Why was that series brilliant...? Because it's the exact same setup as the American sceneries... PNW is called Orbx's best one to date by many simmers (although I heard Scotland comes close too).

 

I guess the textures are more native to the area concerned in Australia and there is no need to use photoreal for mountains. Sure there are downsides. Sydney and major cities were done mediocre, and desert and bush areas are not as detailed as one would like. But hey how many square kilometres are they covering? millions!

I have the YMML and YBBN airports from Orbx and they are absolutely amazing when in Orbx scenery.

I think the developers are Australian and they spent years perfecting the Australian landscape (I could be wrong) with Voz?

Anyhow it is truly awesome!

It is of course purely a personal thing. However, for me, I find it  a very easy choice. I prefer Orbx wherever I fly GA, but Megascenery and/or photoscenery is great when flying over deserts and mountains with little or no autogen, or when flying up high in the NGX or similar.

Could not agree any more, Orbx cannot get close to doing deserts and mountains and a perfect example is these shots I took(link below). But when it coming to England, Orbx every time.

 

But I use both and used right there both perfect.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/413562-tour-of-lanzarote-20-shots/

Could not agree any more, Orbx cannot get close to doing deserts and mountains and a perfect example is these shots I took(link below). But when it coming to England, Orbx every time.

 

But I use both and used right there both perfect.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/413562-tour-of-lanzarote-20-shots/

 

Amazing!!!! I have VFR England and VFR Germany...... This Lanzarote seems ultra clear!

Thanks for sharing!

 

Is that an Aerosoft product? Or is it free? Tell me!

Why is it a question of one or the other? I run both I have lots of ORBX and MegaScenery X. It's all about how you feel that day when you go and fly and what you want to see. There is a big difference in the two.

 

MegaScenery is photoreal so no autogen and it tends to look like crap until you get up in the air a bit.

 

On the other hand ORBX looks great anywhere you are.

 

So my advice is get some of each and enjoy both.

Yeah, OrbX is more consistent - always looks really good whether you're skimming the treetops in a Cub or cruising in the flight levels. MegaScenery requires that you pay more attention to where and how you're flying so as to not break the carefully constructed illusion. I love descending over a town in OrbX before landing, and seeing all the 3D buildings and other 3D details bring the area to life. Photo-based scenery is more like a fine painting, best appreciated from some distance.

 

I also enjoy both and I prefer photo-based scenery over landclass-based where OrbX coverage isn't available. Even with UTX, major towns and other features are missing. For California, BlueSky is a great gap filler until OrbX have done their magic.

In XPX there's a way to combine the 2. I've seen it myself and the results are spectacular. I would love to see this being done one day for FSX/P3D. Hope it's somehow possible.

XPX with autogen ger 50 to 60 fps all never get that in fsx