I'm not a photoreal fan - too flat and blurry for the height I usually fly (1500ft). I also have UTX and ST for my LC, which seems pretty good where I fly (Northern Europe). But if OpenLC turns out to be more accurate (without breaking anything else), then I'll buy it. Yet to be convinced though.

 

Of course it will be better, it has over 9GB's of custome textures to compliment the landclass in addition to the FTX global textures. Just look at the screenshots in the Orbx preview forum. Its night and day. Dry arrid areas actually look right. Lush green areas actually look right.

 

UTX LC and ST LC only call default texture classes.

 

 

I'm not a photoreal fan - too flat and blurry for the height I usually fly (1500ft). I also have UTX and ST for my LC, which seems pretty good where I fly (Northern Europe). But if OpenLC turns out to be more accurate (without breaking anything else), then I'll buy it. Yet to be convinced though.

I understand all that. It certainly has the potential to look better. But all I can say is that with FTXG/UTX/ST the area that I fly (northern Europe) looks pretty damn good to me. I'd need some convincing to switch to OpenLC. And I've seen the screenshots.

remember this is not just a landclass product, otherwise it would be about 10mb in size like Scenery Tech. This is a full texture replacement and landclass product. The file size is 25gb unpacked according to their forums. I have not purchased yet but plan on soon, still deciding whether I get the PMDG 300ER addon or OpenLC.

remember this is not just a landclass product, otherwise it would be about 10mb in size like Scenery Tech. This is a full texture replacement and landclass product. The file size is 25gb unpacked according to their forums. I have not purchased yet but plan on soon, still deciding whether I get the PMDG 300ER addon or OpenLC.

 

It's mainly a landclass product, with some unique textures (the base textures are from FTX Global -- this one, yes, is a full texture replacement product) and some photoreal textures. This explains the size (which still is bigger than what I would imagine for a product like this -- I'm honestly surprised). 

Of course it will be better, it has over 9GB's of custome textures to compliment the landclass in addition to the FTX global textures. Just look at the screenshots in the Orbx preview forum. Its night and day. Dry arrid areas actually look right. Lush green areas actually look right.

 

UTX LC and ST LC only call default texture classes.

Well I have it here local and the difference it's indeed night and day...

Is that a comparison between OpenLC and UTX/ST or between OpenLC and FSX default ? If the former, some comparative images would be nice. I have no doubt that OpenLC with FTXG will be a massive improvement over FSX default.

Dick, you aren't quite getting it.

 

UTX , scenery tech or any other current landclass is only capable of drawing from the default texture pallet. Regardless of if you have FTX global or GEX, these textures simply replace the default existing textures. The landclass file is only capable of specifying textures to be called from the default folder.

 

What FTX have done is to add additional landclass "calls" and provided hundreds of new, appropriate textures for those calls in addition to the default scheme and textures that were already present.

 

Scenery tech and UTX and any other landclass product does not do this. ( well, UTX does provide some custom urban textures but to be quite honest, they aren't very good.)

 

So, regardless of default fsx, st or UTX, the openLC product will be a night and day difference.

 

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

 

Just look at the screenshots of the various areas, especially the variance and accuracy from dry to temperate regions. You won't get that with any other combination.

Is that a comparison between OpenLC and UTX/ST or between OpenLC and FSX default ? If the former, some comparative images would be nice. I have no doubt that OpenLC with FTXG will be a massive improvement over FSX default.

 

A comparison with FSX default is really not needed as the difference is apparent just from looking at screenshots of openLC. However, a comparison with UTX for those who already own UTX is certainly interesting.

One thing that UTX have, without comparing, is texture repetition, and in some places (Germany) is endless. I switched to SceneryTech because of that, and generally ST land class is using more textures for the given area. UTX is more realistic than ST, but texture repetitions and VAS usage is killing UTX. OpenLC EU seems more detailed than both products, and with new textures should be a top notch product.

With respect, Glenn, I do understand all that. FTXG made a massive improvement to the region where I fly. by replacing the default FSX textures. These are called and placed on my system by UTX/ST landclass. (The default FSX landclass would call them too, though less accurately.)

 

I understand that OpenLC has the potential to improve it even further by 1) mapping the FTXG replacement textures more accurately and 2) calling and placing  the additional custom textures you mention, , but as yet I haven't seen anything to persuade me to buy. I can see that it makes an enormous difference to other parts of the world which have not been covered to the same level of detail by other products, but I don't fly there.

With respect, Glenn, I do understand all that. FTXG made a massive improvement to the region where I fly. by replacing the default FSX textures. These are called and placed on my system by UTX/ST landclass. (The default FSX landclass would call them too, though less accurately.)

 

I understand that OpenLC has the potential to improve it even further by 1) mapping the FTXG replacement textures more accurately and 2) calling and placing  the additional custom textures you mention, , but as yet I haven't seen anything to persuade me to buy. I can see that it makes an enormous difference to other parts of the world which have not been covered to the same level of detail by other products, but I don't fly there.

Hi Dick you seem happy with what you have, yet at the same time want someone to persuade you to upgrade to Open LC by posting screenshots. If I were you I'd look at some of the Open LC screenshots on the Orbx Preview forum and compare those to what you see with your current solution, only then will you see the real difference.

 

Cheers

That's about it Dave. I am pretty happy with what I've got, but always looking for improvement. Subject to cost of course.

 

I'll continue to keep my eyes and ears open. Now back to do some flying !

With respect, Glenn, I do understand all that. FTXG made a massive improvement to the region where I fly. by replacing the default FSX textures. These are called and placed on my system by UTX/ST landclass. (The default FSX landclass would call them too, though less accurately.)

 

I understand that OpenLC has the potential to improve it even further by 1) mapping the FTXG replacement textures more accurately and 2) calling and placing  the additional custom textures you mention, , but as yet I haven't seen anything to persuade me to buy. I can see that it makes an enormous difference to other parts of the world which have not been covered to the same level of detail by other products, but I don't fly there.

Thats fair enough.

 

To me though, the differences between the sothern, dry european areas are worth the cost alone. It never looks right with the other products.

Agreed. As with most things in FS, it depends on your point of view. And here on AVSIM we have so many views !  :smile:

From these screenshots my personal view is that mountainous terrain looks better, but fields look more jumbled. I like the look very much of only FTX Global without LC, the landscape looks "smoother". Although in areas like Italy I think Open LC looks better from other screenshots. So I guess this is a mixed bag - but this is still due to FSX limitations, I guess!