Utx Europe comparisons

[vgbaron 3,627]

UTX will show in the areas it covers and LC will show in areas not covered by UTX. It actually works quite well.

 

Vic

[GSalden 4,657]

Sure, the UTX LC will cancel out FTX LC , but the UTX LC is only (sub)urban, city LC and high rise.

All other places will be displayed by FTX LC.

[tutmeister 710]

Actually I just turned off the Utx lc. It is easy to switch on and off almost every aspect individually.

 

Chris

[Bad_T 581]

Thanks Chris for the screens, very interesting.

I have already UTX2 and was tempted of buying OLC a few times, but from earlier pictures and discussions i had with friends, it seems like OLC removes a lot of autogen and that makes some places look very empty. Did you notice that too ? I tend to prefer a bit more autogen than way too little (personal preference)

Could you please, for example, post a picture of LSGS (google <-> OLC), the city is east of the airport and, if remember well, almost the full city (population around 35'000) is missing with OLC.

Maybe OLC is very good on big cities (like Zürich) and some other nice popular places shown by official screenshots, but i have still some doubts when it comes to particular regions where i like to fly VFR. Someone not knowing the region wouldn't even notice, but, if you know the region, missing main towns are just very depressing hehe .

i remember seeing many more examples with the same symptoms that i would describe as 'not enough autogen and a lot of empty fields'. At least, with UTX i get most of the time something believable to see when i know the region. Maybe those 'not so good' screens i saw were made with earlier versions of OLC and now it looks better, so it would be cool if you could post some more comparisons screens.

I guess it depends where you fly and probably both products will shine on some places and not that much on others. I guess it's inevitable with products covering such large areas.

so for now i still have only UTX 2.1 and i'm happy with it but I will certainly consider OLC if it improves over time.

Thank you :wub:
 

[IanHenry 10]

Chris, can you tell me which can you tell me which Land Class layers you turned off in UTX? I really fancy giving this a try myself, but there are several different LC layers to choose from.

 

 

Ian 

[tutmeister 710]

Hi

 

I turned off all the landclass layers, there are only about 4 I think.

 

Just a note guys. I'm not posting any more just yet. I took some shots of Munich and compared  orbx and with utx I get the grid of roads overlayed on fields. There is no city at all.

 

So in the interests of fairness im going to check my install and start from scratch I think. I find it hard to believe that utx could have it that wrong.

 

Will redo and post again.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[pmb 5,137]

Thanks so much, Chris, for all of your effort! Really helpful for making a decision on this.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[ckyliu 1,749]

One other thing I would be interested in is VAS (memory) usage, because some people have reported that Vector has substantially larger memory footprint than UTX. And that could be the clincher for me, as I already run close to OOM on many flights.

[Blakeman 0]

Hopefully there was something wrong with your UTX install, because as much as I love Vector, the VAS hit is pretty nuts.
From your earlier shots, vector + OLC looked much better and more accurate to me.

[vgbaron 3,627]

It's really tough to make those comparisons unless you really know what you are doing with scenery ( I don't ) -

 

I know for a fact that UTX users more accurate commercial data than Vector so it "should" be more accurate. However it is very easy to have items layered in the scenery library that will overwrite the UTX entries and give the impression of inaccuracies.

 

As far as what "looks" better - each to his own. I prefer the more realistic tones of the GEX/UTX combination to the more vivid, unrealistic coloring of the FTX/Vector combination. BUT - there are a lot of people who like it that way.

 

Vic