http://www.horizonsimulation.com/html/vfr_...cenery_usa.htmlI was really surprised noone has mentioned this.Anyone checked it out?Looks much better than Megascenery. The problem with Megascenery was always sourca data resolution. Megascenery is 5m/pixel satellite images. This scenery is *2ft*/pixel aerial photos.edit:Screenshot of Megascenery attached to this message (not automatically displaying because it's a big image).Same place using VFR Photographic Scenery:(copy and paste into address bar and remove dash in jp-g)--http://www.horizonsimulation.com/Cessna182-ApproachHamiltonSRF.jp-g

I've not checked it out, but am sure interested. Perhaps someone who has both the Bay Area Megascenery and the UK VFR package could compare them for us. This would enable us to better evaluate whether the VFR Photo Scenery process really improves on what Megascenery is doing.Also, it would sure be nice to know the area covered by the scenery. The map on the website is of little help in determining where the boundaries are, at least for me anyway. A text description of what areas are covered (e.g., Napa Valley, etc.) would be helpful if a more detailed map is not possible.Macwino

Looks interesting. It may be a tad sharper than Megascenery but I don't think it's "better". Why?1. So you may be able to fly lower and still see things clearer but it appears to have no auto-gen so now the landscape is flat at low altitudes... so I think it would look actually worse (or less realistic is what I mean). You loose the 3-D immersion which is always a problem when flying with photo-mesh at low altitudes.2. Their night lighting looks far more simplistic than Megascenery.3. Looks like only one season... Mega at least has two.4. Mega provides Charts, maps.5. May be a little more expensive? (Exchange rates)6. They will both suffer equally with refreshing if you fly too fast.It is interesting with all the areas in the world that could improve with photomesh they choose the exact same area as Mega? Think if they would have done the Grand Canyon or the Rockies where photomesh can explode! So they are already behind the 8-ball for customers for that particular. But it's always good to see some competition. (Maybe Mega won't always be 3 months late on their releases);) I would be interested in seeing some one-on-one comparison shots for from those who are first to take the plunge and purchase.

Both products are displayed at the same - 5m/pixel - resolution in MSFS.viz.:---------------------------quote--------------------------------About VFR Photographic Scenery: By replacing the representative (default) scenery for Northern California (provided by Microsoft) with real aerial photography, VFR Photographic Scenery USA gives you spectacular views of San Francisco, Sacramento, and the surrounding area in your simulator, allowing you to take in a completely new perspective of the USA at a fraction of the cost of flying for real. The scenery is generated from aerial photography (not satellite imagery - see below) at 2ft/pixel resolution, and is displayed at better than 5m/pixel

I agree with you Ponyboy. Same thoughts here. Wish they had picked other areas.

I added a comparison image to the first post. I swear it was killing my trying to prevent the image from displaying in this topic at 1600x1200 :-lol AVSim please don't delete the image even though it's 1280x1024 - it's not displayed in the message...It's not just a little sharper - you can barely make out buildings in the Megascenery shot - the VFR shot shows much more detail.

Of course they are displayed at the same res. This is an internal limit in the FS9 scenery engine. However, the quality of the source data is also very important.

>Both products are displayed at the same - 5m/pixel ->resolution in MSFS.Yes, but to avoid sampling errors you'll need the source data to be of much higher resolution than that - twice the resolution as a matter of fact. I don't know what source data Megascenery uses, but on the screenshots this one looks a tad better. But then it is also more expensive.There are also good resaons for choosing the particular area for a VFR-training product like this as there aren't many flight schools in Grand Canyon.-

>Megascenery was always sourca data resolution. Megascenery is>5m/pixel satellite images. This scenery is *2ft*/pixel aerialYes, but the max resoulution in FS is still 5m/pixel and frankly this scenery doesn't even come close to 2f/pixel look. If the end effect was close to 2ft/sec even runways would look sufficiently sharp at ground level. I don't care about autogen so I would be willing to switch to such photo-real scenery in a heartbeat. But the problem that remains is the coverage and price. Per square mile it is still too expensive in my opinion.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

"Yes, but to avoid sampling errors you'll need the source data to be of much higher resolution than that - twice the resolution as a matter of fact"Exactly. This is where Megascenery fails as it uses 5m per pixel source images from Space Imaging's IRS system. That means that the source data is 5m/pixel, and it's *upsampled* to 4.8m/pixel (FS standard resolution). It's like taking a screenshot at 640x480 and resizing it to 1024x768 - just won't look very good."Per square mile it is still too expensive in my opinion."Will always be - that won't change unlessa) Photographic sceneries become hugely popular so they can sell each copy at a slimmer marigin:( Launching satellites or flying airplanes suddenly becomes dirt-cheapDon't think either is gonna happen anytime soon :(The point with photographic sceneries is to enjoy VFR flying over a small region in, well, photographic detail.

No autgen = flat terrain, and back to fs2k you go.

Yup. Only difference is that every single tree, road, pond, quarry, field, building etc. is included at exactly the same location as its real-life counterpart which can't be said for either FS2k or 2k4 default scenery. Have to say I prefer the photographic terrain, flat or not, over the Super Mario-style buildings of FS default scenery.

>and back to fs2k you go.No, you don't go back to fs2k if you gain otherwise tremendous scenery accuracy. For me this tradeoff is worthwile, you may differ.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

>No autgen = flat terrain, and back to fs2k you go.I concur 100%. It stroke me the moment I installed VFR UK the first time. Uninstalled immediately. Only now when I have the UK VFRPhoto Scenery, expect UK Photo Mesh + download of their new London which places buildings into this combo I hope to get real fun. Without 3D - forget it, it's not a VFR experience. See an excellent example of Lago's Venice. This is VFR fun.

It comes to personal opinion I suppose. It's a trade off. The whole point of autogen is to *randomly* place trees and buildings which obviously doesn't work with photographic textures where you want 100% accuracy. Technically there's no way to fully solve the problem other than to manually place all autogen objects. There's no way the scenery system can know the exact position of each and every tree and building. Megascenery uses some kind of algorithm to guesstimate where to place autogen but it still requires lots of manual editing and doesn't look that convincing frankly.At a couple of thousand feet the lack of autogen doesn't bother me. Only around airports does it really matter. I fail to see how randomly placed 3D buildings would add to the VFR experience but that's just me. Also with a good 19m mesh the world is far from flat ie. VFR Terrain or Swiss Pro really make the contours of the terrain and even tiny features stand out which makes the whole landscape more 3D and immersive.