xplane/fsx/reality/photoscenery compares

[Geofa 108]

I have found in my 31 years of simming my needs/wants for a sim has been a constantly changing situation e.g. when getting basic ppl is was ability to set winds and practice basic stuff, when getting ifr rating it was smooth operating instruments, when getting multi engine rating it was realistic single engine operations.

 

Now I have moved from the midwest of the US to the southern California area it is getting scenery that gives me a good impression of reality-I want to explore my new area of the world as best I can. For the midwest-autogen and generic textures both in fs and xplane did fine.

Now with the all the incredible subtle western scenery...well...you can decide which makes it...

 

A real shot of an ifr approach to ksee I did in 2001-going by El Capitan-a major rocky landmark outside of San Diego (El Cajon/Lakeside):

 

The simsavvy version:

 

Xplane's generic textures:

 

Fsx generic with every add in imaginable:

 

 

In the Ramona area looking at Eagle peak/Mt. Cuyamaca (sorry only a ground level shot):

 

Note the San Diego river with appropriate trees and the famous Cedar creek trail appears in the Simsavvy version:

 

The xplane version:

 

The fs version:

 

 

If you lived out here and wanted to get as close to reality (scenery wise) which would you use-I know what I prefer..?

I look forward to photoscenery of this area becoming available for xplane!

[FloG 148]

NIce shots, good to see the differences between reality, two different sims and an add-on.

Now, I'd say I definitely prefer the Simsavvy scenery.

Regards,

Flo

[Ioan92 63]

Simsavy or FSX generic. imho

[HLJames 2,568]

American southwest.....Spectacular!

 

HLJAMES

[PingPong 60]

Geoff, you can generate your own photoscenery with G2XPL at whatever LOD you want. SimSavvy is 50 cm, but you can make it much smaller with G2XPL. I have Sim Savvy and like it very much, but with some time, effort, and lots and lots of disc space you can make something very similar for XPX yourself.

 

cool shots too btw.

[Geofa 108]

Thanks Pingpong. If not mistaken it appears to me that all references and access to G2XPL have been removed?

[yankeegolf3 52]

hello,

 

1- Simsavvy

3- FSX

4- XP

 

(2 left out on purpose )

[bic 44]

You should try shade, I think it would help the last shot.

[manuthie 242]

Ok - I did a quick test in X-Plane with g2xpl. Maybe not as nice as your simsavvy version but certainly better than X-Plane default.

 

 

 

X-Planes default textures are not all bad though. I think my area is represented rather nicely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Geofa 108]

Yes-I find the default western xplane textures superior to fsx-both in the desert areas and Pacific Northwest. However, the photoscenery imho beats each by a far margin, and really gives me the feel of really being there-the difference between simulating, or fooling yourself into thinking you are really flying.

 

Past the ground textures I find fsx has superior landclass, devotion to roads, and variety of buildings and vegetation-yet somehow the end result in areas with autogen just look ...well..bizare. Xplane misses much of the landclass, and due to lack of many contrasting autogen buildings/trees also in a different way also misses it.

 

Do you have any hints for how to get g2xpl and set it up?-I am eager to try it as shown in your great photoshot but it seems one can not get it anymore?

[manuthie 242]

It seems it is only distributed via email. For details see http://forums.x-plan...topic=59170&hl=.

 

I only got it recently and think results are rather mixed. Sometimes I feel that autogen (right side) is actually the better option

 

 

[tttocs 301]

If you lived out here and wanted to get as close to reality (scenery wise) which would you use-I know what I prefer..?

 

Thanks for the shots and the discussion Geof. I really, really want to like photoreal, and your comments and images made me go back and revisit some things. The problem is, when I try it, I'm reminded of the old ditty - "There was a little girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead. And when she was good, she was very, very good, but when she was bad she was horrid.".

 

I want to do more flying in SoCal, so I've been trying to find some options for FSX that are better than what I've got with UTX, GEX and Scenery Tech or Xclass. Just did a flight from KNSI to KSBA using a couple of the Blue Sky downloads. The Channel Islands from the air and the coast approaching Santa Barbera? Absolutely wonderful! Flying final on the ILS 7 approach into KSBA? Awful and for me a total immersion killer.

 

Photoreal is the only thing that does justice to much of the American SW to my mind and for this area I'm even willing to give up seasons and night, but my head just can't deal with what happens when I get close to the ground. I say this all with a VERY open mind, however - thoughts or suggestions on this issue would be much appreciated.

 

Scott

[Geofa 108]

I think the best approach is the one the new aerofly simulator takes-it has both autogen and photoscenery. I have to say this sim gives me the closest feeling of really flying of them all right now.

 

However, if I have to compromise I'll take the photoreal-at least for the western US. For the small amount close to the ground (unless you are flying helo's) I'd rather make the majority of my simming time realistic vs. a short part of it (takeoff/landing) when I won't be looking much at the scenery anyway. Just my personal preference. In the shots above I'd be hard pressed to recognize El Capitan which is rather major in fsx or xplane with default textures-let alone many of the other interesting geographic features of the US west that makes it so interesting.

 

As a side note-I am learning so much of my new part of the world using the photoscenery and fsdiscover which places geographic names/pts. of interest on top-what a great tool!