Which is more real? Nothing completely yet but I know what I like....

 

RW Downwind for the bc loc ksee over El capitan:

 

Simsavvy 50 cm real-can't match the colors/weather complexity in the sim but every rock is there and good resemblence:

 

Fsx-missing lots here and generic textures just don't make it:

 

Rw View of Eagle peak/Cuyamaca ground level"

 

Simsavvy 50 cm 100 ft. agl-photo real supposed to be at a negative ground level -but every hiking trail, bush, and pretty good coloration.

 

fsx 100 ft. agl-looks rather bizarre though the palm trees are there! :-)

 

Rw View of housing area:

 

Simsavvy from ground level-again at ground level photoscenery should be at worst-yet every house/swimming pool/tree where they should be:

 

Fsx from ground level-roads/buildings have sim city look-certainly no match for real

 

Geofa,

 

Thanks for sharing these photos to compare RW/Simsavvy/FSX. In some cases the default scenery appears as if an attempt was made to capture similarities to real world, but not to depict accuracy. Your last picture is an example; scattered buildings of various types and sizes to include multi-floor office buildings instead of a small community of small homes.

Keith

Yep-the last shot at ground level which shows the photoscenery at the worst also shows the default road mismatch, and a few buildings that look like the Parthenon that don't exist in the fsx default.

 

A reality that gives a "generic feeling" or a reality that gives reality with limitations <200 ft. agl.

I have developed a new navigation technique with the photoscenry-rock to rock, swimming pool to swimming pool, and chicken coop to chicken coop. I am very serious-with the fsx default I was lost in my new area of the world at takeoff-with the photo I took off from the airport-headed for the chicken coops, and then went swimming pool (and golf course) to swimming pool to find my house Worked like a charm.

Looks nice.

 

nebojsa

Thanks for the comparison.

Looks pretty accurate!