Depends on how high you fly. Autogen looks cool on approach, but that's just a small fraction of a typical flight, and not the most important part of VFR training. In typical cruise altitudes of more than 3000 feet only big buildings would stand out, and those aren't part of the autogen anyway.-

Well I will let you know when I recieve it Michael (just ordered it tonight), the Feather River/Yuba City area looks promising! I lived in this area for a number of years and Mega Scenery stops about 15 miles north of KSMF ;( so this should be interesting. Randy Smith

>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 Well Napa is CERTAINLY covered by the map area as with all of the Bay Area including outlining NE areas past Marysville Ca in the North to the south Stockton, San Jose, Livermore, Tracy, Dublin, Fremont etc maybe past King City, will need to check it when it comes. It covers my home of Berkeley (El Cerrito really) as with all cites for many miles in all directions although EAST from KSFO is where you get the most mileage, it appears to go up to about Lake Tahoe.Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

>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. Well when it comes to replicating your home it is much easier to come to a choice in the matter. I stare at the night lighting of SFO from across the bay daily and have yet to find any scenery that can replicate this *true* look very well. It's just a limitation of the sim so if it provides a general but accurate representation then it's great for me. When someone makes the BART then I will really go WOW. Megascenery does Diablo area very well. Fremont -san jose is pretty good too but looking at the hills one mile from my house it does not do so well. It is light years ahead of the default scenery though and again that is what really matters here. I will post a comparison soon .....Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

The scenery really looks cool, but are you sure no autogen? I like the realistic look to the ground textures though.

Textures look very nice but the night lighting falls on it's face, IMO.

>5. May be a little more expensive? (Exchange rates)>>6. They will both suffer equally with refreshing if you fly>too fast.> Have you checked FSGenesis.net They have covered huge areas of the _world_ with Mesh, accurate to within about 10 meters and framerates are great. Fly VFR following the Colorado River, from CO to Mexico. Fly _through_ the Grand Canyon the entire length, instead of the short portion in FS9. If not careful, you can get lost, as in places you must make a quick decision, which turn to make. You then wind up in a box canyon, and must have the power to climb fast. I do it in the Kingair, but in places you must drop gear, and flaps in order to make the turns. Its one of my favorite places to fly>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. Both areas have been covered for years. May not be Photo Mesh, but it is all made from Satallite Data, and very accurate. I go to Big Bear City in CA all summer, and once took a picture of the surrounding mountains. Then, took shots of the same area, from the same places in FS2002, and the only way a friend could pick out which was which, the Real one had lots more trees. If someone wants to fly in Canada, Africa, Europe, Russia, Asia, Australia, FSGenesis.net has Mesh covering them and a lot more. With Autogen scenery. Also available if Landclass for the entire US, which is much more realistic, than what comes with FS9 Justin's work is the reason I stopped making airports. His Landclass is fantastic, and I figured why try to reinvent the wheel.The prices are what I can afford... Get Justins "Life membership" and you get the entire world, and anything he creates in the future. The Entire world is not finished yet, but at the pace he is going, it wont be long. Then, you get free updates, to everything new. If you want accurate Roads, Streams (Rivers) Railroads, Utilities, etc, check out "American Data" at the same place. It makes VFR flying fantastic. Probably will never buy Megascenery, I've tried the demo, and dont like the framerate hit that goes with it.(If I had a high end system might) Justin's work satisfies me. As an artist, may be more particular than many, so it may satisfy you also.

You can't really compare mesh with photographic textures though. They are completely different things. Mesh is just elevation data, photographic textures are like landclass - the actual features and textures draped over the mesh. The difference between normal landclass and photographic textures is obviously that instead of generic texture tiles you get photos of the real terrain to fly over.So while you get "the entire world" with FSGenesis, it's not nearly as accurate as photos. E.g. a town of ~20,000 people is completely missing around my home and instead FS just disaplys forest there :-lol

>Textures look very nice but the night lighting falls on it's>face, IMO.>> Well with only one screenshot on the web it's hard to tell? Even so, this is VFR scenery and for me that means day time enjoyment. I don't believe in night flight in GAs as I do with larger airline types but of course this is personal.Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

>I don't believe in night flight in GAs as I do with>larger airline types but of course this is personal.>Randy,I love (real) night flying in GA.As a matter of fact other airplanes are better visible at night - hence less chance for collision. ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

>>Textures look very nice but the night lighting falls on>it's>>face, IMO.>>>>>> Well with only one screenshot on the web it's hard to tell?>Even so, this is VFR scenery and for me that means day time>enjoyment. I don't believe in night flight in GAs as I do with>larger airline types but of course this is personal.>>>Best Wishes,>[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]I didn't either, till I got USA Roads. ;)Now I LOVE flying at night. Photoscenery covers it up, unfortunately. This is what caused me to uninstall my MegaScenery of Southern California.I agree with your other post. I'd really like to see somebody model the BART. I remember the good ol' BART system from my days attending UCB.

I also noticed this statement on their website: "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. Photographic scenery people are always making spurious claims about resolution. Megascenery do the same though there scenery always looked blurry to me. what made me laugh is the system requirements. 700mhz, 128mb ram, 16mb vidoe card.. haha Chapel

"If 5m/pixel is the maximum resolution permissable in MSFS then how can this scenery be better then "the maximum permisable in MSFS"?"Because the maximum resolution FS supports is "better than 5m/pixel". It's actually 4.8m in the north-south direction, and depending on where in the world, the east-west resolution is anything from just over 3m to closer to 5 near the equator.

>"If 5m/pixel is the maximum resolution permissable in MSFS>then how can this scenery be better then "the maximum>permisable in MSFS"?">>Because the maximum resolution FS supports is "better than>5m/pixel". It's actually 4.8m in the north-south direction,>and depending on where in the world, the east-west resolution>is anything from just over 3m to closer to 5 near the>equator.Its true. the size of the pixels is on the latitude. Further from the equator means smaller pixels. the problem is claims by developers that they are surpasing these limitations using "technologies" or using higher resolution source data. its just blatent hype! simmers must now by now that. I have dozens of photographic sceneries. Some are good and some are bad. Some are sharp but most of the larger ones are a bit blurry. I'll still keep buying them thouht cause I love them ;-)Chapel