Just wondering about the behavior of these items in the P3D v3.0, especially if I put them on top of the UTX.  Interested in VAS usage, possible blurries etc. They have almost 50% off selected products now.

You won't have any problems with these.

 

Buy away.

 

Mark

I own almost the entire United States.  Works flawlessly.    UTX will be completey repressed, even if you put it on top in priority.   Photo Real goes on a layer that completely covers Autogen, landclass and vector data.  The only layer it does not cover is Custom Scenery Objects which is the reason why if you want lighting at night you have to get a product like Night Enviroment from Flight1 as those are custom placed lighting objects.

 

If anyone has gotten UTX to show at all I am all ears but it does not on my system.   Photo real is great for flying during summer and spring months as that is one most of the data was captured from.  I turn it off and go back to GEX World/FTX Global for fall and winter flying as I like to actually see snow textures.

I meant that during the nighttime MegaScenery does not have night textures' layers and I have to buy supplemental layer for night lighting from different vendors?

Id recommend the Night Environment line of products...very good and continually being improved! In fact, it amazes me that theyre not sold bundled together?!?

I meant that during the nighttime MegaScenery does not have night textures' layers and I have to buy supplemental layer for night lighting from different vendors?

 

You MUST buy a supplemental night product for night lighting and as stated, Chris Bell's Night Environment is probably the best for getting that lovely night lighting.

You MUST buy a supplemental night product for night lighting and as stated, Chris Bell's Night Environment is probably the best for getting that lovely night lighting.

 

 

But if I put UTX lights layer on the top of Megascenery, will i get night lighting?

But if I put UTX lights layer on the top of Megascenery, will i get night lighting?

 

No.   UTX Lights are Autogenerated, not hand placed custom scenery.  They will be disabled.

There is a newer better product with night lighting, water maps, and autogen that is much more color accurate. Ultimate VFR Scenery has 4 states out and is almost complete with the Western US.

There in lies the problem... 4 states.. out of 50.  Until UVFR catches up not investing in them just yet.  Their stuff does look impressive.

There is a newer better product with night lighting, water maps, and autogen that is much more color accurate. Ultimate VFR Scenery has 4 states out and is almost complete with the Western US.

 

I would respectfully disagree about the product being more color accurate.  While I agree that Ultimate VFR does try to do the best possible job color-matching between disparate tiles, I think they end with a bit of a mashup.  I bought Colorado and ended up going back to MSE V2 (plus hi-res Denver and hi-res Rocky Mountain National Park).  Please see my complete comments on that here: http://www.avsim.com/topic/445686-utah-ultimate-vfr-comparison/?p=3321400

 

BTW Brian - I do seem to get bleed-through of UTX lights.  They're not what I'd call good - in fact they're pretty subdued, but I definitely do see them bleeding through.  That said I completely agree that if you're serious about night flying, the night environment product is recommended.

 

Scott

Well I don't have as much to say except that I strongly disagree with your viewpoint on color. I do know that MegaScenery earth really makes no attempt and simply copies nearly pixel for pixel from not as high resolution as they claim image source. I know this because I have nearly all of California and many other places in 30 centimeter resolution simply by using FS earth tiles. It looks exactly the same as MSE but at the resolution expected

Well I don't have as much to say except that I strongly disagree with your viewpoint on color. I do know that MegaScenery earth really makes no attempt and simply copies nearly pixel for pixel from not as high resolution as they claim image source. I know this because I have nearly all of California and many other places in 30 centimeter resolution simply by using FS earth tiles. It looks exactly the same as MSE but at the resolution expected

 

What, specifically, do you disagree with?  To be clear - I agree that U-VFR works hard to color balance the imagery they use - and I agree that's something MSE most definitely does not do.  I found no disruptive, abrupt color shifts such as you get in MSE when using U-VFR Colorado.  But here's the rub...  Color balancing in and of itself is difficult enough without some sort of standard to reference to, such as a color chart shot in the same conditions.  Something has to define what "correct" is or everything's subjective to start with.  The additional and hugely complicating problem here is that what U-VFR is trying to do in having everything match up is all but impossible given that the base imagery comes from different times of day and year and thus dramatically different color balances.  To be correct, many of the transitions SHOULD be abrupt.

 

When I look at MSE in CO, much (but certainly not all - especially in the eastern part of the state) of what I see is subjectively - more or less - shouting match - close to correct in balance (yeah, I know - damning with faint praise!), but there are abrupt transitions in some areas.  But, if I have multiple sets of imagery, most of which are more or less correct for the time/date taken, in order to make them match across image boundaries I'm going to have to make one or more sets incorrect.  And this is in fact what I see in U-VFR Colorado flying over terrain that I know intimately.  Yes, there is consistent color, but everything is moderately to egregiously not what you'd see if you overflew the terrain IRL as I have many, many... times.

 

I guess it's a case of what you hate more.  Abrupt transitions but with recognizable terrain coloring, or no transitions but with everything just a bit, to waaay wrong.  I'm not an MSE fan, but I'm also a realist when it comes to what's reasonable given the size of the areas we're looking at and the available imagery.  Flying MSE I'm often annoyed at the transitions, or at the overly or under-ly (is that a word? :wink: ) saturated colors, or at colors that seem too warm or too cold for the area, but at least most of it looks (turning my nit-picking off) more like it really looks than not.  THIS is the acid test that U-VFR Colorado badly failed.  Traveling from the eastern plains, across the high country and on to the Colorado Plateau region (a difficult color journey to be sure), much - really most - of that color journey was simply wrong.

 

Perhaps other states are better, but based on Colorado, I had little incentive to find out.

 

Scott

That is your acid test. Mine is patchyness and blotchyness, which breaks realism more for me. Also, what time of day and year are you dlying IRL? You say thete are too many variables to deal with. Then you say only yours and your eyes are correct. UVFRs author is a lifetime career professional that knows the subtle and subjective world of color and light and has a reputation built on that. I have also dealt with prepress and proofing myself professionally for years, although now decades ago. In my experience not everyone is pleased as we all see things and have seen things differently. That's why some people can make a very good living picking the palettes that please the right people.

Did I mention water classes, autogen, and night lighting that can be seen a ways off.

Is your monitor color calibrated? 20 years ago I had perfect color vision. Im almost certain that I don't now.

That is your acid test. Mine is patchyness and blotchyness, which breaks realism more for me. Also, what time of day and year are you dlying IRL? You say thete are too many variables to deal with. Then you say only yours and your eyes are correct. UVFRs author is a lifetime career professional that knows the subtle and subjective world of color and light and has a reputation built on that. I have also dealt with prepress and proofing myself professionally for years, although now decades ago. In my experience not everyone is pleased as we all see things and have seen things differently. That's why some people can make a very good living picking the palettes that please the right people.

Did I mention water classes, autogen, and night lighting that can be seen a ways off.

Is your monitor color calibrated? 20 years ago I had perfect color vision. Im almost certain that I don't now.

 

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that everyone will have the same set of preferences - I'm simply explaining why I disagree that U VFR is objectively better at color.  As noted "I guess it's a case of what you hate more".  I absolutely realize that others may prefer the product as you do.  No where do I say anything even remotely like "only my eyes are correct".  What I did say was that I'm intimately familiar with flying this area year-round (it's why I bought Colorado first to try) and that I found much of what I flew over to be difficult to recognize.  Perhaps without that familiarity it wouldn't matter so much.

 

Note also that I'm not questioning the developer's credentials or experience - only the pitfalls inherent in the task he set himself.  And to answer your last question - yes, my monitor is hardware calibrated and re-calibrated on a regular basis, using a Spyder 4.

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree.  And in fact I'd go a step further and offer the opinion that each state is certainly inexpensive enough that trying one for yourself is strongly recommended.  And on that I'm sure we can agree.

 

Scott