Happily admitting that the source is twice as bad as other one's (it was not mentioned on the product page? maybe it was?) is not making me happy.

 

 

Peppy... I was just trying to get the plain and simple truth out there, that some states are better than others due to some states not having as high a quality of source imagery available. This is a factor we do not have control over unfortunately. I am trying not to sugar coat anything, but to give the plain, honest truth.

 

Can you confirm if you have made ALL the changes to your graphics card settings as outlined in the MSE tweaking guide I posted on this thread earlier?

 

Can you confirm if you have made ALL the changes to your graphics card settings as outlined in the MSE tweaking guide I posted on this thread earlier?

 

Yes I have

 

disreguard ,as I am not using the scenery anymore.

Was just checking it out to see if I preferred it.

I prefer UTX/GEX mostly because of the autogen.... not the textures...

For Peppy197: "There are also artifacts in the pic here, so maybe there is something else I did wrong? Or can someone tell me they are getting the same/better?"

 

Make sure UTX is moved down in your Scenery Library. It looks like UTX has trumped some of MSE's images. Photoscenery should not have UTX artifacts in the scenery.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

I'll use Jim's comment to follow-up the issue. I believe (?, since it wasn't noted) but once you get past day time within FSX and approach dusk/night the rendering of textures for that time period will start to go back to default or add on textures. Dusk and Dawn are not an instantly on effect, it is gradually rendering in the game. That's why the screen shot shows melding of dual texture types.

Thanks Peppy I was thinking of buying mass but not after that sceenshot

 

Mass looks nothing like it does in Peppy's screenshot!... Really! .... it's superb. If I get a minute I'll link you some screenshots (or in the interest of a possible purchase, maybe the dev can do that? :wink:).

If I was to buy any of the V2 titles which is the most interesting. I have most of the older stuff and was wondering how they compare. Josh

Only had a 20 minute window this evening, and a friend wanted me to check out something in 'Jersey, so sorry no 'Mass video yet, but here's 25 seconds of MSE 2.0 New Jersey; showing some good pseudo-3D effects from the trees. :smile:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/399442-a-25-second-video-glance-at-just-how-3d-without-autogen-mse-20-can-look-nj/#entry2593346

If I was to buy any of the V2 titles which is the most interesting. I have most of the older stuff and was wondering how they compare. Josh

 

I posted some MSE v2.0 and v1.0 earlier in this thread http://forum.avsim.net/topic/398776-megascenery-earth-v2-cost/page__st__75#entry2591448

I posted some MSE v2.0 and v1.0 earlier in this thread http://forum.avsim.n...75#entry2591448

 

It's a little hard to tell, since the topography of the area is so different, but I think of those shots, the V1 shots look better than the V2's

 

 

It's a little hard to tell, since the topography of the area is so different, but I think of those shots, the V1 shots look better than the V2's

 

Seems it's a bit of a mixed bag... Usually a v2 is better but with MSE it seems v2 is mainly different... All in all the big variety in quality made me decide to not go this way...

I thought San Francisco in Megascenery earth was to washed out for me to enjoy. Also have they fixed the airports so they line up with the scenery. In California there are quite allot of airports that arent. Josh

Also have they fixed the airports so they line up with the scenery

 

If you have a specific airport(s) in mind, I can check it/them out.

 

the V1 shots look better than the V2's

 

Hard to say because of the topography ... I'll admit, I know nothing about East coast ... from the V2 it looks very flat (and I have terrain elevation map maxed at 100). I have only experienced California, Oregon, Washington, Las Vegas real world and we seem to have a lot more mountains and variations in landscape out here on the West coast.

Seems it's a bit of a mixed bag... Usually a v2 is better but with MSE it seems v2 is mainly different... All in all the big variety in quality made me decide to not go this way...

 

In the end, from the air the quality of any photo scenery is going to be more dependant on the quality of source material than anything else, brand or version notwithstanding, and there will be variability within the brand. The v1 stuff itself was a mixed bag. Some of the v1 Colorado tiles I have are excellent, some are good with a few cloud issues, and some are horrible with huge blurred sections.

 

One of the ways photo scenery developers CAN distinguish themselves is in correcting any airport alignment or bleed-through issues. Again, going back to v1, my Colorado tiles range from OK to awful in this regard - some airports OK, some with a few disruptions and some unuseable. Most have at least a few problems. This is an area I've yet to hear reports on for V2.

 

Blue Sky, BTW, do a very good job of correcting big airport issues, as did the MegasceneryX products I have.

 

Scott

Ther are no corrections to the airports with regards to alignment in MSE v2.0. Some line up perfectly, others a little off, a few more are more misaligned. Consider that for the states released so far, the number of airports that would need to be corrected (or at least checked) would now run into the tens of thousands. It is possible to correct these, but it is not possible to correct these and release the state sceneries at a reasonable pace that did not span the next 5+ years. Aligning airports takes a bit of time, and a LOT of time if you have to do each and every one. From a commercial point of view, it is something that is difficult to justify on a time vs cost (consumer) platform. Like any scenery, there are always compromises that need to be made... This just happens to be one for MSE 2.0.

Whether or not this compromise matters will decide whether you want to buy the scenery or not.

 

Blue Sky may fix these, but they do not have anywhere near as much coverage area available. This is one of their compromises. Our goal is to try and get all of the USA covered in the new MSE 2.0 project so everyone in the USA has at least the opportunity to try photoreal scenery in their own back yards. Whether they want to take that opportunity or not is totally an individual consumer's decision. We want to make this opportunity available sooner rather than later, hence the rapid release schedule we are currently employing.

 

Hope that explains a few things

Only had a 20 minute window this evening, and a friend wanted me to check out something in 'Jersey, so sorry no 'Mass video yet, but here's 25 seconds of MSE 2.0 New Jersey; showing some good pseudo-3D effects from the trees. :smile:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...j/#entry2593346

 

Hi Helen,

 

I watched your video and read your comments. I've had a long profesional flying experience and I fully agree with you, photoscenery does look like the real thing and the 3D rendition is amazing as shown in your video. By the way did you know that you can currently buy the entire US in sectional charts for only 30 $ (US sectional charts, eastern and western editions)? It is really useful for realistic VFR flying such as you do (and as I do). Happy flying.

MSEv2 worth long term investment to me because I can build scenery and add buildings, and go places can't get because of fuel costs. Cost around 1500 go coast to coast in a car the days of cheap fuel are done. Bye all West of Mississippi love the Dakotas and Texas as transition to more arid land and the high plains to foothills of the Rockies. Some will come around to photoscenery when they realize those super airport costs thousands in upgrades to enjoy. Autogen on scenery think above 1500 ft do not notice it much. Fixing runways users will do that anyways,