Megascenery Earth v2 cost

[PCAviator 37]

Certainly, any particular location?

 

 

No It shouldnt really matter, as it is all photoreal, and should give the same clarity into the distance no matter where you are.

[Guest]

No It shouldnt really matter, as it is all photoreal, and should give the same clarity into the distance no matter where you are.

 

How's this one from Vermont? Direct link (it's a wide one 5615 x 1207) here: http://robainscough....7fc7d6704f8.jpg

[Guest]

And few more some from MSE CA v1.0 and a couple from MSE Vermont (Jet canopy and haze):

Edited February 6, 2013 by firehawk44
Images removed. All exceeded 1600W and 400KB weight limits by a lot. Please repost within policy limits.

[PCAviator 37]

I shot this very short snippet of MegaScenery Earth today, during a flight I've flown in real life. The video is over Dover, DE.

 

Just thought it would be worth linking here, for anyone wondering what MegaScenery is all about. :smile:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...-over-dover-de/

 

Very nice Helen! Thanks for sharing it.

[Guest]

Oops sorry for the image limit post, I'll just provide links here:

 

Vermont 2.0

http://www.robainscough.com/images/adbc376fd7794477d142928c8a9dd05d.jpg

 

http://www.robainscough.com/images/6b997ae33c15fe7e5a1ab4c4786b06c0.jpg

 

California 1.0 (SF/Bay Area - my home town)

http://www.robainscough.com/images/1a98a1d91175b5b9814106a9ec63cf68.jpg

 

http://www.robainscough.com/images/f0f600d095361a6d60d3c398c9edd457.jpg

 

http://www.robainscough.com/images/70bcd13142bbda937e119d509055ab06.jpg

 

I just hate re-sizing and/or compression of images when trying to convey how it really looks in FSX. But I apologize for violating the size policy of this site.

 

Rob

[Jim Young 2,356]

Thanks Rob for the pictures. Really awesome in clarity. Sorry I had to remove your pictures earlier as we are trying to keep AVSIM a friendly place to visit. Some members don't have fast cable connections and it takes a while for large images to load.

 

Best regards,

Jim

[Guest]

Absolutely understand Jim, sorry again.

[BimmerCop 332]

I've seen 60cm get thrown around so I have to ask... Are the sceneries being displayed at 60cm or is the source used 60cm and downsampled to 1m resolution, which is what's being sold?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Anyone?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[regulate 18]

Hi there... We are working from East to West in the USA with the current MegaSceneryEarth 2.0 project so it will be a little while before we hit the western states, which will naturally be toward the end of the project. However, as a time frame, consider that since late last year, we have already released 23 states, so quite feasibly, we could have the rest of the USA done well within 2013 if we can progress at the same current rate of releases. I'm not going to put an exact or even approximate date on any of these as there are too many variables in the mix which would affect the outcome on a planned date, but as you can see, we are progressing with releases at a very fast rate at the moment!

 

Hi Jim! Looks good... Since I moved to 64-bit Win 7, I havent been able to produce an OOM error yet... I was getting them frequently on Windows 7 32-bit toward the end. Perhaps that plays a role in the issue?

 

My question for the developers is, besides adding water masking to the Sim Savy product, are they doing any color correction to make the different photos sources blend better? In many photo scenery products, it's very noticeable when the source imagery has marked differences in quality, color, and lighting. I realize you can only do so much with what you have as the source, I just would like to know if any effort is being made to improve the image. Also, for owners of Megaearth of certain states, any discount for 2.0 purchases?

 

As far as photoscenery goes, I don't think it's outrageous price wise, but it would be smart to make some price bundles of regions or give discounts for multiple purchases of areas to make the price point more attractive. Where it gets really expensive, and in my book and its a must for all photo scenery aficionados, is you have to have your photoscenery on SSD drives, especially if you own several large areas. With regular 7200 drives, you will soon be waiting for 10 + minutes for the scenery to load if you don't make the transition. It's the best thing I ever did, besides to switch to DX10 in FSX quite a while back, that has improved my enjoyment 10 fold.

 

I currently own the following:

 

California-A combination of Mega earth, Mega scenery So Cal, Vero for the SF Bay area (Mega did not have enough clarity in my book for that important region), and a little bit of FS Dreamscapes (it was not published for sale, got it through a connection) for some of Imperial and eastern San Diego County that somehow fails to get any coverage from any one, like it doesn't exist! Almost forgot, have some Blue Sky freeware (I make donations, you should too!) in there too, especially for the eastern Sierra Nevada and Mojave desert areas, their product is better than Mega earth due to lack of color correction by the Mega folks.

 

Oregon-I have the Mega earth western half of Oregon, which is very good. Too bad they only did half of the state.

 

Washington-I have the whole state of Washington in Mega earth, good product!

 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Nevada (the big mystery state, no one seems to have good color product for it, must be a secret)-I have bits and pieces of all those through Blue Sky donation ware, it's well done, and has water masking too! Some of is in 2M though vs 1M, not as high quality.

 

Utah-I have all of this state, done wonderfully by FSDreamscapes. Unfortunately, Dean is not selling this product anymore. All of the photo areas were finished, and have fantastic color matching (best I have seen) however it lacked water masking. Have used some of Blue Sky's water masking scenery of Lake Powell to at least of some there. Salt Lake desperately needs water masking.

 

Arizona-I have Megascenery Phoenix (good) and Megaearth Northern Arizona (not so good, poor dark earthtones).

 

Hawaii-Have all of the Islands except the Big Island, through Mega scenery, Lock On file freeware of Kauai, and payware of Maui and Molokai from Newport.

 

Massachusetts-Own through Megaearth.

 

If that data existed for the Big Island of Hawaii (too expensive or no good data due to cloud cover) or Alaska (same), they would be huge sellers. I would also like to see some good Idaho scenery to fill in the western states gaps.

 

Thanks for listening.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Thinking of getting Massachusetts how is it ? screenshots were not that impressive.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Midwest and Southern regions not bad. Savanna and Hilton Head awesome region the mansions I fly overhead wow in South Carolina and Georgia border. Think photoreal worth the cost to me. VFR flyer low and slow so limited resources take photoreal over big airports that chew up fps. Like how airports look but end up having pay thousands in computer upgrades to enjoy it. Photoreal ariel is middle of road compromise for good realism with mid range computer systems.

[PCAviator 37]

Anyone?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

I thought I had answered this earlier, but it obviously did not save... I had a long response typed out too :(

The quick answer is that it is 50cm/pixel source data for the majority of imagery. The imagery is adjusted to give the best clarity in FSX (resampled) so whatever the maximum resolution is in the sim, is what the sim displays it at. However, even if the FSX maximum is 1m/pixel, there is a marked difference in clarity still between 50cm/pixel and 1m/pixel imagery... So the FSX 1m/pixel thing is almost just a guide number that is not a constant in terms of actual visual quality seen. Better video cards now allow FSX to be run in much higher resolution, and the higher the resolution, the crisper and sharper the image (lots more pixels being packed into the same screen size).

 

Oops sorry for the image limit post, I'll just provide links here:

 

Vermont 2.0

http://www.robainsco...28c8a9dd05d.jpg

 

http://www.robainsco...4c4786b06c0.jpg

 

California 1.0 (SF/Bay Area - my home town)

http://www.robainsco...6a9ec63cf68.jpg

 

http://www.robainsco...398c9edd457.jpg

 

http://www.robainsco...d509055ab06.jpg

 

I just hate re-sizing and/or compression of images when trying to convey how it really looks in FSX. But I apologize for violating the size policy of this site.

 

Rob

 

Rob,

 

I missed seeing these earlier sorry... but yep, looks like you have the graphics settings tweaked nicely to get maximum clarity. Pretty stunning shots! Thanks for sharing them!

[BimmerCop 332]

 

I thought I had answered this earlier, but it obviously did not save... I had a long response typed out too :(

The quick answer is that it is 50cm/pixel source data for the majority of imagery. The imagery is adjusted to give the best clarity in FSX (resampled) so whatever the maximum resolution is in the sim, is what the sim displays it at. However, even if the FSX maximum is 1m/pixel, there is a marked difference in clarity still between 50cm/pixel and 1m/pixel imagery... So the FSX 1m/pixel thing is almost just a guide number that is not a constant in terms of actual visual quality seen. Better video cards now allow FSX to be run in much higher resolution, and the higher the resolution, the crisper and sharper the image (lots more pixels being packed into the same screen size).

 

Rob,

 

I missed seeing these earlier sorry... but yep, looks like you have the graphics settings tweaked nicely to get maximum clarity. Pretty stunning shots! Thanks for sharing them!

 

PCAviator, can you please clarify if these photoreal sceneries max resolution is 1m or 60cm?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[PCAviator 37]

PCAviator, can you please clarify if these photoreal sceneries max resolution is 1m or 60cm?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Its 50cm/pixel source imagery... As per above, it is hard to put an exact figure on what effective resolution that displays in FSX. A few years ago the maximum resolution in FSX was supposed to be 1m/pixel, but when better imagery came out, like 50cm and 30cm/pixel images, when this was resampled and added to FSX, the results showed much clearer and sharper textures than what was previously available at the 1m/pixel scale... I'm not an expert on that part of FSX, but the results certainly speak for themselves. It is easily seen in some MSE 2.0 states where there are parts with 1m/pixel SOURCE IMAGERY resolution set against a part with 50cm/pixel... Side by side the difference in noticeable. And of course, there are other airport scenery products out there claiming 2cm/pixel building textures... which would be pointless if the FSX limit was actually 1m/pixel... so that figure is just theoretical and has since been show to be just that in more recent years... Thats how I understand it anyway. Happy to be proven wrong by a higher authority with more knowledge than I

[Jim Robinson 122]

You can use any texture resolution you want on buildings and other objects, I've made several myself that work out to around .75cm/px, that's not connected in any way to resampled photoreal though.

 

I believe the max resolution for photoreal in FSX is 7cm, so 50cm is nowhere near what FSX is actually capable of. FS9ers would kill for 1m photoreal in the sim, but that would be pretty poor for FSX really - default landclass textures are better than that.

 

Jim