last year.Vero FS made a bit of nice scenery fo cali but then went pre quiet mid last year. My login to the site is no longer recognised.The only place I seem to be able to get large-scale photoscenery now is megascenery earth - and it seems to be a few years since they made any.Apart from the scottish photoscenery being developed by horizon I can't think of any current photoscenery project that might get me excited.Is there just no market for this stuff?

You forget one of the best resources out there: http://www.blueskyscenery.com/They're currently reuploading due to megaupload or whatever it was called being shut down by the FBI.

I tried them and even paid for the improved download rate through megaupload.My problem is the pieces are too small. Too time consuming to download multiple areas and install them all. Kudos to bluesky for putting their work up as freeware. Its just that i'm interested in state/country size photoscenery, for flying the heavies over.

You request has been granted by the looks of their front page--they decided that as they have to upload the whole lot again, they might as well lump whole areas together in 500MB sizes.

Sounds good, i will check it out. Anything else brewing on the photoscenery front? Payware photoscenery certainly seems quiet right now. Don't know about you guys but i prefer the realism over landclass based scenery for most flying. But the buzz all seems to be with the landclass stuff of late (orbx regions, gex).

Sounds good, i will check it out.Anything else brewing on the photoscenery front? Payware photoscenery certainly seems quiet right now. Don't know about you guys but i prefer the realism over landclass based scenery for most flying. But the buzz all seems to be with the landclass stuff of late (orbx regions, gex).

I agree with you. I don't like generic textures. When I used to fly over them I said to myself "hey guys you're cheating me, I've seen this exact pattern a few seconds ago". but it seems that the generic textures are more popular than reality. too bad!

I agree with you. I don't like generic textures. When I used to fly over them I said to myself "hey guys you're cheating me, I've seen this exact pattern a few seconds ago". but it seems that the generic textures are more popular than reality. too bad!

I think it's a mix. I have megascenery Hawaii and I think it rocks, but I still prefer ORBX because of the ability to show things in the 3D perspective. If there was an inbetween, I'd probably go for that, but FSX limits what developers can do for us.

I really don't like flying over fake terrain. Look at the roads and rivers on your orbx/gex sometime - running through houses and farms. It's just eye candy.What is real is photoscenery with good, hand placed 3d objects. Theres no limitation of fsx that stops this - its exactly what orbx has done with many of their airports eg cairns, tamworth, bundaberg etcThe main problem with the above is the fairly small area covered - i'd love a large area if high quality photoscenery with 3d objects on the approach and depaeture points eg from 10 miles out.

Can you imagine how much that would cost?

Your right there are no 'FSX' limitations to large scale photoreal with autogen, only 'human' limitations,The Cairns and Tamworth photoreal areas took around 4-5 months each to hand-annotate, so that should give you a ball-park

Your right there are no 'FSX' limitations to large scale photoreal with autogen, only 'human' limitations,

How come nobody puts autogen ontop of photoreal? Is it more time consuming?

Hand placed objects can be put on top of photoreal. Orbx do it (in a small area, as mentioned above). Vero fs is/was planning to do it.It has to be place well though, or it looks silly. The autogen that comes with some of the megascenery titles really doesnt work for me.Most autogen on photoscenery ends up looking fake. I rarely fly with any autogen turned on.

I wonder why no one ever does the east coast from the Carolinas up through New England, lots of Class B and C airports. Also Long Island from the city out to Block, the Vinyard and Nantucket?

I wonder why no one ever does the east coast from the Carolinas up through New England, lots of Class B and C airports. Also Long Island from the city out to Block, the Vinyard and Nantucket?

I've annotated many areas near airports from New Jersey up through Massachusetts for use with SimSavvy, with a concentration on RI.Over the course of months, I've only really annotated the areas directly around certain airports and on important approach paths.... only with trees, no buildings. It is a relatively trivial process to do, BUT amazingly time consuming to do even just one airport area.On top of the time, you also have the drawbacks of FSX autogen on photoreal textures... first is color matching. Autogen is VERY RARELY the same "color" as the underlying photoreal textures. This makes the autogen objects stand out as being quite different from what is being displayed on the ground. In some cases, it's so distracting that you're better off having no autogen... in other cases, it blends in so seamlessly you'd swear you were flying a real airplane. Connecticut aerials seem to be dark enough to support autogen relatively well, but New Jersey's aerials are a bit washed out, making autogen look real out of place.The second issue is the scale - many have noted that FSX autogen seems larger than what it should be in real life - the photoreal textures really make this apparent as well. When you see an autogen stand of trees and look at it with the photoreal underneath, you can tell that the trees are much larger than they should be. (3 trees in FSX take up the space where 12 might exist in real life)A third aspect is that autogen is seasonal - you need to make sure you keep your date set for summer when using autogen on photoreal. Nothing is more distracting than having your trees be snow-covered, but the ground textures a lush green!So - if you're wondering why nobody has done a particular area, it's A.) exceptionally time consuming, and B.) the results are not really all that great, depending on the photoreal texture underneath. I only use it to give me a sense of speed and altitude when on approach to airports. It's do-able, but the results aren't really worthy of any concerted effort or upgrade.-Greg

I've just been making photoscenery with higher resolutions on approach - 50cm/meter for the last three miles, for example. With the right source images you can get an almost 3D appearance.Still, I like the idea of actual autogen as you describe - targetted to the areas you fly over low, and color matched to the underlying photoscenery. As you mentiom, bad autogen is worse than none at all.