Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
jjeffreys

Mega Scenery Atlanta Review and 75 fps..

Recommended Posts

Hi,I have a question for Jeremy Jeffreys concerning the displayed 75fps in the review pics. I read your system specs and I don't have enough hardware knowledge to equate your system to mine. I have a Dell 3.4xps and never seen 75fps. Heck, I have never seen 50! :) Well maybe once while viewing the sky with no clouds and no traffic and no scenery. What are your slider settings? Thanks for the review and your reply in advance!Bob...


Bob Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JIMJAM

Yeah really. You need one of those new UNOBTANIUM computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JTEK99

Well, Bob.. I'll tell you why he got that fps rating. From the screenies, he's obviously not using Extended Terrain Textures, and his visibility is set low.He also states that this was his first photoreal scenery, so there's not much experience on his part tweaking the heck out of MegaScenery to make it look good; it may also be true that he's not really a screenshot 'artist', so all is forgiven.What can be said about MegaScenery is that you can get some pretty decent FPS (30+) and eat your cake as well. I have plenty of photoreal titles and the key is getting the balance between visibility, weather, etc. But in my humble opinion, the real key to getting ANY photoreal scenery working beautifully (and admittedly, blowing you away with beauty) is to use an aircraft that (a) is meant for VFR and not very fast, and (:( is not too complex in systems like several commercial airliners are (PMDG, LDS, etc.). The scenery is meant for *viewing*...not whizzing by at 325 knots at FL310.Anyway... 75 sounds insane and probably was achieved my delimiting several variables. I can get that, too, but quality will naturally suffer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anybody was going to post about this scenery. I live in Atlanta and the screenshots dont look all that hot. I personally have had better success with a modified version of Bill Molonys Fs2002 Atlanta scenery. Im not paying for this megascenery anyway.Eric


rexesssig.jpg AND ftx_supporter_avsim.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could never get the "popping" textures to stop, fly a bit, blurry, pop, in focus.It is much better in a low and slow as stated above but hey I also like the big birds.I did some of the tweaks but really I don't want to have to tweak the s**t out of my system with special add on defraggers and such to make it work.I bought GE Pro and sold all my MS titles on E-Bay.MS PNW looks amazingly awesome when it was in focus. Which was not very often.


Al Stiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Well, Bob.. I'll tell you why he got that fps rating. From>the screenies, he's obviously not using Extended Terrain>Textures, and his visibility is set low.>>He also states that this was his first photoreal scenery, so>there's not much experience on his part tweaking the heck out>of MegaScenery to make it look good; it may also be true that>he's not really a screenshot 'artist', so all is forgiven.>>What can be said about MegaScenery is that you can get some>pretty decent FPS (30+) and eat your cake as well. I have>plenty of photoreal titles and the key is getting the balance>between visibility, weather, etc. But in my humble opinion,>the real key to getting ANY photoreal scenery working>beautifully (and admittedly, blowing you away with beauty) is>to use an aircraft that (a) is meant for VFR and not very>fast, and (:( is not too complex in systems like several>commercial airliners are (PMDG, LDS, etc.). The scenery is>meant for *viewing*...not whizzing by at 325 knots at FL310.>>Anyway... 75 sounds insane and probably was achieved my>delimiting several variables. I can get that, too, but>quality will naturally suffer. :)Hi,I don't know what an A64 Venice 2600 Over clocked to 2500MHz is and how it compares to a P4. I had the same thought concerning quality versus performance and the reason I inquired about the sliders. It is hard to judge how it might perform on my system, since I don't understand the hardware differences (if any).Thanks.Bob..


Bob Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eek

I live in Atlanta and I didn't see anything that really jumped out at me. The Georgia Dome and "The Ted" were lit up pretty well, but it doesn't look like a huge upgrade. The buildings downtown looked kinda blocky and default like.He clearly had his textures turned down. Notice how close the "blurries" start to the plane. With his system, he could have extended them a lot more. Those screenies would look better if he used more of his computer's power to show it. Who the #### needs 75fps?:-hmmm That's a waste, when there's eye candy available.No way to tell how it performs on your system. Merely comparing hardware isn't enough, anyway. His add-ons vs. yours would make a difference, also. He should have flown around the ATL with his usual set-up first, then add the scenery and note the performance hit.It's his first review, so I won't hammer the guy, but there isn't really enough info in the review to make a judgement, either on performance or visual quality. Frankly, every Avsim review I've ever read has always given a "thumbs up". I've never seen more than very minimal criticism of a product, usually attributed to the reviewers personal taste. The text of the review won't help you, but they usually post screenshots showing what the product is capable of. Unfortunately, we don't have that here. As for performance issues, you have to scan the forums for posts from users. I don't have any MegaScenery, but you could probably just do a search and see how happy the users are. It's usually a good indication of quality and performance. Hopefully, someone else will do a review and post better screenies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JTEK99

>Frankly, every Avsim>review I've ever read has always given a "thumbs up". I've>never seen more than very minimal criticism of a product,>usually attributed to the reviewers personal taste. Indeed.. it's always shocked me how nearly all products reviewed are either "outstanding" or have very few minor niggles reported. The review that has always stuck in my craw was the one (well, I should say "two) review for the CaptainSim C-130. The review was split into Parts I & II (a harbinger of CapSim's new block system, perhaps?), and the reviewer was quick to point out that it was divided as such because a service pack/patch hadn't been released yet, so he wouldn't talk about anything negative in the product (i.e., the things that the patch was supposed to address). For me, that was tantamount to saying from the first sentence: 'do not expect objectivity in this review.' That kind of treatment of a product available for public consumption was -- at least for me -- palpably unfair to the would-be consumer and, to be frank, does a disservice to the industry by allowing certain developers to ride free without a single iota of objective judgment.For me, a review that says "wow!" or "amazing!" or "utterly fantastic!" should be a rare one; it should stand out, and have stood up to the scrutiny of the readers who are also owners of the reviewed product. But if they ALL say "amazing", in one way or another, well... that's not reviewing. That's *advertising*. :) And FREE advertising at that.To get back on track, there is one thing I can say about MegaScenery, though. Their products basically work "out-of-the-box", don't ruin any other addon or destroy/overwrite intrinsic or default textures, and can easily be de-selected in the scenery library when one doesn't want to see them. I own just about all of them and really enjoy them when I want to do some sightseeing; in truth, nothing beats 'em, especially if you're familiar with the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eek

>>>Frankly, every Avsim>>review I've ever read has always given a "thumbs up". I've>>never seen more than very minimal criticism of a product,>>usually attributed to the reviewers personal taste. >>Indeed.. it's always shocked me how nearly all products>reviewed are either "outstanding" or have very few minor>niggles reported. The review that has always stuck in my craw>was the one (well, I should say "two) review for the>CaptainSim C-130. The review was split into Parts I & II (a>harbinger of CapSim's new block system, perhaps?), and the>reviewer was quick to point out that it was divided as such>because a service pack/patch hadn't been released yet, so he>wouldn't talk about anything negative in the product (i.e.,>the things that the patch was supposed to address). For me,>that was tantamount to saying from the first sentence: 'do not>expect objectivity in this review.' That kind of treatment of>a product available for public consumption was -- at least for>me -- palpably unfair to the would-be consumer and, to be>frank, does a disservice to the industry by allowing certain>developers to ride free without a single iota of objective>judgment.>>For me, a review that says "wow!" or "amazing!" or "utterly>fantastic!" should be a rare one; it should stand out, and>have stood up to the scrutiny of the readers who are also>owners of the reviewed product. But if they ALL say "amazing",>in one way or another, well... that's not reviewing. That's>*advertising*. :) And FREE advertising at that.>>To get back on track, there is one thing I can say about>MegaScenery, though. Their products basically work>"out-of-the-box", don't ruin any other addon or>destroy/overwrite intrinsic or default textures, and can>easily be de-selected in the scenery library when one doesn't>want to see them. I own just about all of them and really>enjoy them when I want to do some sightseeing; in truth,>nothing beats 'em, especially if you're familiar with the>area.>>Yeah, I don't think it's a secret that Avsim reviews are basically ads. That doesn't mean they are useless. As I said, they usually post screenshots that show what the software is capable of (regardless of whether the average user can run it on an average system). The text of the reviews are only useful as far as features go. There's usually more info, in this regard, than would be available on the product website. But, as far as getting an "unbiased" evaluation, the review alone doesn't cut it. You have to search around forums and with Google to "put 2+2 together".To be fair to Avsim, everything that is provided here is "free", so they have to recoup costs. I understand economics. I also understand they don't really want to cheese off any developers. Can you imagine an Avsim review panning FSX? But, calling them "reviews" is a bit of a stretch. I, personally, wish they would move to Google AdSense or something similar. The ads are text, which makes them friendly to people who surf in on dial up. You don't have all that crap flashing at you. They'd be paid by Google, not the developers, so they would be more free to be objective. You point out the CaptainSim review, and the reviewer giving a pass because it hadn't been patched. I can't remember what the review was, but I saw a similar review. I couldn't help but think, if the code was worth a crap in the first place, it wouldn't need a patch. Software should be able to stand on it's own... straight out of the box. And that's how the review should judge it. I'd love to see a site dedicated to objective flight sim add-on reviews. Not just payware, but freeware as well. I saw a review on the iFly 747. It wasn't a review, really. Just a post in a forum (can't recall where), but it was called a review, and that's basically what it was. Totally objective, and what the review said it was, was what I got. Perhaps Avsim should add a forum for user write ups of various add-ons? As it stands now, if you bash a product, you risk having the thread locked or removed. An open forum discussing individual products freely, would provide a more objective review and allow simmers to decide if the add-on is really worthwhile. Not sure if it would fly on Avsim. I'm thinking it'd probably have to be a separate website. But, a review should be free to say a product sucks, if that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there guys, my review was based on the default as installed Atlanta that comes on the DVD. I let the installer change my FS9 settings for best performance. As for tweaking yes there are a lot of tweaks that will definitely make for some better shots but I am truley impressed by what I have seen with this scenery. As I have stated in the review this was my first photoreal scenery as I am more of an aircraft systems type, so my system is normally setup to give me the most fluid frame rate I can achieve. One thing that the installer does is it sets FPS to unlimited, I normally have them locked at 30. As for my system it is a home built system, I have a DFI NF3 Mobo with a hand selected A64 for overclocking. My 6800GT is also overclocked to Ultra settings and like most of you I have made system tweaks to XP to gain every ounce of power that I can get. As a reviewer we have to take in to account that not everyone is making the tweaks so we have to try to keep the review as virgin as possible. As for this software it gives an option to allow the installer to change the settings to optimize FS9 so that is how the review was done. I will take some high quality screen shots of the scenery tonight with some tweaks and post them on here when I have them. I will make sure that I get some more shots of downtown, the shots that I took were in dusk so they may not have been portrayed as well as they should have with the default settings. I want to truly represent the items that I review for what they are and I am, as I stated in the review, absolutely satisfied with what MegaScenery has produced.


________________________________________________________________________________

 

W7Pro x64 | Asus P6X58D | i7 920 @ 4 ghz 191x21 | Noctua NHD-14 | 6GB OCZ 1600 CL8 | Giga GTX260 SOC | Corsair 750tx | Antec 902 | Asus 23" |

Saitek x-45 | Logitec 940 | CH Yoke | CH Pedals | FS9 | FSX | X-Plane |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jeremy for the reply. And it appears your system is a generation or two ahead of mine! :) I look forward to the screen shots. Bob..


Bob Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some quick shots I just took. I tried to show the city in Dusk with some tough lighting, clouds, and a fast jet. You can see on some how fast I am going by the G's that I am pulling. I have 8xs AA and 8 AF set on my system. Hope this helps everyone out.Sorry but I did not want to re-size them to be able to post on here and degrade the quality so just copy and paste into your browser.http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot022iv0.jpghttp://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot001lx9.jpghttp://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot002ln3.jpghttp://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot012hy5.jpghttp://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot016wg1.jpghttp://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot020ti4.jpghttp://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot027kd7.jpghttp://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot028de6.jpghttp://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrshot029ld2.jpg


________________________________________________________________________________

 

W7Pro x64 | Asus P6X58D | i7 920 @ 4 ghz 191x21 | Noctua NHD-14 | 6GB OCZ 1600 CL8 | Giga GTX260 SOC | Corsair 750tx | Antec 902 | Asus 23" |

Saitek x-45 | Logitec 940 | CH Yoke | CH Pedals | FS9 | FSX | X-Plane |

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...