I appreciate all the comments, BUT, my concern is that I have the two programs now, so can I install Mega and not have to delete what I have or does it work together?? I would guess that others have the same concern as I...........would be nice if the developers would tell how these program interrelate, and how they differ, if they do, so we know how to compare or install...........like how they are set up in the Scenery Library for instance........B42L8

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.

 

Interesting comparison ... I don't have V1, but I did just use KBLM comparing the V2.0 (on the left) and the V2.1 (on the right) -- think I'll stick with the V2.0. But Kudos to MSE for providing a free update and options to their customers.

 

I appreciate all the comments, BUT, my concern is that I have the two programs now, so can I install Mega and not have to delete what I have or does it work together?? I would guess that others have the same concern as I...........would be nice if the developers would tell how these program interrelate, and how they differ, if they do, so we know how to compare or install...........like how they are set up in the Scenery Library for instance........B42L8

I appreciate all the comments, BUT, my concern is that I have the two programs now, so can I install Mega and not have to delete what I have or does it work together?? I would guess that others have the same concern as I...........would be nice if the developers would tell how these program interrelate, and how they differ, if they do, so we know how to compare or install...........like how they are set up in the Scenery Library for instance........B42L8

 

Golfcart22 pretty much answered this in a post above

I agree and if someone could develop an app with a simple to use GUI, allowing one to be able to quickly and efficiently annotate areas for autogen scenery, that would be golden!

 

Have you tried Instant Scenery or Instant Object Studio from Flight1? I use them and they work fairly well. Here's a thread where I am creating scenery for Paso Robles, CA on Blue Sky.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/396162-instant-studio-20/

 

The scenery is pretty hard to distinguish until you're down low (which is good!). Everything on the images there is stock...it's already available in FSX...I just placed it with Instant Scenery. I'm now working with Instant Object Studio to create new custom objects...wineries...terminals...stuff like that. It's a nice 'hobby on the side' at the end of a long day when I don't have the gumption to go fly.

 

Gregg

I too would recommend Instant Scenery, used it to place vegetation and buildings for my last project, photoreal Malta for FSX.

 

Very easy to use and efficient tool. Planning to learn using Instant Object Studio next summer when I hopefully have some time at some point.

I agree and if someone could develop an app with a simple to use GUI, allowing one to be able to quickly and efficiently annotate areas for autogen scenery, that would be golden!

 

I've been wondering for a few months now whether FranceVFR plans to license out their 3D Automation tech to other developers. That would be pretty sweet I think. The only thing missing then from most photoreal would be seasons

I've been wondering for a few months now whether FranceVFR plans to license out their 3D Automation tech to other developers. That would be pretty sweet I think. The only thing missing then from most photoreal would be seasons

 

It would be interesting to see this on a large scale... I know FranceVFR have screenshots showing it etc, but I still seem to think that if you autogen everything, you are essentially covering up a lot of the unique ground textures that make the landscape unique in the first place... The only way you could do it is if you have many hundreds of thousands of tree, building, object models etc that were all different and placed by hand to mimic as close as possible, what is really there in the scenery. I still think with large photoreal areas, the more practical way to go is to work at enhancing the immediate airports and surrounds with 3D objects. For everything else, let the natural stunning and unique land textures (and their details) shine through without obstruction... Just 2c worth

 

I am sure it will continue on regardless... there is some good conversation going on and some great feedback too by all... Let it roll on!

Edited February 14, 201313 yr by firehawk44
Removed BimmerCop Quote

I think it goes a little like this, complete 1 season photo real of the entire world is about 250TB ... 4 season = 1 PT (petabyte = 1000 Terabytes). Add autogen scenery for the world so another 1.5 PT ... so we're at about 2.5 PT (2500 TB or 250,000 GB). ... now bump that up from 1m to a true 50cm and you'll probably be around 5 PT or 500,000 GB ... who know's maybe desktop computers will reach this capacity before I die.

who know's maybe desktop computers will reach this capacity before I die

 

Well, surely not before I die, I am afraid... :blink:

 

In the end I don't think photoreal with autogen is what we are after. It's not the 'final solution'. We need a technology that can 'simply' recreate the world in 3D. Google maps but then 3D out of the box. When you look at the photoreal sceneries that have autogen on it (like the two VFR France regions which are, afaik, top of the bill right now) it realy looks awful... That autogen sticks out way too much. The same goes for Orbx addon airports, really...

 

What we really need is real time images from connected satellites that recreate the world as it is in 3D. Real time. Online. B)

 

Autogen is nice but a real old tech solution... We have to think out of the box and forget about landclass and mesh and how FSX is build up. That will never give is REALITY on our PC's. Maybe the first step is to forget about having the entire world on our desktop.

 

Or take Bing's Brid's eye view where you can view some places from 4 different sides: shouldn't it be possible to use information like that to render the scenery in a flight sim? Sill nog perfect but at least you won't be stuck with ONE angle as you are now with Photoreal.

Have you tried Instant Scenery or Instant Object Studio from Flight1? I use them and they work fairly well. Here's a thread where I am creating scenery for Paso Robles, CA on Blue Sky.

 

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

 

The scenery is pretty hard to distinguish until you're down low (which is good!). Everything on the images there is stock...it's already available in FSX...I just placed it with Instant Scenery. I'm now working with Instant Object Studio to create new custom objects...wineries...terminals...stuff like that. It's a nice 'hobby on the side' at the end of a long day when I don't have the gumption to go fly.

 

Gregg

 

Good your sticking with instant object studio like it easier to texture than other programs. Got instant studio myself, but went back to goggle sketch-up and zmod as my habits of building is based on thinking 20 steps ahead making a object. Like your building objects for airports.

Or take Bing's Brid's eye view where you can view some places from 4 different sides: shouldn't it be possible to use information like that to render the scenery in a flight sim? Sill nog perfect but at least you won't be stuck with ONE angle as you are now with Photoreal.

 

Or take Bing's Brid's eye view where you can view some places from 4 different sides: shouldn't it be possible to use information like that to render the scenery in a flight sim? Sill nog perfect but at least you won't be stuck with ONE angle as you are now with Photoreal.

 

Think that how buildings will built in a couple years as programs will know where the texture go etc. Goal is real world in 3rd of course, its just the approach one takes.,

Interesting comparison ... I don't have V1, but I did just use KBLM comparing the V2.0 (on the left) and the V2.1 (on the right) -- think I'll stick with the V2.0. But Kudos to MSE for providing a free update and options to their customers.

 

I'm not too excited with V2.1 either and thought I was the only one who did not see an "upgrade" in the photoscenery. The resolution does not appear to be as good as in V2 over Maryland. In V2 I could see my son's house; V2.1, I cannot. Tried adjusting the sliders but I am disappointed. Unfortunately I deleted V2 when 2.1 was released.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

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.

 

Well stated! Totally agree. I think photoscenery over some of the blah States, like Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, Kanas, etc., will be much better scenery to look down at than the GEX textures and provide more of a sense of realism.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Jim,

 

Do you have rough co-ords for the location, or the city/area? I can check if I am also seeing a resolution decrease between 2.0 and 2.1 in that area.

In the end I don't think photoreal with autogen is what we are after. It's not the 'final solution'. We need a technology that can 'simply' recreate the world in 3D. Google maps but then 3D out of the box. When you look at the photoreal sceneries that have autogen on it (like the two VFR France regions which are, afaik, top of the bill right now) it realy looks awful... That autogen sticks out way too much. The same goes for Orbx addon airports, really...

 

I certainly agree that autogen as we currently know it isn't what we want in any long term sense. That said, while I've never used VFR France, I still prefer the workaround of autogen to pure photo in some areas. For example, even though the base photo stuff seems about the same, I use MegaSceneryX SoCal rather than Blue Sky in SoCal, because without X's autogen, the LA Basin just looks so wrong at lower altitudes. It needs some 3D relief. The Cities LA product helps even more, with matching scenery objects, but doesn't have enough breadth to completely solve the problem.

 

As for Orbx airports (or any detailed airport in general)I utterly disagree. One of the unsung benefits that Orbx regions bring is their upgrade of virtually all airports within each region, and their payware airports are the polish that complete the immersion process for me and take it to the next level. I spend more time in Orbx territory than I do in my photo areas in large part BECAUSE I have so many good airports at each end that FEEL REAL. I would fly far more in photo if I had Orbx level GA airports and airport surroundings in these areas.

 

BTW, on this topic I wanted to give a shout out to the new KSEZ (Sedona Arizona) release from Tony Meredith. It's designed to work with Blue Sky and is a wonderful effort on his part. For those not familiar with the area, KSEZ sits atop a redrock mesa on the edge of Sedona and can have some very tricky winds on final. Available here on AVsim in the Library. I've made flights the last two nights to and from KSEZ-KLAS in the Milviz Baron and Cessna 337, and flew from KSEZ to KSNA last night in the Turbine Duke. Great stuff! Congrats and many thanks to Tony for making this available - we need many more of these for photo scenery!

 

Scott

Well, surely not before I die, I am afraid... :blink:

 

In the end I don't think photoreal with autogen is what we are after. It's not the 'final solution'. We need a technology that can 'simply' recreate the world in 3D. Google maps but then 3D out of the box. When you look at the photoreal sceneries that have autogen on it (like the two VFR France regions which are, afaik, top of the bill right now) it realy looks awful... That autogen sticks out way too much. The same goes for Orbx addon airports, really...

 

What we really need is real time images from connected satellites that recreate the world as it is in 3D. Real time. Online. B)

 

Autogen is nice but a real old tech solution... We have to think out of the box and forget about landclass and mesh and how FSX is build up. That will never give is REALITY on our PC's. Maybe the first step is to forget about having the entire world on our desktop.

 

Or take Bing's Brid's eye view where you can view some places from 4 different sides: shouldn't it be possible to use information like that to render the scenery in a flight sim? Sill nog perfect but at least you won't be stuck with ONE angle as you are now with Photoreal.

 

I find I am agreeing with you on this one What you explain is indeed what we really need, but of course, that isnt possible in FSX at the present time, so we have to deal with what we currently can use. Hopefully something along the lines of what you describes becomes available sooner rather than later!

I think it goes a little like this, complete 1 season photo real of the entire world is about 250TB ... 4 season = 1 PT (petabyte = 1000 Terabytes). Add autogen scenery for the world so another 1.5 PT ... so we're at about 2.5 PT (2500 TB or 250,000 GB). ... now bump that up from 1m to a true 50cm and you'll probably be around 5 PT or 500,000 GB ... who know's maybe desktop computers will reach this capacity before I die.

 

I think if you half the resolution (say from 1m to 50cm) it actually quadruples the filesize! So maybe 10 PT

This is where quantum computing comes in to save the day (perhaps)...