Was curious as to which one would you guys prefer to use when flying commercial aircrafts such as the PMDG 777? It's a tough choice for me, but both has pro's and cons, when flying at altitudes above 30k feet, I think photoscenery would be better, but when flying low and at dawn or dusk, then FTX Global. I don't think you would be even able to see the night lighting in FTX Global flying that high anyways.

Photoscenery is somewhat blurry from my observations, but it looks very realistic high up. I'm currently considering the purchase of FTX Global but I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Hi,

 

I prefer FTX Global and/or UTX/GTX over photo scenery and I spend 99.9% of my time in a B737-800. I just can't stand the nasty looking, out of focus view on final. Especially at dusk with the city all aglow in the background. Photo scenery just completely ruins the atmosphere during that phase of flight. Another photo scenery drawback; no night textures as well as no season changes.

 

For me its a simple choice, FTX Global. An additional plus for FTX Global, its still in development, the product is only going to get better as they release their Open LC addons.

 

It still can't hurt to try photo scenery first and see how you like it, especially since you can setup photo scenery via TileProxy for free.

A few years ago after having done many testflights I choose to use photoscenery.

I prefer it with autogen on top of it.

 

VFR Gernany , Swiss Pro , several France VFR scenery, Belgium 2012 , Treescapes for the UK etc...

Autogen on top of photoscenery.

 

And now that OpenVFR is releasing autogen packages that can be used icw photoscenery it makes the Fs world look even better.

 

FTX global is good on my pc to fill up the "empty" areas.

I can see the pros and cons of both approaches.  I prefer the GEX/ORBX Global route myself, as photoscenery is too flat with no autogen, even though I spend all my time in jetliners.  There is a product call FSAltitude, and it offers a hybrid approach that I think is very smart.  It let you use traditional 3d autogen style scenery down low, but when you climb above a certain altitude, the world beneath you transitions to photoscenery.   And I believe this photoscenery is worldwide.  But I have my doubts, especially since it shows a patch of "real terrain" below your aircraft.   Google FSaltitude, it seems like a promising product, but I never hear anyone mention it, so it looks like the bad outweighs the good.

 

I secretly wish I had something like that, where I can just use photoscenery when I'm about 25000 feet as autogen is really not noticeable at the high flight levels, for the entire world!  

FTXG with 777, with photoscenery you will increase chance to get OOM error

 

 

Was curious as to which one would you guys prefer to use when flying commercial aircrafts such as the PMDG 777?

 

After following (and participating) around thousand duscussions about photoreal versus landclass I think I can honestly say your question is utterly useless... Give both options a try and use what you like most. Simple as that. ^_^

After following (and participating) around thousand duscussions about photoreal versus landclass I think I can honestly say your question is utterly useless... Give both options a try and use what you like most. Simple as that. ^_^

Exactly, agreed

FTXG with 777, with photoscenery you will increase chance to get OOM error

 

Really? Even though most photoscenery have no autogen? For those of you who run both FTX Global and photoscenery, let's say at a LOD_RADIUS of 8.5 and up with autogen slider set to 100%. Which of the two will use up more memory? I've always thought it would be FTX Global since it has autogen

I'd say FTX Global is definately the way to go. All I do is commercial flying, and I love it. FTX Global really makes a huge difference, and when on approach (especially at night) the immersion is there.

Nathan, it's a tough choice for me. Wish we could have the best of both worlds.

For me normal photoscenery is overkill for commercial flying in the high flight levels. I use FS Altitude and find it just the right thing for that. When i´m flying lower and slower i switch to regular photoscenery.

 

And agree that you should try both. People usually is entrenched in one of the two alternatives and stick to that for their FS world (photoscenery junkies like me or "give me terrain with autogen" people).

For me normal photoscenery is overkill for commercial flying in the high flight levels. I use FS Altitude and find it just the right thing for that. When i´m flying lower and slower i switch to regular photoscenery.

 

And agree that you should try both. People usually is entrenched in one of the two alternatives and stick to that for their FS world (photoscenery junkies like me or "give me terrain with autogen" people).

Very true, most like one or other with some varaition in between.

I fly tubeliners up high and prefer photoscenery, mainly because the higher you go, the more noticeable repeated textures become. Only tend to do short range flights though - finding photoscenery for long range flights is going to be hard work!

For me normal photoscenery is overkill for commercial flying in the high flight levels. I use FS Altitude and find it just the right thing for that. When i´m flying lower and slower i switch to regular photoscenery.

 

And agree that you should try both. People usually is entrenched in one of the two alternatives and stick to that for their FS world (photoscenery junkies like me or "give me terrain with autogen" people).

 

I'm intrested on this product FSAltitude. I currently have most of MegaScenery 2.0 installed. Will FSAltitude work with this product? Or does FS Altitude replaces Megascenery with their own texures? Does FSAltitude has some kind of setting to change so autogen is at low altitude and Megascenery stays above certain thousands of feet ?