Either way - and I don't think Larry was intentionally trying to show an unfair picture but I have never seen any default scenery look like that without an addon either.

I think a little bit of photoreal texture may have slipped in to Larry's pic

 

Lots of photoreal in FSX default.

 

I don't think Larry was intentionally trying to show an unfair picture but I have never seen any default scenery look like that without an addon either.

 

I see it all the time. Obviously not every square inch (fly over Amarillo some time), but there is a lot of default FSX that looks like that.

 

Hook

Thanks Hook, I must have had 3rd party stuff on for so long I have forgotten what it can look like!

<br />Larry, I am actually intrigued by that screenshot. Where is that in FSX? I would very much like to see that scenery quality in default FSX. Also, what are your settings? I know you say they are moderate, but can you post a screenshot of them so I can see for myself on my system? <br />

 

That pic was from Dec. 23rd 2006. It's from a new computer I purchased to run XP8 & FSX. This CPU won't even hardly run XP-10. It is all FSX stock textures. They're not photo-real of the actual area, but look great from the air, and are set to blend with the mountains & lakes.

 

L.Adamson

I must have had 3rd party stuff on for so long I have forgotten what it can look like!

 

I'll be flying along and look down and see something like that and it's just... "gosh, that's cool!" Unfortunately, the entire world doesn't look that good.

 

Edit: I was flying over Kuwait City a few weeks ago and saw a number of photoreal buildings among the autogen. First time I'd seen that.

 

FSX is a mixed bag at times. Some of it looks SO good, and some is pretty wretched. The best thing I can say for it is that the overall effect is generally good.

 

Hook

That pic was from Dec. 23rd 2006. It's from a new computer I purchased to run XP8 & FSX. This CPU won't even hardly run XP-10. It is all FSX stock textures. They're not photo-real of the actual area, but look great from the air, and are set to blend with the mountains & lakes.

 

L.Adamson

 

I still would like to see your settings and the location it was taken.

I still would like to see your settings and the location it was taken.

 

So would I, but do you remember all those details from a random screen shot you took in December 2006? Me either.

 

Hook

 

 

I still would like to see your settings and the location it was taken.

 

36U Heber City Municipal airport, Utah. It's just on the east side of the mountain, from where I live. I have plenty of additional pics from this area. BTW--- This area is where some of the ski resorts & jumps were, for the 2002 Winter Olympics.

 

As far as settings go, I was just like the rest of the crowd. I could never get close to maxxed out settings! Remember, maxxed out FSX wasn't mean't to run on CPU's from those days! And it never did.....

 

L.Adamson

 

 

So would I, but do you remember all those details from a random screen shot you took in December 2006? Me either.

 

Hook

 

Actually, every screenshot I have taken is saved with the location and date in the actual filename. But then again, I like to keep organized.

I have the same dilemma. I have a 23" all-in one from HP with quad core AMD and Radeon HD 7660 D. I have the xp 10 demo loaded and I'm impressed to date but I'm unwilling to go for itjust yet. I will watch the forums like a hawk to see if there are problems using my Saitek X45, or using landing aids, GPS and so on. It's important to me to use a simulator rather than a game.

or using landing aids,

 

The way flight directors work in xp10, during a coupled approach, is very good and smooth, and, provided the rw you're landing at has proper data for it's ils, markers, etc..., it'll give you a very close to real experience.

 

Default GPS in xp10 is very very basic, compared for instance to FSX's default GPS units modelled in a much more comprehensive, even if not exhaustive, way.

No seasons, no landmarks, no working ATC and AI traffic. No ORBX, no Tongass Fjords X and nothing that comes even close. If you can live without all that, it might be worth it.

No seasons, no landmarks, no working ATC and AI traffic. No ORBX, no Tongass Fjords X and nothing that comes even close. If you can live without all that, it might be worth it.

NO Blurries also :lol: fsx has da Blurries

Na, I don't have any.

Na, I don't have any.

Stutters :lol: