Sign in to follow this  
Dillon

MegaCity Dallas/Ft. Worth

Recommended Posts

In reading the home page of this site I saw that MegaScenery has announced their newest addition to their line, MegaCity Dallas/Forth Worth. I followed the link to see screen shots but there was nothing on the page about Dallas/Forth Worth.? Is everyone having this result or is it just me?Dewey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Try here http://www.megascenery.com/megacitydfw.htmAs a VFR flyer I don't like the megascenerys because of the blurry, less detailed 4.8 meters per pixel resolution (thanks MS) on photoreal scenery you get at low altitudes, BUT I'll be getting this just to see my house on the map! LOLIf Shez reads this, I would love a more detailed version of KADS to go with this! ;-)Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Try here http://www.megascenery.com/megacitydfw.htm>>As a VFR flyer I don't like the megascenerys because of the>blurry, less detailed 4.8 meters per pixel resolution (thanks>MS) on photoreal scenery you get at low altitudes, BUT I'll be>getting this just to see my house on the map! LOL>>If Shez reads this, I would love a more detailed version of>KADS to go with this! ;-)>>Regards, Michael>KDFW>>http://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpg>>CalVirAir InternationalOK. Thanks, MIke.Dewey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>As a VFR flyer I don't like the megascenerys because of the>blurry, less detailed 4.8 meters per pixel resolution (thanks>MS) on photoreal scenery you get at low altitudes, BUT I'll be>getting this just to see my house on the map! LOLInteresting, I would think Megascenery packages are primarily for just VFR flying :-hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought Denver as a test run for this type of scenery. I don't know if older MegaScenery looks worse than their newer scenery but I was tempted to get Southern Cali originally... It's sold out so I opted for Denver. To anyone who has the MegaSceneries, it would be nice if some low altitude photos were posted. I'm very concerned about low flying over this type of scenery. Also how autogen is affected... If Denver looks good I'll report back Tuesday and most likely get the San Francisco and Seattle areas. Pics of the Seattle landscape look wonderful, there's even a little '.mov' file that shows off the scenery better than the pics on the website. It would be nice to see how it meshes with the Georender airports in the area...Hopefully some MegaScenery owners can post some low altitude pics for us on the fence buyers... :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just know I have seen a few shots that look terible at low altitudes and my VA partner has the So Cal version and it confirmed to me the terrible resoulution at low altitudes. I did notice tonight that it says the DFW version has a even finer resolution (which I didn't think was possible), so I am hoping it will be acceptable to me.Even though the default isn't realistic, at least I can tell it's a road when I am over the phone pole in the bell206 instead a blurry blotch on a texture.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a quote from the webpage linked above:"While MegaCITY source data is at 1 foot per pixel in Flight Simulator 2004 it displays at 4.8 meters per pixel."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default tiles are also 4.8m per pixel so it's not just photoreal tiles that have this issue. MegaCity is 1 foot per pixel downsampled to 4.8m and just as sharp as MS default tiles. MegaScenery is 5m per pixel upsampled to 4.8m and can look a little fuzzy at low altitudes, but perfectly acceptable at 2000 feet as long as you don't look straight down at the ground. Both feature full autogen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. it looks like what I'm seeing is the older MegaScenery is really pixelated while the newer versions like Pacific Northwest are vastly improved... SoCal looks very bad down low but Seattle looks awesome. Depending on how Denver looks I might get the Bay Area and the Seattle (Georender) areas, New York is out of the question as the pictures on the website look bad enough. SoCal reminds me to much of older FS98 photo scenery. Maybe MegaScenery should update their older work... :-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, it's kind of in your face, if you know what I mean. Tell me later. Much later. ####. billg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just got Denver in the mail only to find my feelings about this kind of scenery still hold from the days of FS98. After flying around awhile I uninstalled the scenery and very happy to have the default back, here's why;1. MegaScenery wants to change your default display settings in FS by lowering settings such as autogen density, cloud coverage, etc. This is optional but I hate that it even asks. Whatever your settings are that should be fine with well designed scenery, nothing should have to change here that would affect the rest of your virtual world... Many of us spend weeks trying to find that sweet spot in with the display settings.2. Only two seasons are available to fly over, Winter and MUD... That's right flying over Denver now looks like your flying over mostly muddy terrain (no matter what season except winter).3. MegaScenery doesn't mesh will with the surrounding scenery. It's like you have this mud flat and then your back to the default green of spring and/or summer.4. As you fly over the scenery the scenery doesn't update as fast as your flying so the scenery can look washed over below and in front of your aircraft. To be fare, I didn't tweak my settings to what MegaScenery suggested because I didn't what the rest of my FS world cheated for one small block of scenery.5. TERRIBLE LOAD TIMES... This scenery can take all of 5 full minutes to load from a cold start of FS. Once you get past the screen in FS9 where you choose your plane and Denver as your starting point, you may as well go find something to do for 5-6 minutes as the scenery takes just that long to load. I even defragged my hard drive only to find that didn't solve the problem. This is the main reason why I don't use the photo scenery included with the payware KIND. Those photo bitmaps can be a major problem to load. FS9 already loads slow enough due to the many add-ons I have...6. Add-on airports like Imagine's KDEN don't perform well on top of MegaScenery...Now to what I do like...1. KDEN doesn't look as bad as I would have thought down low. The autogen and look of the textures are actually very well done. Problem is they take a long time to load and don't follow your aircraft well (think of slewing, you can easily leave the updated scenery behind in a plane like FSD's Piper Seneca).2. Night textures are very well done....3. Looking at Denver I'd say where this kind of scenery most likely shines is in places like the Pacific Northwest around Seattle. Mountains really stand out with this scenery. I'm tempted to get the Seattle area from MegaScenery but I don't feel like my sim taking 5-10 minutes to load up every time I choose to fly in that area. Looking at how this scenery meshes with the surrounding default scenery, I would also say the Pacific Northwest should be the better of the MegaSceneries. In places like Denver you can't go from brown mud to beautiful flat green plains, it doesn't work.So there it is, MegaScenery came, got installed, and uninstalled all within the same night. If it was better on load times I might have gotten used to it. It sure is nice to have the default Denver back... :-) For the record I wouldn't get areas like Dallas and New York... The main show stopper with the Denver area is the mountains. You take that away it's like, 'what's the point'... :-hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Bump** for some of the guys I said I'll get back to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this