Before we say ORBX is bad, you should buy this and that, lets figure out the problem. First its not the orbx scenery, its in the settings, as that computer is fast enough and the video card is fast enough. 

Start by lowering autogen scenery (cars, planes, trees/houses) and see if its able to render the scenery tiles quick enough for flight then. I have lots of orbx scenery's and yes they are a big hit on FPS but the only way I get blurries like you are talking about is if I fly the F-18 at mach 1 low altitude. 

Anyway try that out and report back.

"Quite plausible" isn't good enough for me these days. To be honest, landclass textures have never floated my boat (I actually preferred the vector graphics look of FS4 to those hideous, shimmering, low resolution textures that Microsoft crowbarred into the awful FS5). ORBx is easily the best of its class, and the autogen can look very good. Unfortunately, my brain all too easily detects the repetitive nature of the textures (particularly in urban areas), and coastlines end up looking like the product of a cardboard cutout class at Kindergarten. Of course, photoscenery is not perfect. Far from it. There are areas of England and Wales in my VFR GenX photoscenery with far too much colour saturation (which ends up making the textures look even lower resolution than the 1.2 metres per pixel that they are supposed to be). VFR GenX Scotland fares better in this department, but it suffers from a few areas of rather low contrast (Glasgow being a prime example).

 

Nevertheless, with ES Treescapes installed, I get a decent 3D effect most of the time. There may well be a lack of autogen buildings across most of the UK landscape on my PC, but to be honest I would rather not have any buildings at all than randomly scattered boxes (which is what the default autogen looks like to me).

 

As for the comment above about Ireland photoscenery, I replaced FTX Republic of Ireland with PlayHorizon VFR GenX photoscenery, and I was so glad that I did. It may not have the mass of autogen buildings and trees that the FTX product has, but performance is a lot better, and it actually looks more realistic! That's because the flat photo textures are a representation of the real landscape, not some automatically generated (and rather rough) approximation of it. If I see a golf course below me, then I know that it's a real golf course, not one of those generic ORBx golf courses that all look the same. As for the coastlines......I dare anyone to suggest that the approach to runway 28 at EIDW Dublin International using FTX Ireland is more realistic than the superb sight I am greeted with when using PlayHorizon VFR GenX Ireland East. The coastline detail, watermasking and realism of the photoscenery product is light years beyond anything that a landclass package has to offer.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I used MegaScenery which was disappointing. I'll look into the GenX scenery.

 

Also, I may get the Swiss Pro scenery if it works with P3D, as there is no Orbx region in that amazing part off the world.

 my brain all too easily detects the repetitive nature of the textures 

 

There I do agree with you. That used to irk me relentlessly but I got over it.

 

I guess, as with art, the whole flightsim experience is a matter of personal perception and preference.

 

Although the Orbx solution isn't perfect - whenever I feel the need to complain about it - i am quickly reminded about the brown, awful, lifeless, default textures, or the other 3rd party solutions (only covering small areas) before Orbx hit our monitors.  I have to say, I have somewhat drowned in the Orbx Coolaid.  It just works for me. 

 

Picasso - Picaahso :smile:

I knew Orbx's FTX set and FreeMesh X got me plenty of fun soaring over the Alps. It is way much better than stock, and the repetitiveness is thankfully much less glaring.

 

If only there's a way to get any reasonable coverage of photoscenery! They are indeed better almost by definition.

ORBX isn't all equal either, remember there different folks making scenery and they all have their little ways of doing things.  Some ORBX land textures look as if they are running it through a "soften portrait" or "glow" effect, this creates higher contrast and gives the land a natural brightness you would see in real life.  Unfortunately, running these kinds of effects cause loss of detail.  So it's a compromise between overall look and overall feel.

I knew Orbx's FTX set and FreeMesh X got me plenty of fun soaring over the Alps. It is way much better than stock, and the repetitiveness is thankfully much less glaring.

 

If only there's a way to get any reasonable coverage of photoscenery! They are indeed better almost by definition

 

 

 

You can get MegaScenery Switzerland.  Or Swiss Pro X.  

Thanks for the info...Guess I'd better look into it some more.

I can remember trying out Just Flight's VFR scenery on FSX some little while back and remember feeling dreadfully disappointed. The colours looked totally unrealistic, shadows clearly pointing in the wrong direction and airport buildings sticking out like skyscrapers on an otherwise totally flat landscape. I am sure more recent stuff from Horizon is better but it has sort of put me off totally.

 

Using Orbx in P3Dv3 I am on the whole pretty satisfied. Where for me it falls down is that even in full fat regions it remains just a generic substitute; true, some sections are more true to life but the greater part still remains a mere representation. When I'm flying in Oz or the US West Coast it doesn't bother me; I've never been to either region so for me it seems real. But when I fly in England it is a big disappointment because I know it is not right. A big smoking chimney in the middle of Chelmsford.....for Heaven's sake!

 

It's like with most things with this hobby.....a bit of a compromise.

Yes, it will probably always be a compromise. However, if I could get the detail and density of the 3D models and autogen in the Earth Simulations Shawbury Fields package throughout the entire UK, I would be a very happy bunny indeed.