I've posted in the past about my love/hate relationship with photoscenery, particularly about the way things look approaching and departing airports.  In light of that, I also wanted to highlight the good side, when all the pieces come together.  I'd recently DL'ed Anthony Cacciatore's "Green Bay X HD" from the library and installed it for use with GEX/REX which is what I had for Wisconsin.  Last night, I added Megascenery V2 Wisconsin to go along with Illinois, and flew from KMDW up to Green Bay to see how things looked with the new photoscenery.  In a word?  Excellent!

 

According to the included pdf, Green Bay X has some 34,000 placements in an extended coverage area for the Green Bay airport and surrounding city, including Lambeau Field and it transitions beautifully on approach using MSE v2.  About the time things start going flat, all the trees and buildings in Green Bay come on in just the right way.  Between this, US Cities X Chicago, the two MSE Earth products and Fly Tampa KMDW, everything looked about perfect.  Ah, photoscenery.  When it's good, it's very, very good :-)

 

I expect this is a spring/summer only thing, as the Green Bay product has multi-seasons, and MSE v2 doesn't, but right now at this time of year, it's simply excellent.

 

If you have MSE v2 Wisconsin, be sure and pull this one from the library.  It's a freeware gem!

 

Scott

No matter how many times I look and think of buying, I always end up saying, "Man, everything is so dang flat."  Photoscenery is just not for me, especially when its $40 and I can get a whole new modern game for <$10.

Nice post Scott! I agree, when photoreal scenery is done right (more than just the one season base) and all the things come into play, it can be a great experience.

 

It's really to bad Aerosoft or megascenery don't want to invest the time into night textures and seasons, I would buy all their photoreal packs if they did, but they just cop out with the usual lame answer of costs vs time, which I am fully aware of since I do my own. I can always add my own autogen and 3D.

No matter how many times I look and think of buying, I always end up saying, "Man, everything is so dang flat." Photoscenery is just not for me, especially when its $40 and I can get a whole new modern game for <$10.

 

As noted, I'm acutely aware of photo's shortcomings, but the whole "flat" thing is only a last thousand feet or so issue, where the actual number depends on the quality of the imagery. Good airports at each end with scenery elements and well-placed autogen really help mitigate that issue, which is why I wanted to note how good this freeware is, and how well its extended area served to blend with MSE v2 and complete the experience.

 

Payware international airports are fairly abundant, but good regional airports like this are rare, which is also why I wanted to make note of it.

 

As for the MSE price thing - $10 for a modern game is a valid point of comparison for me if that's my alternative - but it's not. These are niche products that are always going to be pricier than broad-based games. The only valid question for me to ask is whether the price asked is worth it to me. I would also note that I don't think I've ever paid full list price for any MS product, and didn't pay anywhere close to $40 for Wisconsin. :-) Add in a great freeware airport that matches it well and I'm a happy guy. YMMV.

It's really to bad Aerosoft or megascenery don't want to invest the time into night textures and seasons,

 

I still hold out hope that they'll go back and do night textures. This was mentioned with the MSE v2 stuff was first introduced. Seasons? Probably not.

 

Scott

I've posted in the past about my love/hate relationship with photoscenery, particularly about the way things look approaching and departing airports.  In light of that, I also wanted to highlight the good side, when all the pieces come together.  I'd recently DL'ed Anthony Cacciatore's "Green Bay X HD" from the library and installed it for use with GEX/REX which is what I had for Wisconsin.  Last night, I added Megascenery V2 Wisconsin to go along with Illinois, and flew from KMDW up to Green Bay to see how things looked with the new photoscenery.  In a word?  Excellent!

 

According to the included pdf, Green Bay X has some 34,000 placements in an extended coverage area for the Green Bay airport and surrounding city, including Lambeau Field and it transitions beautifully on approach using MSE v2.  About the time things start going flat, all the trees and buildings in Green Bay come on in just the right way.  Between this, US Cities X Chicago, the two MSE Earth products and Fly Tampa KMDW, everything looked about perfect.  Ah, photoscenery.  When it's good, it's very, very good :-)

 

I expect this is a spring/summer only thing, as the Green Bay product has multi-seasons, and MSE v2 doesn't, but right now at this time of year, it's simply excellent.

 

If you have MSE v2 Wisconsin, be sure and pull this one from the library.  It's a freeware gem!

 

Scott

 

Any chance of any screenshots?

Unfortunately no, at least for now. 

 

I'm lousy at remembering to grab screenshots.  I get wrapped up in the moment and then remember afterwords - doh!  I should've grabbed that.

 

Scott

Guess we'll just have to use our imaginations, to appreciate how good it is...... :lol:

the whole "flat" thing is only a last thousand feet or so issue

 

I disagree. Even at for instance 4500 feet (my favorite GA altitude) you can see the difference between 3D scenery and flat photoreal. Maybe not above some rural area's but certainly above cities. Approaching a city, passing over it and looking back at it without seeing ANYTHING change down there (like you see changes with 3D scenery) looks totally odd and unrealistic. I have spend a few hours above Blue Sky Scenery, trying to like it (and I did to a certain extent), but this none-changing view really spoiled it for me. It's looks unreal.

No matter how many times I look and think of buying, I always end up saying, "Man, everything is so dang flat."  Photoscenery is just not for me, especially when its $40 and I can get a whole new modern game for <$10.

 

I used to say the same thing until I finally bit the bullet and bought MSE Minnesota and started doing VFR flying.  Now I want photoscenery for the rest of the U.S.  Give it a try, you just might like it.  Also, you can always disable the photoscenery at low altitude (leave it unchecked in your scenery library) before takeoff and then turn it on mid-flight.  Best of both worlds.  

I disagree. Even at for instance 4500 feet (my favorite GA altitude) you can see the difference between 3D scenery and flat photoreal. Maybe not above some rural area's but certainly above cities. Approaching a city, passing over it and looking back at it without seeing ANYTHING change down there (like you see changes with 3D scenery) looks totally odd and unrealistic. I have spend a few hours above Blue Sky Scenery, trying to like it (and I did to a certain extent), but this none-changing view really spoiled it for me. It's looks unreal.

 

That's what products like U.S. Cities X are for.  

I disagree. Even at for instance 4500 feet (my favorite GA altitude) you can see the difference between 3D scenery and flat photoreal. Maybe not above some rural area's but certainly above cities. Approaching a city, passing over it and looking back at it without seeing ANYTHING change down there (like you see changes with 3D scenery) looks totally odd and unrealistic. I have spend a few hours above Blue Sky Scenery, trying to like it (and I did to a certain extent), but this none-changing view really spoiled it for me. It's looks unreal.

Photoreal all comes down to what each of our own definitions is of real. For me, seeing what is actually there, actually in that spot on the planet is by far better than seeing some ballpark guess that some land class tile randomly put there just so I can see someone's fake 3d house that isn't really there standing there next to some 3d trees that may or may not be there in real life. Flat does suck, there's no way around that. I used to think I could never get passed that myself. But, now, I don't want to fly in any other "fake" area again - Orbx, Ultimate terrain/GEX, nothing. It's just not what I would see there in real life if I were actually flying over that spot.

 

And, yes, again I totally realize that even photo real could be inaccurate. Maybe a road has changed since the photo was taken or a new subdivision has popped up since the photo was taken. And, of course, it's not green in Wisconsin for 6 months out of the year. But, unfortunately, until someone takes the almost impossible amount of time to combine photo real with actual placement of actual 3d objects, all 4(or 5 seasons), this is the best that we have to chose from. You can either live with flat for "very, very" accurate representation of the ground you're flying over or you can't and would rather have your "real" defined as 3d objects - maybe in the right place, and maybe not - real instead is 3d for you.

Well, I can actually understand their costs vs. time.  I may not like it as a consumer but as a developer I undestand the costs and man-hours required for such a product and to make money from such a niche market.   The first versions, as you know, had the autogen and the night lighting which take a LOT of time.  They were hand placing the autogen.  No wonder the original developer had only very few regions done.  I remember them recruiting simmers to help create autogen.  You could earn free regions if you helped them out. 

 

And the night light appears to be an automatic process using road data to lay down road textures on top of the photoreal scenery and then "baked" together.  Hopefully, PCAviator still has the recipe for this and will live up to their promise of adding night as a free upgrade.  But that also means that each state will require twice as much hard disk space (example: 50gig for day textures - 50gig for nigh textures).  So you better have the hard drive space before you wish for night textures, ha!   I have 1 TB WD Velocerapters just for my photoreal stuff.

 

One thing I did not know before is that when you do have Dusk or Night selected, the default night textures do show through.  I thought I would be looking at totally dark, blank ground textures but that is not the case.  And that actually looks fairly good when your up at 5,000 feet and it's dark.  

 

About the autogen,  I am seeing autogen?  How and why I need to investigate where it is coming from.  I understand airports will have some buildings around them but I am talking about other areas.  I just took a look at Key West, Florida and it had night lighting AND was packed with autogen.  As far as I could see I had no other 3rd party addon installed. Mmmmm...

 

Hey, if some other developer had a product to add autogen to each state would simmers be interested in this? 

 

An issue I have noticed is the water masking appears sub-par in my book.  You can see the color bands in the water.  And here is what I see in Key West.  I wish the developers whould take another look at that.   Are others seeing this with their chosen states?

 

Some screenshots:

 

1. So here I am at Orlando Intl - all default.  So where are all those nice trees coming from?  That works nicely for me on the ground.  Not so flat.

 

2.  Note the watermask banding.  I think it could be done a bit better.  Are others seeing this with other states?

3.  Ok, now where is all this autogen coming from?  This is down at Key West.  Again no ther addons just MSE2.

4.  A shot of Miami at dusk.  The only addon is ExperienceX night lights (the light poles).  The default night textures do mix with MSE2 tiles which is actually not that bad at all.  I can live with that.  I think PC Aviator ought to stress more about this look in their marketing as you do not loose dusk and night flying altogether.

 

Yes, photoscenery can be a luv-hate relationship - I am right there.  But rather than continually fight it or debate it I want to enjoy it.  I just picked up Virginia as I used to live there years ago and I have New York which I have never installed.  I may pick up some western states like Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico when they come out.

 

SO I guess I am saying I am not as harsh on these guys as I first was when they came out with v2.  And if you add some other 3rd party enhancements it can all come together for some WoW moments. It's all fun for the hobby anyway and I commend them for actually working towards completing the entire US (well contigeous). 

 

Please do Alaska!!!!

 

Oh, and by the way, this is all in Prepar3D!

 

 

I disagree. Even at for instance 4500 feet (my favorite GA altitude) you can see the difference between 3D scenery and flat photoreal.

 

Not sure what you're disagreeing with Jeroen.  If you'll note the entire sentence, I agree that the actual height at which the 3D illusion kicks in is variable and depends on factors like the quality and resolution of the imagery used.  Indeed I've posted before that in many areas I need to be 3,000' or more, while in others, less.  BTW, I would also agree that cities are where the illusion is most difficult to maintain, have indicated my preference for, eg, Megascenery X SoCal and Megascenery X Las Vegas because they include autogen for LA and Las Vegas respectively in (probably too many) past postings.

 

For those saying you love photo - me too.  For those saying you hate it - me too!  I couldn't be much more ambivalent about something depending on the circumstances.  But read all of what I was commenting on in this post, especially my use of products at both ends which add the necessary 3D pieces as you get lower.  With these pieces in place, it was a very good experience from front to back.

 

Scott