Hello,

I am a pilot student flying out of Van Nuys (KVNY) and Camrillo (KCMA). I bought this software for FSX thinking it would be a good tool to practice since I was thinking by flying VFR, it is important to recognize highways etc... But I am very disappointed.

 

My PC is recent i7 with 16Gb of RAM. Two EGVA GTX 670. Three monitors 1920x1080. SSD with plenty of space available.

 

I usually fly from 1000 to 3000 ft. No matter what setup I did, the scenery is flat and boring and pretty ugly.

 

And also the Hollywood sign is missing! And the Griffith Observatory is sooooooooooooooo flat that it looks like a pancake after a sumo sat on it LOL.

 

Anyway tonight I just purchased Aerosoft US Cities X: Los Angeles and wow. Although it is not totally accurate but at least major highways are shown - compared to MSE 2.0 highways are so flat that I can't recognize them. And the Hollywood sign is THERE!!!!!!!

 

I am waiting for their ultra cities: Los Angeles. And this will be my last purchase from this company if the latest software is a flop.

 

Anyone has better chance than me using MSE 2.0 California - low altitude?

 

Purchase their MegasceneryX Southern California. Different product line which is more detailed, some buildings, some trees, overall a finer product line which they abandoned. Of course you'll get the excuse that buildings and trees ruin the photo scenery, which is a cop out. There is also MegasceneryX cities, which are excellent but not as good as what you'll find from Aerosoft.

 

If there was more interest in the MegasceneryX perhaps they would consider bringing it back, but I doubt it.

 

 

Here's a landing at LAX in MegasceneryX SoCal.

 

To be honest, I wouldn't bother waiting for their ultra res. LA release. It is still photoscenery, so it is all flat again. The difference is, you can go down now to some 500 feet and see the flat buildings sharper. I have bought their Boston ultra res scenery. It's nice, but sooo flat. 

 

Like you I also have Aerosoft L. A. What a difference!!

What if you had both...

 

Megascenery Earth 2.0 with Aerosoft higher in the scenery library...

 

They should play nicely together...I did it with Buffalo and Megascenery Earth 2.0 for New York

 

Dave

Autogen eats resources better put to use for clouds and weather. Autogen in fsx is crudely placed looks fake on top of photoreal.

Autogen eats resources better put to use for clouds and weather. Autogen in fsx is crudely placed looks fake on top of photoreal.

 

 

Photoreal does not use autogen and MSE tells you to place the autogen slider to zero.

 

@Topic starter:  MSE tells you before purchase that it only comes into good effect above 4000', so it is no good complaining about it's use for below that altitude.

 

They have now released Mega-Cities series for lower flying use which is far better.

 

They have now released Mega-Cities series for lower flying use which is far better.

 

 

.........but still flat.  (aside a few default FSX objects perhaps)

 

Nothing from MSE will satisfy the OP as he's not happy with the flatness.   Now I can understand that, but 10 seconds of research into the product (before buying it) would have revealed that it contains no autogen.    Just saying. :smile:

Yes. if you are looking for autogen scenery, MSE is not really going to satisfy you. Simple as that

The advantage is however, that MSE and photoreal scenery of this type is generally compatible with most all other autogen or 3D object type scenery like Aerosoft US Cities and most all airport scenery upgrades so MSE and these other add-ons will most always play nicely together without hard conflicts (usually just blending issues around the edges of the object-based scenery products, if they use a small photoreal area underlay).

To be honest, I wouldn't bother waiting for their ultra res. LA release. It is still photoscenery, so it is all flat again. The difference is, you can go down now to some 500 feet and see the flat buildings sharper. I have bought their Boston ultra res scenery. It's nice, but sooo flat. 

 

Like you I also have Aerosoft L. A. What a difference!!

 

I agree about their ultra res cities. Too bad you can only get the old Megascenery X products on DVD. Their previous LA release would be great in combination with the BlueSky or MSE v2 scenery.

I agree about their ultra res cities. Too bad you can only get the old Megascenery X products on DVD. Their previous LA release would be great in combination with the BlueSky or MSE v2 scenery.

 

Not so!

 

http://www.pcaviator.com/store/product.php?productid=18819&cat=0&page=1

I had to chuckle a bit at the OP.    What were you expecting from a 2D product?   MegaScenery never has and never will supply you with 3D objects or Autogen.   You must purchase additional add-ons if you want 3D.    My LA looks stunning with MSE 2.0 and FS Global North America Ultimate terrain mesh.   It will look even more epic when I have the 3D city add-on.     I have New Orleans from Aerosoft and MSE 2.0 Louisiana and it looks great together.

I share the OP's sentiments with MSE. I bought Michigan as it is the state where I live and fly in real life, and I have never felt more dissapointed about a purchase for FSX. On their site, the description and pictures make it seem as though the lack of autogen would barely be noticed as the scenery is designed to 'pop out'. I didnt find this to be so, and only above 10,000 feet or so did I find that the scenery looked somewhat realistic.

 

With all that being said, I recently purchased MSE Hawaii- the $5 with some 'cloud artifacts' and I am very happy with it. It depends on the state, I suppose. Overall, though, it would be great if MSE offered soem sort of demo for each state so you can see if you like the look of photoreal before spending $40 on it.

First off, welcome aboard JMarquez.

 

I think sometimes experienced simmers forget that those new to FSX don't know all the ins and outs of photoscenery vs landclass, scenery objects vs autogen and so on.

 

Photo scenery is always going to be accurate - at least as of the time the imagery used was shot - but being a 2D image draped over a 3D mesh, at some point (that point depending on things like lighting and resolution) the illusion of 3 dimensionality will disappear and things will be flat and not terribly recognizable.  The lower you are, the worse the effect.

 

From base photo, depending on the product, things can be improved but still not perfect.  Autogen (automatically generated structures from a generic library) can fill in 3D gaps for more visual appeal at low altitude, but it will always be generic and inaccurate.  Products like Aerosoft's, which add scenery objects (specific 3D models manually placed) are going to be better, especially for larger, more landmark type buildings, but you still can't expect every corner grocery store to be there, or to be there and look exactly like it looks.  Companies like Orbx produce hybrid products with hand optimized landclass mixed with photo, mixed with scenery objects.  (But not for LA).

 

Bottom line is, there's no product you can add to FSX today that completely mimics a large scale area perfectly.  For your purposes, I expect a larger scale photo product like Megascenery V2, Blue Sky or the older MegasceneryX SoCal (Photo with autogen) with Aerosoft's LA on top is the best choice (no night textures, though).  But as you read the comments here you can see pretty clearly that most of us have our preferences and there's no complete consensus.

 

Hope that helps clarify a bit,

 

Scott

The higher the resolution of the textures, the more 3d effect you'll get closer to the ground, especially true for cities where you have lots of buildings.  It's still flat at ground level, but quickly turns surreal as you get a couple hundred feet off the ground.  But you need high res like the MSE Ultra-City releases.

 

A simple trip to Google Earth will reveal how stunning cities can be just 200 feet of the ground with their high rez 30cm/pixel textures.

I have 23 States and hoping to get the lot.  I prefer MSE to any other way.  Take a look:

 

 

Beat that..  :lol: