Megascenery Earth v2 cost

[Gaiiden 98]

I need to speak up about the textures MSE are sourcing for this product. Namely, I think it's a big mistake to tout them as being recent 2012 imagery in some products, like the newly-minted update for the NJ scenery. Who cares how recent they are? Yes, changes are made over time to what's down there on the ground but all the major features a pilot needs to navigate by (roadways, waterways, water bodies) do not change in any major way. Therefore terrain imagery from the past decade is just as good a resource to use as imagery from the past year. What you guys should really be doing is looking through ALL past imagery for that which has the best quality. By only sourcing 2012 imagery you are severely limiting the options you have in creating photo textures that are balanced in color and provide good contrast to ground features.

 

I support my argument with the following comparisons around a few of my NJ airports. I work my way from the very top of NJ down towards the southern end. All images are in the order of the older v1 product then the newer v2.1 product with the 2012 imagery. Note how little the ground actually changes in terms of the features you would navigate by, then note how horrible some of the 2012 textures are compared to the v1 version and also how slightly improved some of the 2012 textures are to the v1 version (in my opinion):

 

4N1 Greenwood Lake

 

 

Just a few miles south of the NJ/NY border. You can see the blend into NY v2 textures on the right but don't knock it too much compared to v1 - the v1 textures on the left were back when this part of NJ/NY was a combined product so that helped make the state line transition seamless in that case.

 

N07 Lincoln Park

 

 

The airport has some new hangars, but that's about all the change you can notice without really looking closely. And when you're a few thousand feet up why would you? The textures continue to remain extremely washed-out so much that contrast is almost nil

 

KBLM Monmouth Executive

 

 

We've now reached central NJ and the colors/contrast are starting to balance out a bit more. It's very subjective here, I would think, on which one is better. Personally I think the V1 textures are slightly better, more vibrant even if some of the more reflective ground areas are a bit lacking in contrast.

 

N81 Hammond Municipal

 

 

We're down in southern NJ now and I've always hated the v1 textures down here, being very washed out compared to the northern NJ ones (these southern NJ textures were a separate product at the time being included in the NJ/DE package). The v2.1 textures bring a much better color balance and are also better with the contrast. There are no hard lines visible between textures tiles either in the v2.1 version, which is nice

 

KMIV Millville Municipal

 

 

we're farther south and to the west now and it's a bit off a toss-up here again like KBLM. This time I'm going to have to give the V2.1 textures the edge for better overall color balance, although that lighter color band up top-right of the airport is a bit off-putting

 

1N4 Woodbine Municipal

 

 

We are now just north of Cape May, the lowest tip of NJ, and again the V2.1 textures come out on top with much less glare on the areas of the ground good at reflecting sunlight like that strip mine on the right edge of the images. This provides better contrast for the ground features, as you can see by looking at the field in the middle of the airport.

 

So the point I'm trying to make here is that the date of the imagery means squat to us as simmers. Since you guys don't have 3D objects in your scenery who cares if that building that's there now isn't there 5 years ago in the imagery you used? The major highway next to it I will be using to follow to my next VFR landmark will be.

 

I'm sure a texture refresh for NJ won't come around again for a while, if ever, so I'll be switching back and forth between v1 and v2.1 textures depending on where I fly. But hopefully this is a change that can be made for future states to improve the texture quality because, to be honest, those areas of northern Jersey I showed are just straight up bland compared to v1. Lincoln Park was the first location I loaded upon installing V2.1 and I nearly mashed my head against the desk screaming #####. Then I started looking across the rest of NJ and realized the real problem a bit better when I noticed that south Jersey actually looked a bit better than the old textures.

 

It's hard to knock a product that is so dependent on the quality of something that is completely out of it's control - MSE doesn't go out and take the source images, they buy them from the companies that do. So it's not their fault if the quality sucks. But I can't help thinking there's better stuff out there and the only reason the product got stuck with a mix of all these fugly/ok/decent/nice textures is because they wanted to use "recent imagery" as a selling point. I do stand by to be corrected, however.

[Guest]

I think it's a big mistake to tout them as being recent 2012 imagery in some products, like the newly-minted update for the NJ scenery.

 

Yes, you would expect a version 2 to be better. Not worse. I am sure in some parts it will be better but I agree that the quality is of far more importance than the the date of the textures. BTW I didn't know they were actually using 2012 textures...?

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Could color match and among other things, but in the end think Gaiiden has a good point if you use Ariel photos from the couple years ago would most cases work fine. Always more for improvement, do not need 2012 textures for everything, and not like your gonna use Ariel images from 1950. Cant complain they have Ariel images far better than what Google had in 2005. Think as time goes improvements and refinemnets will be made. Like the product overall even with its flaws.

[Gaiiden 98]

BTW I didn't know they were actually using 2012 textures...?

 

http://www.megascene...hp?page=updates

 

"Complete new version (2.1) with the latest 50 cm 2012 imagery"

[BimmerCop 332]

I purchased Delaware just so I could see what is the quality of these sceneries and it will not install correctly. I installed it to the default directory as per the installer and at the end of the install process, I get an error saying it couldn't find the scenery config.exe file. What I did notice is that it's referencing a G:/ drive, which I don't even have.

 

I tried to manually add the scenery via FSX but it will not either. After further inspection, the Delaware scenery folder only has a scenery folder but no texture folder. I don't know if this is an issue as well.

 

Any ideas?

[Guest]

http://www.megascene...hp?page=updates

 

"Complete new version (2.1) with the latest 50 cm 2012 imagery"

 

Ah, ok. Well, that shows newer isn't always better.

 

After further inspection, the Delaware scenery folder only has a scenery folder but no texture folder. I don't know if this is an issue as well.

 

That doesn't have to be a problem. I downloaded some 40 Blue Sky Scenery zips and none had Texture folders in them. I don't think you need those folders for photoreal.

[Jim Young 2,356]

I tried to manually add the scenery via FSX but it will not either. After further inspection, the Delaware scenery folder only has a scenery folder but no texture folder. I don't know if this is an issue as well.

 

The installer will try to install it in your default FSX directory but you can redirect it to another drive, say, E:\Delaware. It has no textures. This is photoscenery. Once the installation is complete, then you will need to go into your Scenery Library and add it.

 

Best regards,

Jim

[PCAviator 37]

If you cant add it in FSX, and are using Windows 7/8, then you are probably just coming up against the scenery library addition bug that occurs with Win 7/8 - Have a look at this tutorial on what you need to do to fix that:

[Tony P 160]

Before anyone gets too excited about North and South Carolina - check out this screenshot. MSE says they can work on this at some point but can't give me a time frame. Your looking at North and South Carolina 2.0 MSE. Interesting eh ?

 

Resized = sorry

 

 

Edited February 13, 2013 by golfcart22
Image removed. Exceeds 1600W and far exceeds 400KB weight limits. Please repost with proper size. Thanks.

[B42L8 0]

A quick question before I jump at another scenery, how compatible is this with the latest versions of GEX and Ult Terrain x?? Just bput a region so I got the v 1.099 and have to say they are very realistic for the GA flyer...........appreciate your comments

[Tony P 160]

A quick question before I jump at another scenery, how compatible is this with the latest versions of GEX and Ult Terrain x?? Just bput a region so I got the v 1.099 and have to say they are very realistic for the GA flyer...........appreciate your comments

 

You will see photo-scenery wherever you buy it and GEX and UTX everywhere else so yes - they are compatible but you wont be seeing them in the same place of course.

[BimmerCop 332]

If you cant add it in FSX, and are using Windows 7/8, then you are probably just coming up against the scenery library addition bug that occurs with Win 7/8 - Have a look at this tutorial on what you need to do to fix that:

 

Yup, that did the trick, thanks!

 

Now, after seeing Delaware in action, I must say that for MY purposes and what I use my simulator for, I will be sticking with TileProxy. I get the same degree of sharpness and details with TP as I would get with MSE. TP's water masking capabilities works great and all major bodies of water are properly masked. What helps me is the fact that my system is very capable and I am able to use TP at 60cm resolutions without a hitch.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

All take photo-scenery over GEX 1.099 or 1.096 myself, and over 1500 agl photo scenery beats what GEX got. I fly low and slow, so photo-real that is well done is better than GEX anyday. Easy to turn the photo-scenery off if you want to fly in certain seasons or weather conditions.

[Jim Young 2,356]

Photoscenery is not for everyone. That's for sure! I appreciate the fact PCAviator has updated two sceneries to V2.1, Maryland and New Jersey, and they are being responsive here in this forum to our questions. Quick fixes as they happen are always appreciated.

 

Best regards,

Jim

[PCAviator 37]

Yup, that did the trick, thanks!

 

Now, after seeing Delaware in action, I must say that for MY purposes and what I use my simulator for, I will be sticking with TileProxy. I get the same degree of sharpness and details with TP as I would get with MSE. TP's water masking capabilities works great and all major bodies of water are properly masked. What helps me is the fact that my system is very capable and I am able to use TP at 60cm resolutions without a hitch.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

No problem. The choice is always yours, of course