GEX and MSE compare video

[Guest]

I put together a couple of quickie videos comparing GEX and MSE in New York ... I'm not trying to start a debate of which is better because everyone will have their own preference.

 

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a codec that will work at 2560 x 1600 with YouTube so I had to downgrade to 1080p (1920 x 1080) ... I'm still working on getting that sorted. I used Fraps to record these clips so I lost a few fps. But I think these are good enough quality (not great) to see the differences between GEX and MSE ... tried to keep it around 1500 feet, obviously MSE looks better at 4000+ feet.

 

Using DX10 in both cases.

 

Here they are: (be sure to switch to HD and full screen).

 

GEX

 

 

MSE

 

[Guest]

For a better comparison you might set the season to summer: the GEX video shows winter, if I am not mistaken, while the MSE video shows summer (obviously, because it only has one season).

But er... why compare two products that do totally different things...? GEX replaces the generic default FSX groundtextures with other generic groundtextures while MSE adds photoreal scenery... A more logical comparison would be two photoreal sceneries or GEX versus an Orbx-region...?

[tf51d 284]

A more logical comparison would be two photoreal sceneries or GEX versus an Orbx-region...?

 

I agree, about using the same season for comparison, with a note the MSE doesn't support the others. I disagree about comparing photoreal vs photoreal or GEX vs Orbx., Simply because the comparison is of New York scenery options, and Orbx doesn't have a NY product currently available. It's totally different topography, so it would be comparing apples to oranges. Maybe when Orbx Global is released that would be fair, but not now.

[Guest]

For a better comparison you might set the season to summer: the GEX video shows winter, if I am not mistaken, while the MSE video shows summer (obviously, because it only has one season).

But er... why compare two products that do totally different things...? GEX replaces the generic default FSX groundtextures with other generic groundtextures while MSE adds photoreal scenery... A more logical comparison would be two photoreal sceneries or GEX versus an Orbx-region...?

 

I setup the season to winter for the GEX session to show it works in Winter and MSE has no winter. Comparing the experience of flying the same area with two different products at close to the same altitude and I see no reason why this comparison can't be made or is somehow deemed "invalid"? Be it GEX, Orbx, MSE, or others, these product present an experience. I'll post another video later of the same (ish) route in XP10. But again, I'm not trying to make anything "look good" or "look bad" or bias the video in favor of one product or the other. I've seen plenty of videos and screenshots that look great, but have been carefully hand crafted to provide the best possible experience (some people going as far as adjust the recorded footage via post production process in Adobe Premiere Pro and/or other video editings software) ... these videos I made are NOT those types of videos. These are basic fly and record videos (not running specific altitude, no special view angle, no special tuning my FSX.CFG to work for that specific scenario, etc. etc.

 

Only presenting the visual experience over the same area using two different 3rd party products.

 

NOTE: I have modified my FSX.CFG and ran the DX10 patch, but my FSX.CFG is NOT "adjusted" for a specific 3rd party product to make it look better or worse.

[JiBrady 20]

For the best view, or look, for MSE , you need to be at about 3500 alt. The demo video is taken at too low of an alt for best look of scenery.

Jim

[Guest]

For the best view, or look, for MSE , you need to be at about 3500 alt. The demo video is taken at too low of an alt for best look of scenery.

Jim

 

Agree.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Gex does good in some places, and MSE 2.0 fly in rural IN, OH, MI, WI it's a lot better than gex. It's can get blurry in big cities like Chicago, Detriot. Find it most useful in rural areas. Rural areas is where MSE is the best. Find slower planes can go lower like 1500 agl to 2000 agl

[XPX64man 130]

I think you need to compare the look out in the rural areas. It's hard to tell looking through the autogen.

Gex does good in some places, and MSE 2.0 fly in rural IN, OH, MI, WI it's a lot better than gex. It's can get blurry in big cities like Chicago, Detriot. Find it most useful in rural areas. Rural areas is where MSE is the best. Find slower planes can go lower like 1500 agl to 2000 agl

 

You might check on MES website, they show some settings and adj to the cfg on getting rid of the blurries.

 

For the best view, or look, for MSE , you need to be at about 3500 alt. The demo video is taken at too low of an alt for best look of scenery.

Jim

 

This is true too.

[Guest]

Oddly, I prefer the MSE v1.0 scenery (California, Oregon, Washington) over the v2.0 scenery like New York. MSE V1.0 includes AGN files also which V2.0 does not. Especially a East depart out of KSEA works VERY well with MSE 1.0. Also not sure I like the gradient water in v2.0 -- it just doesn't match well when compared to the very real looking photo-scenery surrounding it.

 

But GEX does well in filling in the areas I don't have scenery for.

 

I do like both products, they have their pluses and minuses.

[Jim Young 2,356]

GEX replaces the default textures with better performing generic textures. MSE is photo scenery. There is no way to intelligently compare these products. It would be like comparing the default 737 with the PMDG 737NGX.

 

Best regards,

Jim

[Guest]

GEX replaces the default textures with better performing generic textures. MSE is photo scenery. There is no way to intelligently compare these products. It would be like comparing the default 737 with the PMDG 737NGX.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

Why not Jim? I don't understand your logic. GEX, MSE, or Default are all applications of textures to polygons in an attempt to improve the flight experience. IF the aim is to improve one's flight experience (and that is for the most part defined by the user/simmer) then this can be compared. Again, not trying to say one is better than the other, that's an individual's preference.

 

Just as the Default 737 CAN be compared to PMDG 737NGX. For "theorectical" example, suppose the Default 737 produces on average 30 fps on a end users PC, but the PMDG 737NGX produces on average 8 fps ... which is the better flight experience for that end user? Only the end user can decide that but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.

[simbio 56]

IHMO GEX/UTX si better on city area, so you will have more 3D feeling and dimension, instead of photoreal where in place like Arizona with good mesh it gives a real and natural sensetion.

It's so boring looking to roof on flat photoreal.

[tf51d 284]

GEX replaces the default textures with better performing generic textures. MSE is photo scenery. There is no way to intelligently compare these products. It would be like comparing the default 737 with the PMDG 737NGX.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

If the comparison is of the same area, like this one, then I think it is a fair comparison.

[kama2004 74]

The first things we do after purchasing photoscenery is to compare it against gex/utx to see which one provide the best experience. So the comparison is relevant.

 

For me photoreal mapped on mountain zone is where it shine most. If you're flying on a flat land and looking streaight ahead in VC, you dont see a big improvement as you look far ahead over the hood. Quite different from most photoscenery shots that are taken at high angle from over the airplane in outside view. If you dont like to fly from outside, you will rarely experience the best angle of vision to look at photo scenery.

 

 

 

 

[Rations 102]

GEX replaces the default textures with better performing generic textures. MSE is photo scenery. There is no way to intelligently compare these products. It would be like comparing the default 737 with the PMDG 737NGX.

I agree with the topic starter. At least from his original post, it seems as if his comparison is more of a . . . raw comparison, not an opinionated or persuasive commentary.

 

While I agree with you that the comparison involves two highly different products (and setting them against each other in a "competition" would not be appropriate or valid), neutrally comparing these two vastly different approaches to generic scenery enhancement would probably be of benefit to many potential buyers, through allowing them to form more-definite opinions as to whether they wish to pursue global consistency or regional photographic realism in FSX ground textures.