I'll have to say I'm a tad bit impressed with TP.  Since reading the Nevada thread, I decided to install this Tileproxy thing, set it to Bing maps and 30 cm scenery, and did just a couple comparison shots with my MSE2 Washington scenery.  Need more time with it, but very nice, on par with MSE2.   I let you decide which you prefer...

 

 

There are no labels that I could see....but then again that makes it interesting....so I don't know which is which and I can't really tell the difference.

MSE 2 and Tile Proxy are very different if going purely by MAX possible graphics. Yes, MSE 2 is much more convenient due to not needing to pre-cache stuff, but TP can look like a high def photo or a Discovery Channel video if you have an area cached in 30cm.

 

Those are pretty blurry for what TP can do. Takes a lot of caching to get max quality in TP, you need to choose the Addon Menu from within FSX and then select TileProxy > Refresh Scenery unless you already have an area heavily cached (either that or fly in circles or pause the game for a while)...

Those are max shots at 1.2 meters.  It's a fair comparison at equal resolution.

 

Obviously, if you want to fly TP at 60cm or even 30cm, then of course it will look sharper.  But this is a direct comparison on my computer screen, no adjustments or cheats for either one.  It give you an idea that MSE2 is as equal to TP at the same resolution.

 

I'm liking TP for it's ability to go anywhere, but there are many issues, nothwithstanding runway alignment, water masking, etc.. Those things give MSE a slight edge.

Does performance become worse (loading etc) when TPs resolution becomes higher?

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

 

Most MSE2 source data is 30cm not 1.2m.

Most MSE2 source data is 30cm not 1.2m.

 

It's definitely not being displayed at 30cm.  One 4096x4096 is nearly 64MB in size.   That's a massive amount of data and that simply won't fit into a 30gb download like MSE Washington.  That's why they display at 1.2m/pixel rather than 30cm.

 

If I try to download a 30cm map using Tileproxy, it takes forever, and I'm on a 20 megabit cable line.  There's a massive amount of data to download and convert to bitmaps.  60cm data is fine.

 

Here is a shot of Concord Municipal airport in New Hampshire using 60cm setting in Tileproxy.  (I beleive Bing can display it at 30cm, as well as Google. 

 

This shot is about 500 feet AGL.

Couple more, these are 60cm shots around Concord, NH airport,  just a few hundred feet AGL.  Scenery this detailed cannot be achieved by MSE2.  However, the cumbersomness of loading a large enough area prior to flight is time consuming and well... cumbersome.  I love this detail and makes for a very surreal flight, but the time and effort it will take to download all these tiles may be too much...

Couple more, these are 60cm shots around Concord, NH airport,  just a few hundred feet AGL.  Scenery this detailed cannot be achieved by MSE2.

 

Of course it can. MSE2 can achieve this. For the MSE large scale areas, our source imagery is 50cm/pixel, however, this converts to the standard FSX resolution of 1.12m/pixel (I think that is the standard figure anyway). You will notice the MSE Ultra-Res City projects offer even higher resolution. Ultra-Res Cities use 50cm/pixel imagery as well, but it is not downscaled as much, and hence the filesize is far larger because it is retaining much more data and image quality.

 

So, MSE could do this yes. After all, the source data of 50cm/pixel is better than the TP 60cm/pixel, its just filesize issue this would create over massive areas is not practical at the current time, and why caching of TP at high resolutions takes forever. I am happy to admit that the first shot using TP above IS very good however, no doubt about that!

If FSX is downsizing the 50cm data, then it is not 50cm data.  That's like saying I delivered 6x6 posts to build your deck, but the carpenter cut them into 4x4 posts, and then saying the posts are still 6x6...

 

If FSX is displaying MSE data as 1.2m/pixel, then MSE2 is displaying 1.2m/pixel data.  If you have a state that is FULL 50cm/pixel data, I'd love to buy it RIGHT NOW.

There is a difference between how the source data is processed. Take a regular MSE v2 state which uses 50cm/pixel source data, and a MSE UR City which is also 50cm/pixel source data. There is a major difference in the end result of the different processing. The source is still 50cm/pixel for both. Its just one offers higher clarity from the original source, and naturally, a greater file size for the same coverage area.

 

Perhaps more pertinent in this dicussion however...  If you were to put 50cm/pix source data shown at FSX 1.12m/pixel representation side-by-side with 1m/pix source data also presented at 1.12m/pixel, there is a clear difference in clarity. 

 

You can't really compare that process to something solid like wooden posts... its different, and not the same process as in a digital conversion.

Is there a particular reason that 50cm source isn't available for purchase?   Obviously, more expensive and a larger download, but the option would be nice.

Is there a particular reason that 50cm source isn't available for purchase?   Obviously, more expensive and a larger download, but the option would be nice.

 

Well, The Ultra-Res Cities that are rolling out are processed at a higher LOD in FSX, which means the downloads are far larger, so the coverage area is smaller to compensate. At the present, you could render a whole state in this higher detail using the 50cm imagery, however, the filesizes become non-viable, plus the processing time becomes quite extreme. It can take a week of non-stop processing time 24 hours a day to process just one state of photoreal at the normal MSE 2.0 render quality... But its the filesize that is currently the limiting factor. That may change in the future! But for now, you can take a look at the UR City packs that are being released to get an idea of how things look with those (which are comparable to the 60cm TP image you posted above in quality in fact).

As a user of about 20 of the 50 states available for MSE V2.0 I can honestly say that I have no issue with the product and in fact was blown away by a recent flight near El Paso in west Texas.   The level of detail is wonderful, frame rate friendly, does not require an always connected internet state and if your FSX is configured right it will deliver an image that is on par with what is being shown to me in the TP screen caps above.

 

I think my favorite clear advantage MSE has over TP;  If I lose my internet connection I still get to have HD land textures of the US while I fly.  

 

However, the cumbersomness of loading a large enough area prior to flight is time consuming and well... cumbersome. 

 

Would love to see an RAW video (compressed only for YouTube) of a flight from KCCR to KSFO (no edit transitions or shortening) ... any chance you could load one up onto YouTube?

 

Also, no one has seemed to answer the question why a scenery package requires the loading of unsigned/uncertified device drivers?  What exactly is the driver doing?  This is definitely NOT common for any 3rd party add-on (especially scenery, no other scenery does this) with the exception of perhaps device drivers for flight controls (GoFlight modules for example) and the like (which I can understand being hardware related).

 

Thanks, Rob.