Well, after having the chance to fly above the new VFR Netherlands photoreal scenery for an hour I was VERY disappointed. I tried to find my home and various well known places and had a hard time doing so. And when I did find them I was disappointed by how it looked. Far too pixelated. Awfull. (See the other topic about this add-on for my first post about it.)BUT...After coming home and flying mt DF Beech A36 again above Holland with the default scenery... I missed something... I missed a lot...! Suddenly it looked so... generic... well, awfull, really...So today I visited my friend again (just so I could fly aboive VFR Netherlands of course!) and I have to say... if you just fly around and do NOT look for specific buildings but just enjoy the view from somewhere above 4000 ft, without looking straight down too much, it DOES look pretty realistic after all...I guess I approached this add-on with the wrong expectations but also the wrong attitude: it's not about finding your own little home, it's about the overall feeling of really being there it gives you! And being able to point at the place where your house is (somewhere) from great height is fun after all, even if you cannot fly down low and REALLY see it. All in all I have to say that after flying above VFR Netherlands twice (once with the wrong attitude and once with the right attitude)... I begin to like it... And I'm afraid that the default scenery doesn't do it anymore for me, at least not when I'm flying VFR above the Netherlands (which I have been doing ever since I bought the A36.So... where's my credit card...? I need this add-on... I take it all back: it IS nice after all. When you look at it the way you're supposed to...

>I guess I approached this add-on with the wrong expectations>but also the wrong attitude: it's not about finding your own>little home, it's about the overall feeling of really being>there it gives you!I had the same 'problem'... But i guess we are excused, first time for us here in Holland to get a chance to virtually find our own home after having been waiting for that ever since FSII was released ( atleast *i* did... :+ ) Of course we are dissapointed initially not to find the coffee pot and cups on the table of our garden furniture set,aren't we...:-8 But after we've come back down to earth (both literally and as a matter of speech)we have to realize that such was really asking too much and that it is actually a wonderful experience to virtually fly over one's own country and find everything but the said coffee pot and cups to be there, isn't it ! :-cool Groet'n uut Groet,Jan

What is needed for FS Photorealistic scenery is the sort of imaging you get with Google Earth - see attached screenshot, my house in Canberra Australia is in the lower centre slightly obscurred by all the trees we have around the house.Bruceb

Don't think the guys who made the photoscenery were happy at this resolution either. The source data was far more detailed but it had to be resampled because of the limitation on resolution in FS. At 4.85m/pixel (or something near that) the scenery does indeed get too blocky at low levels.We can only hope MS increase the resolution in FS10..

I've often wondered about FS9's resolution.If it is only 4.8m/pixel will using higher resolution images result in a higher resolution image on the screen?.

The MegaCity Dallas/Fort Worth has used 1m/pixel (or something like that) as a base for the textures, which of course had to be resized to the standard 5m/pixel, but (so people say) it DOES look a lot better and sharper! So using higher res photographs should result in better looking textures...So if the next version of FS could cope with higher res textures, that would be great! But if nowadays computers can cope with that is another question... ;)

If they keep the current resolution but make it load faster so as to prevent photoscenery from turning into a grey blob when flying at over 100 knots I'd be happy...

Photographs of limited areas of the UK are now available at a resolution of 125mm/pixel. If this resolution were to be used instead of 4.8m/pixel then file sizes would increase by a factor of 1474. Ie a typical 256 by 256 tile at 47Kb would become 63Mb.Extensive coverage is available at 250mm/pixel. The factor in this case would be 368 and the resulting file size 16Mb.I can't see any PC in the near future coping with that.Also, the resolution of the screen must have an effect, taking into account the practicalities of the field of view in FS.

>If they keep the current resolution but make it load faster>so as to prevent photoscenery from turning into a grey blob>when flying at over 100 knots I'd be happy...Hm, yes, that worries me too... On my friends computer it took about half a minute before the textures underneath the plane were lowres... And usually the high-res textures were loaded when I was already far away. So in the end I was constantly flying over VERY lowres textures... You can (I forgot how) load all textures again, but that would mean that you have to wait a few minutes every minute, which means you spend more time loading textures than actually flying...Isn't there a settings that loads textures quicker?

From my own experience, the major factor towards creating better photoreal textures in FS9 is the quality of the software you use when resizing your source image to the right size for slicing up the individual texture tiles. The 4.8 m/p limit is always there but the quality is very good if the source photo is still sharp and crisp after the necessary resizing. Many photo editing programs use subpar image resizing algorithms that do little more than average the color between the pixels that they're expanding or contracting. The more advanced filters (such as Lancoiz) keep the detail excellent in most cases. On my new scenery, most of the thousands of square miles are rendered with the 4.8 m/p limitation. On areas that I consider worthy (and are basically flat city scenes), I'm augmenting the resolution by laying down GMAX flat plane objects textured with very high res aerial photos. A simple flatten of the area prior to laying down the plane ensures little bumps in the mesh don't pop up through the texture and you can minimize the gap between the plane and the actual ground. Art Martin

BruceBCheckout that google engine and man has it changed since kehole first came out. 3d buildings! we got to get this technology into the next version of FS.Kilstorm

>If they keep the current resolution but make it load faster>so as to prevent photoscenery from turning into a grey blob>when flying at over 100 knots I'd be happy...What seems to work for me enjoying photoreal scenery to full satisfaction,(including Netherlands VFR) :1. before flight choose 'Top Down' View and choose say 285 miles AGL.2. fly my Carenado T-34 at 3 to 4000 ft,130 kts. ( no need to 'change seats' for good left or right view and open canopy too but only when it's not raining :( ) 3. keep only ONE view (VC)4. NOT looking both to the left and right all the time,mostly keep front/left or left view. With this 'technique' i have yet to fly over a lower quality mipmap without it being replaced by highres version. It is only occasional that i see high res mipmaps pop up because the're not there yet and mostly only in the far distance.I sure do see the grey blobs you speak about too but only if i fly my Spit at 2500 ft, 180 kts so that's no surprise. Give it a try, Jeroen.cheers,Jan

>What is needed for FS Photorealistic scenery is the sort of>imaging you get with Google Earth - see attached screenshot,>my house in Canberra Australia is in the lower centre slightly>obscurred by all the trees we have around the house.>>BrucebThat's amazing,Bruceb ! It'll most probabely take a while still until we get to see this kind of quality in FS. Thanks for the screenshot and tip,i'll have to investigate Google Earth !cheers,Jan

>Isn't there a settings that loads textures quicker?Look for 'Refresh Scenery' in the Control Assignments menu. cheers,Jan

>1. before flight choose 'Top Down' View and choose say 285>miles AGL.You mean that when you've loaded the flight and are on the tarmac, you go to the top down view before doing anything else? And how exactly do you 'choose 285 miles AGL'?