March 30, 201412 yr They both look good to me, but which is better when your coming in for a landing or flying under 1,000 ft?
March 30, 201412 yr Down low, and at night, Orbx can't be beat. Photoscenery does look great from the flight levels. Orbx's upcoming OpenLC packages should reduce the awful repeating patterns in the default FSX landclass that are very apparent from high altitude. Michael Faia
March 30, 201412 yr Heya Tex, I have used BlueSky and they are pretty nice from up high. However, my preferred mode is tooling along in the Lancair Legacy and at anything lower than 4,000 ft Orbx is definitely superior, despite the popping autogen. I used to be a UTX/GEX user, but now am completely Orbx-based. And as Michael pointed out, the upcoming Orbx landclass products should take care of the repeating patterns (and some can be truly awful looking!). Another product from Orbx, at least for the US, is the upcoming release of Vector 1.2. They changed from OSM to USGS data and the improvements in detail are just stunning. However, you can't beat the price for BlueSky! :lol: John John Howell Prepar3D V5, Windows 10 Pro, I7-9700K @ 4.6Ghz, EVGA GTX1080, 32GB Corsair Dominator 3200GHz, SanDisk Ultimate Pro 480GB SSD (OS), 2x Samsung 1TB 970 EVO M.2 (P3D), Corsair H80i V2 AIO Cooler, Fulcrum One Yoke, Samsung 34" 3440x1440 curved monitor, Honeycomb Bravo throttle quadrant, Thrustmaster TPR rudder pedals, Thrustmaster T1600M stick
March 30, 201412 yr No doubt about it...ORBX. Doug Intel 10700K @ 5.1Ghz, Asus Hero Maximus motherboard, Noctua NH-U12A cooler, Corsair Vengeance Pro 32GB 3200 MHz RAM, RTX 2060 Super GPU, Cooler Master HAF 932 Tower, Thermaltake 1000W Toughpower PSU, Windows 10 Professional 64-Bit, 100TB of disk storage. Klaatu barada nickto.
March 30, 201412 yr Commercial Member I think it's one of those things that comes down to personal preference. I have quite a bit of BlueSky installed, but actually only use it for flying in areas where not having autogen isn't a really big deal. That way, I find that it's more than acceptable down to 1000' or even 500' AGL. Certain areas, such as Death Valley for example, absolutely beg to be represented as photoscenery. That all said, I'm very much an Orbx fan as well, having all of their regions other than NZ and Ireland. I do a good portion of my flying in Western Canada, and I couldn't imagine using photoscenery for forested areas. Also, I don't think photoscenery is as vital when there's thick forest autogen. I guess the good thing is that you can easily mix and match, since BlueSky is rather inexpensive. :lol: Jim Stewart Milviz Person.
March 30, 201412 yr Get the FTX stuff and expand it: ORBX' KJAC combines landclass and large photoscenery elements (it's a 3 GB installer!). I added a couple of adjacent BSS tiles for Wyoming. Great for approaches and departures to/from the East. What happened to AVSIM
March 30, 201412 yr Administrators Most of California is Bluesky for me. I do fly at the higher altitudes in big prop and jets! When I feel like puttering around in a small plane like the Baron, I have Orbx freeware PNW which fits the bill. There are Plenty of free Orbx sceneries to try at www. fullterrain.com Charlie AronAVSIM Board of Directors-ADMIN/Moderator-RegistrarJust going to run a Chromebook and not upgrade to a Windows computer. Too many problems with the new Sims! 😱Trying to keep peace and harmony and the will of Landru on the site seems to be a full time job!
March 30, 201412 yr Blue Sky Scenery is great for what it is, but I just don't get the same sense of immersion from any kind of photoscenery and especially at lower altitudes as others have stated. For me the choice would definitely be ORBX. Martin Sims: MSFS 2020, MSFS 2024 and X-plane 11 Home Airport: CYCW - Chilliwack, BC Canada i5 13600KF 32GB DDR4 3600 RAM, RTX3080TI Meta Quest 3
March 30, 201412 yr Another vote for Orbx - like comparing chalk and cheese really - Orbx and Bluesky do quite different things. Photoreal scenery like Blueskymore accurately portrays reality but the realism effect is often nullified at levels below 2000-3000ft where things become somewhat featureless and 2D, whereas Orbx gives you a more far realistic 3D effect particularly at low level. The only problem arises if you know an area well when you then have to reorientate your brain to accept the geographical innacuracies of Orbx! Bill
Create an account or sign in to comment