great topic as I was just about to buy megascenery texas for some vfr flying towards practicing real world PPL flying in a 172....so is there a package of ultimate vfr texas as well and what difference if any....in a previous post i was asking for a good package to use against sectional charts for vfr practice....

 

tks to all

emann

Well Just FYI, at least from what I've found using the compiler, there is really no such thing as 50cm in MS FSX, it's 60cm. Their native source for the ultra-res is probably coming from USGS sources of 12cm to 60cm mostly, with some higher, but it appears to all be compiled at 60cm (not 50) with a comrpession of around 70-80 or so. I do not even think the compiler will let you do 50cm.

I have no idea why they continue to advertise this at 50cm when it is compiled at 60cm, and I believe their states (non Ultra-Res areas) are compiled at 1m. The files are way too small to even be 50cm.

IMHO, if you are going to lambast a product, you should post facts and not what you think.  Comments like "there is really no such thing as 50cm in MS FSX", "their native source for the ultra-res is probably coming from USGS", "appears to all be compiled at 60cm", "with a comrpession [sIC] of around 70-80 or so", "do not even think the compiler will let you do 50cm", "I believe their states (non Ultra-Res areas) are compiled at 1m", "files are way too small to even be 50cm".

 

Your comments may be true but even you sound unsure....

 

I did a Google search for "are there 50cm textures in FSX" and got information that not only MSE products but 50cm is used in many FSX products - https://www.google.com/search?q=are+there+50cm+textures+in+fsx&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. Of course, these sources could be wrong but that would be hard for me to believe.

 

If MSE developed perfect textures in any resolution, there would always be someone who does not like it. It's just the nature of the business. Personally I like photoscenery. I think it can get better but right now this is the best that money can buy and can still be compatible, performance wise, with current computer systems.

 

Best regards,

And where would they get a 50CM native source?

Unless they downsampled from 30cm to 50cm (but why do that since the compiler would bloat the 50cm file, and you would downsample to 60cm not 50cm).

 

I've rarely seen ANY 50cm source at any aerial provider, paid or free. That is not a standard res they use hardly ever.

I was just commenting to what others have stated, I didn't lambast the product. I am not 100% sure, but more like 98% sure that it is NOT 50cm. Can anyone ever really be 100% sure in this stuff? (yes sometimes, but often not). I guess most people would act sure when they are not 100%, that's why I qualified what I said as not being sure (hmm). I've been using the compiler for a few years, and having read many things over at the main developer forum for FSX, I have never seen anyone compile at 50cm or ever heard of such a thing.

 

 

I was just commenting to what others have stated, I didn't lambast the product. I am not 100% sure, but more like 98% sure that it is NOT 50cm.

 

There's a lot of misinformation out there as shown in the link I provided.  Everyone seems to be an expert.

 

Best regards,

OK, then I'm 100% sure just to close any doubt

 

Photo-real does NOT use textures, it uses BGL's in the scenery folder which are simply INF'd geo-tiffs GDAL translated/warped and then compiled as a BGL. So when you googled for "50 cm textures", textures have nothing to do with Photo-real scenery.

That's why the PR-BGL's go in the scenery folder and not in the texture folder...

 

You want screenshots of my hard-drive showing the NAIP files, and of an MSE shot of the same area in a paint program showing the resolution and you'll see the screenshot is identical in color, res, and clarity?

That link you sent earlier was people talking about textures or people not understanding where photo-real sources come from. Look, I know everyone embellishes things in marketing, but calling 1m native as 50cm is a bit much, not sure why you are so vigilante to defend that. I don't have an issue with their products, but don't tell me something is 50cm when it's not?

It causes issue for other makers of scenery when they are trying to be truthful, you got some claiming they have double res, etc... Not entirely honest IMHO.

 

AS you yourself noted, not sure why you are going to lambast someone for posting a truthful comment, and I agree with you in that ---- people should try to post facts instead of what they think...