Ah ok, FSX sure is a strange beast. I get just the opposite meaning Frisco is ok and LA is just a mess...

Compare those shoots with mine over downtown Las Vegas and youll see what I mean, Megascenry downtown looks very sparse and emty compared to Aerosofts Vegas. Lacks a lot of autogen and I guess the cool animations e.g the big water fountain bursting out water also isn't covered by Megascenery?

 

 

Well again, MSX doesn't really do anything with the strip, it depends on the default scenery objects.  If MSX and Cities LV are like other areas, they SHOULD actually complement each other.  That's how it is for me in LA and Chicago.  The question is the quality of those buildings compared to default Acceleration (and compatibility in the case of the scenery I already have and like).

 

Couple of things - first, yes those shots from the MSX site are an accurate reflection of the product.  There is autogen, but like the other MSX products, it's not intended to fully populate the photo buildings, it's intended to give a bit of a 3D impression down low.  It's sparse to non-existent near the borders, and gets fuller as you get close to the strip.  And finally, yes the animations - or at least the fountain effects - are there, as you can see it in one of its displays below.  As for "sparse", keep in mind that IRL, Las Vegas actually is quite sparse looking.

 

Your screenies are better than mine, but that's mostly my fault, not the scenery's I think.   :(    I admit that screen shots aren't my thing and I usually get done with  a flight and think - man that was good, wish I'd grabbed a screen or two. :-)

 

 

 

 

In any case, interesting discussion and if nothing else, you've opened my mind back up to potentially trying it to see if I could get it to all work together.  Maybe.  Possibly.

 

Scott

In any case, interesting discussion and if nothing else, you've opened my mind back up to potentially trying it to see if I could get it to all work together. Maybe. Possibly.

 

 

 

Scott

 

From what I can see in your screenshots I don't think the Aerosoft US cities Las Vegas buildings looks any worse than default buildings. And Us cities sure is a lot more detailed and have a lot more autogen in the scenery and I think it's a far better rendition of Las Vegas than what I see in your screens and on MSX's website. Personally I think MSX looks to empty and "flat" compared. I cant say much wether its compitable with Megascenery or not, only that I now that it's compitable with UTX USA. So Im glad that I bought Aerosofts Las Vegas instead of MSX, as it fits more into what Im after.

 

Im not an expert either in taking screenshots, but I think its the much more dense autogen filled up ontop of the photoscenery that makes my shoots look better. If you take a closer look at e.g the park in your first shoot and compare what you see on my screens you'll notice how much more detailed placements of autogen Us cities Las Vegs have compared to MSX. There isn't a single tree in that park with MSX and no 3d buildings around it when in my screenshoot youll see that it's filled with autogen threes and the area surrounding it also has autogen..

 

 

Yeah, it's been a great discussion, alltough I never got the answers to my initial question   but that doesn't matter too much as there isn't much I can do with those scenerys I couldn't get running at a decent level of performance anyway. I'll just have them on a drive somewhere, and when Prepar3dV2 comes out maybe they will serve their purpose.

Yeah, it's been a great discussion, alltough I never got the answers to my initial question

 

Oh yeah, that!

 

Could be the difference for you is LA itself and all that comes with it as compared to Chicago.  Note that two of us who report no particular trouble with it are running either Blue Sky (no autogen other than what's in "Cities") and MegaScenery X SoCal (with its limited autogen), so we're mostly burdened by just the autogen in Cities.

In Chicago, while the Cities autogen may be even more dense, that's all you're dealing with as it's a big contiguous area, whereas in LA, while the Cities stuff is spread out in patches, there's even more of it in total, and the space in between will also be filled with FSX's other stuff.  That would explain why Chicago is a bit tougher for me, but easier for you.

 

Other than that, I dunno, and except for changing underlying scenery, there's probably not much you can do about it.

 

Scott

Oh yeah, that!

 

Could be the difference for you is LA itself and all that comes with it as compared to Chicago.  Note that two of us who report no particular trouble with it are running either Blue Sky (no autogen other than what's in "Cities") and MegaScenery X SoCal (with its limited autogen), so we're mostly burdened by just the autogen in Cities.

In Chicago, while the Cities autogen may be even more dense, that's all you're dealing with as it's a big contiguous area, whereas in LA, while the Cities stuff is spread out in patches, there's even more of it in total, and the space in between will also be filled with FSX's other stuff.  That would explain why Chicago is a bit tougher for me, but easier for you.

 

Other than that, I dunno, and except for changing underlying scenery, there's probably not much you can do about it.

 

Scott

 

Ah, offcourse that explains a lot how you're getting so much more performance in LA ^_^ , without that much autogen as I have with UTX the performance would be a lot better. Also very good good explanation on LA versus Chicago, it all makes sense now. Guess I got what I was looking for when starting this thread so thanks to all the participants, I've learned a lot and had a great discussion. :smile: And maybe helped aerosoft getting a new Us Cities customer...(not intentionally)