MegaSceneryEarth-Michigan/Photoreal Scnery in general

[avgaskoolaid 292]

Hi everyone. I saw this morning that MegaSceneryEarth had released full coverage of Michigan for FSX. Michigan is my home state, and I have been waiting for some good Michigan scenery for awhile. I would love to get this, but I have always been skeptical of PhhotoReal sceneries. I have never purchased any, but from the screenshots they look unrealistically flat, and I would think that from low altitudes/ground level, the lack of 3D objects would look very bad. Is this the case with photoreal sceneries? Or are they not that bad when you view them within the simulator? I would love a little feedback on photoreal scenery in general, or even better on this particular Michigan scenery if anyone has purchased it yet. Thanks for any help!

hamoody

[XPX64man 130]

I've been getting them since they came out with v.2 and I think that they are amazing looking. The bridges, overpasses, trees and houses look like they are popping right out of the scenery. They are much, much better than anything that I have seen in FSX before and I even like the areas better than Orbx EU England scenery.

They look best from over 2000 ft, but in hilly areas, they are a great backdrop while at the airport.

It may not be for everyone, but I find I only want to fly a smaller aircraft around the areas that I have MSEv.2 or Orbx Scenery now.

[tttocs 301]

I haven't tried any of the Earth V2 products yet, but I have quite a bit of photo loaded from MegasceneryX, a bit of Blue Sky and some of the older Earth tiles.

 

The best photoscenery has a very nice 3d look from the air. How low that 3d illusion lasts depends on the quality and resolution of the images. At some point, however, even the best loses the illusion as you get close to the ground. Airport operations are, well...

 

How much you'll like it depends on what's most critical to you. I admit to more than a little ambivalence towards pure photo (which the V2 releases are). At it's best it's awesome, but at it's worst (around the airport for example) I really dislike it.

 

Scott

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I'm a big photoscenery fan but tttocs and I are on the same page on this. Up high (even not so high) they're great. When landing and on the airport, they're horrible. I won't fly into an airport that I have at least some scenery objects. If you can find scenery for airports (and surrounding areas) that you'll be flying in and out of then it's worth it. You can, if you're inclined and patient, create scenery yourself with Instant Object Studio and Instant Scenery. It's tedious though. Here's a thread where I created a scenery around Paso Robles in CA. I'm still building it out, slowly...

 

http://forum.avsim.n...tant-studio-20/

 

Gregg

[avgaskoolaid 292]

Thanks for the replies guys. Is it possible for autogen to show through photoscenery, or does it cancel it all out? Really, the only thing around my home airport and really all the airports in Northern Michigan, where I will do most of my flying if I get the scenery, are trees, trees, and more trees. If the autogen trees are able to show up though the scenery, then I will be sold.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

No it doesn't. Only dedicated scenery objects show on top of photoreal. The only solution to having autogen on top is to have a small autogen area in your scenery list with a higher priority than your photoreal...like an airport. The objects I put around Paso Robles are all hand placed (as such, they are not autogen) on top of the scenery.

 

Gregg

[raymar 969]

I'm no so sure about all this. I have quite a bit of autogen on top of the photoscenery. Just use the slider and see what you get.

 

Gregg,

 

The Aerosoft US Cities scenery works wonderfully with the new MSE v2.0. I added the USC Cleveland to the Ohio MSE and it adds several airports in full detail and islands and downtown unique buildings, power plants and stadiums and such. Same for Los Angeles with BlueSky.

 

I like Miami City X and it works with the photoscenery well also. Best of both worlds as they say.

 

Ray

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

The Aerosoft US Cities scenery works wonderfully with the new MSE v2.0. I added the USC Cleveland to the Ohio MSE and it adds several airports in full detail and islands and downtown unique buildings, power plants and stadiums and such. Same for Los Angeles with BlueSky.

 

I like Miami City X and it works with the photoscenery well also. Best of both worlds as they say.

 

 

I agree...that's the way to go...a city on top of bare photoreal is brilliant. (I still wish they had palm trees in Miami. :huh: )

 

Gregg

[tttocs 301]

I'm no so sure about all this. I have quite a bit of autogen on top of the photoscenery.

 

Autogen or scenery elements?

 

BTW, I also use US Cities Los Angeles with photo and agree it seems to work fairly well, and as Gregg points out, scenery such as add-on airports also help. But if you're expecting autogen trees around a default airport - nope. The MegasceneryX products and the older Earth products included autogen, but V2 does not - and that's even noted in the website info and the original V2 announcement.

 

I regularly fly and enjoy routes with photoscenery from the LA area to Las Vegas for example, but the LA airports I use all have their own detail (not autogen) and the Cities product fills in buildings and such around the airports. At the Las Vegas end, I use FSDT KLAS and MegasceneryX Las Vegas to put some details and autogen into the mix, and Acceleration includes the buildings on The Strip. But my flights are limited to those airports that have enhancements. Once you get to a standard default field, it's pretty dreary and kills immersion for me.

 

I'm not knocking photo, I use it as well, or the V2 line - just pointing out what and where the limits are.

 

Scott

[raymar 969]

I agree...that's the way to go...a city on top of bare photoreal is brilliant. (I still wish they had palm trees in Miami. :huh: )

 

Gregg

 

The basic problem is there are no palm trees in Poland so they may not know what we are really missing. Let's just keep bugging them for native palm trees. Maybe we need to start sending photos with our request.

 

Ray

 

Autogen or scenery elements?

 

BTW, I also use US Cities Los Angeles with photo and agree it seems to work fairly well, and as Gregg points out, scenery such as add-on airports also help. But if you're expecting autogen trees around a default airport - nope. The MegasceneryX products and the older Earth products included autogen, but V2 does not - and that's even noted in the website info and the original V2 announcement.

 

I regularly fly and enjoy routes with photoscenery from the LA area to Las Vegas for example, but the LA airports I use all have their own detail (not autogen) and the Cities product fills in buildings and such around the airports. At the Las Vegas end, I use FSDT KLAS and MegasceneryX Las Vegas to put some details and autogen into the mix, and Acceleration includes the buildings on The Strip. But my flights are limited to those airports that have enhancements. Once you get to a standard default field, it's pretty dreary and kills immersion for me.

 

I'm not knocking photo, I use it as well, or the V2 line - just pointing out what and where the limits are.

 

Scott

 

Exactly correct. We just keep creeping up on the real world look. FSX is so much better with our new scenery and addons than just a couple of years ago.

 

Ray

 

I just finished downloading Wisconsin from MCE v2.0. Took all night. I will install it and go looking for some cheeseheads. I hear it may be the best one released to date. One thing is for sure - it's big and has lots of airports and should look just like the real thing seeing how it is the real thing.

 

Is that where the Green Bay fans reside?

 

Ray

[tttocs 301]

One thing is for sure - it's big and has lots of airports and should look just like the real thing seeing how it is the real thing.

 

Is that where the Green Bay fans reside?

 

Well, it'll look like the real thing in summer anyway. :-)

 

And those pesky Green Bay fans hide EVERYWHERE!

 

I'm thinking about getting both IL and WI, each for specific purposes. In IL, I'd add the Cities Chicago package and Midway as I was born in the city and spent my childhood years (I hesitate to say I grew up) about 10 miles west of Midway so I've been jonesing for a decent solution for that area. For WI, I expect there's enough scenery detail in FSX around KOSH to make the annual summer trip there look good as well.

 

Scott

[raymar 969]

I guess if I got to choose the season and it could only be one season it would be Spring or Summer and that is when you will find almost all photo scenery. I grew up flying in Florida and we only had Winter every 3rd year and Fall or Autumn was on a Thursday so I don't miss the other seasons.

 

I do like to see the fall colors when flying in Orbx though but I still mostly select Spring or Summer even when I have seasonal choices.

 

I think I will be looking to match up some upgraded cites/airports to go with the new MegaScenery v2.0. The airliner type airport upgrades don't do much for me but I still have most of them somewhere on the hard drive. I do like the US Cites approach and hope they keep expanding the offerings.

 

I really like the Miami City X where they give us a larger improved area than just inside the airport fence. I haven't heard any rumors about their next US city, if any. Maybe we should start one.

 

Ray

[tttocs 301]

I do like to see the fall colors when flying in Orbx though but I still mostly select Spring or Summer even when I have seasonal choices.

 

I enjoy spring and fall the most in Orbx NA country in large part because they do such a good job with the snow transitions in the high country as the seasons progress. I don't miss that so much with SW photoscenery for exactly the reasons you talk about in Florida. While there are seasons in the SW US and even snow, particularly in the high terrain, it's easier to forgive and just fly on. In places like IL and WI, I doubt I'd care that much either, but only because I'd prefer to fly there spring/summer anyway.

 

BTW, as a strictly GA flyer I bought and like KLAS simply because it has good GA facilities. Other than Orbx, no one seems to do GA airports, making choices for photoreal add-ons tough.

 

Hey, I like the idea of starting rumours about the next CitiesX. How 'bout Salt Lake? I'd love to have something that fills in the intermountain west a bit.

 

Scott

[raymar 969]

I enjoy spring and fall the most in Orbx NA country in large part because they do such a good job with the snow transitions in the high country as the seasons progress. I don't miss that so much with SW photoscenery for exactly the reasons you talk about in Florida. While there are seasons in the SW US and even snow, particularly in the high terrain, it's easier to forgive and just fly on. In places like IL and WI, I doubt I'd care that much either, but only because I'd prefer to fly there spring/summer anyway.

 

BTW, as a strictly GA flyer I bought and like KLAS simply because it has good GA facilities. Other than Orbx, no one seems to do GA airports, making choices for photoreal add-ons tough.

 

Hey, I like the idea of starting rumours about the next CitiesX. How 'bout Salt Lake? I'd love to have something that fills in the intermountain west a bit.

 

Scott

 

 

Actually, I heard that Salt Lake was close to release then Orlando or Tampa.

 

Ray

[tttocs 301]

Actually, I heard that Salt Lake was close to release then Orlando or Tampa.

 

Works for me! :-)

 

Scott