Which is better? ORBX or Blue Sky Scenery

[texan1962 0]

They both look good to me, but which is better when your coming in for a landing or flying under 1,000 ft?

[LeeL 272]

Under 100 feet it would have to be ORBX. Photoscenery is not great that low.

[metro_fox 0]

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.

[Howellerman 104]

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

[W2DR 1,859]

No doubt about it...ORBX.

 

Doug

[Jimmy RFR 406]

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:

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

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.

[charliearon 3,017]

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

[turnandbank 243]

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.

[scianoir 610]

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