You are perfectly right. The resampler can do better than 1.19m/pixFirst shot: 1.2 m/pixhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156128.jpgSecond shot: 0.3 m/pix. That's quiet cool!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156129.jpgHowever the size is huge. A scenery-tile that was 43KB in FS9 with 4.7m/pix is now 19.313KB with 0.3m/pix. I have not yet fiddled with compression though...Another thing I noticed is, that the rendering is somewhat grainy, given that this is the original image:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156130.jpgThis is my .inf-file:[Destination] DestDir = "." DestBaseFileName = "DEN_SX_FSX_3630--7146" BuildSeasons = 0 UseSourceDimensions = 1 LOD = Auto[source] Type = BMP SourceDir = "." SourceFile = "S13630--7146.bmp" Layer = Imagery Variation = Day Lat = 39.88037109375 Lon = -104.677734375 NumOfCellsPerLine = 4096 NumOfLines = 4096 CellXdimensionDeg = 0.0000035762786865234375 CellYdimensionDeg = 0.000002682209014892578125Do you have an idea if I can do something to get even better results?Regards,

In my. opinion a good variety of autogen textures and buildings beats photo textures any day. Seriously, phototextures simply look too flat. 2D buildings like in your screenshots destroy the atmosphere for me, rather than enhancing it. It screams in your face: "look how flat it is... it's not real!"The increasing processing power shouldn't just be used for a higher texture resolutions, but for a greater and prettier variety or real 3D buildings and other objects. Instead of using aerial photography they should increase the number, variety and usability of autogen textures, so that they match even more with the real thing (i.e. real streets positions). I mean: Google Earth and navigation systems prove that there is extensive data data on the complete roadsystem. That data should be utilized to recreate cities with autogen textures. That way you could still find the street you live in, without the huge amount of space that photo textures would need. There also must be some way to automatically recreate real world building placement with 3D buildings in the simulation.

While I agree with you that 3D buildings are very important I can't agree on autogen textures. For me - and many others - nothing beats the fascination of flying over the real terrain rendered from aerials. Every bit is different. You see the real stuff. A roof with "Budget" or "Prologis" on it, different vegetation, etc etc. And this fascination will increase when we see the first large scale hi-res sceneries. Autogen textures are always somewhat synthetic. On the pro-side of autogen textures is, that they can cover huge areas with relatively little data. BTW FSX invests a lot in the improvement of autogen. So I guess there will be a mixture of both for a long time to come. The main problem with 3D buildings is that they have to be placed 100% accurately to match with hi-res photo textures. Otherwise it's better to have no buildings at all.

The graininess is probably the detail texture being applied. Try turning it off in the settings dialog.

I have become a convert from Photosecenry to good autogen and Land class scenery person after I tried Scenery Germany 4 (Wasserkupe EDER). However, I still like Photo scenery flying slow AGL >7000 feet, provided I have no bluries. Anything like flying low or fast, a good landclass with fine terrain detail and well placed objects beats photosceneries.So.. IMo, its not mutualy exclusive... a good combination is necessory.Manny

If you are flying 500ft right over the treetops then yes autogen trees and buildings will provide a more real 3d experience, but at 2000ft+ the phototextures provide a "you are there" experience and gives you the illusion of 3d. In the past blurries and low resolution images have kept these photosceneries from reaching their full potential. With FSX and the availability of high capacity hard drives this is about to change. With carefully placed 3d objects like buildings more than a few stories over phototextures it is as close to real as you can get with the current technology. Something like Aerosoft's Manhattan (yes they use texture polygons but it still looks great). Plus all those autogen buildings are generic and they look cartoonish. Yes, autogen textures can be given the same photoreal treatment but would impact performance and you will still see the same atoogen objects repeating all over the place.Regards, Carlos

Well-I have been having a hard time deciding. I used to be an autogen junkie-but the new textures look so real (and not only look good low but just look more like what it looks like from a real plane)-plus turning autogen down improves performance....It is nice to have such choices....Two shots of "generic" scenery near my home airport-one autogened and one not-you decide-I am partial now to autogen off! :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156141.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156142.jpg

The textures may look clearer but theres a big problem with the 'real' roads overlapping everything else including the texture roads. With addons like Ultimate terrain it will be a mess. The 'real' roads should be drawn first, and the textures/autogen placed around that. I realise that won't be simple, but life wasn't meant to be easy.

How can fs9 display 1.2m per pixel? I thought the smallest pixel in fs9 was 4.8m. The new high res looks real nice. I can now see the in-n-out burger place when landing at LAX.I have installed the overlays on a higher layer than MegaScenery version 2 but the Megascenery is still visible in some areas (green bands). How do I fix this problem?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156148.jpg

Thanks for that comparison. Yes, I like the one with autogen objects a lot better, for the simple fact that real buildings are 3D. ;)I rather have generic repeating buildings than a landscape that looks flat like a friggin' photo carpet. But that depends on flying preference. I like to go really low, up close and personal, as I'm more a bush pilot type of guy. Of coure phototextures without autogen are first choice when you ride heavy metal at 10,000-20,000AGL.

Yes I am a metal head but fly GA too. I agree with you for bush flying the autogen is better. But for everything else, I like the phototextures.Regards, Carlos

The trick with photo-scenery is the shadows which provide the illusion of depth. Second is the color quality of the photos. Third is the consistency of color and brightness over a photographed area. Put some autogen in the photos and you have a nice visual reality. One roadblock is finding a good source of photos for your target area. Then you need good batch processing tools to handle the large photo files and their conversion to DXT formats. Microsoft has provided the scenery engine we have all wanted - high res textures & mesh!! Now we have to take advantage of it - faster CPUs, better video cards, more memory and larger disks. Or, cut down on the sliders and save money.Many have commented that the new FSX synthetic textures meet their criteria well enough to preclude the need for autogen. I tend to agree. However, because the new textures are so good they place a greater demand on the artistic accuracy of the autogen otherwise it becomes a negative. Proper coloring, and proportionality of the autogen structures are more critical. The new FSX synthetic textures provide a much better experience when flying above areas that you are not familiar with. However, their major drawback, despite their quality, is landclass. High-rise buildings densely packed in the middle of the mountains of Pennsylvania look bad even with the best textures. Overall you picks your poison. The visual choices are now more numerous. The ability, if you can find the photos, to fly through a "real" Grand Canyon is available. The fun is just beginning. Oh, one other thing. Microsoft - remember the flight models. After-all this is a Flight Simulator!Dick near 5G8>Thanks for that comparison. Yes, I like the one with autogen>objects a lot better, for the simple fact that real buildings>are 3D. ;)>>I rather have generic repeating buildings than a landscape>that looks flat like a friggin' photo carpet. But that depends>on flying preference. I like to go really low, up close and>personal, as I'm more a bush pilot type of guy. Of coure>phototextures without autogen are first choice when you ride>heavy metal at 10,000-20,000AGL.

Yes, I already heard about that problem. Each product alone works OK but the combination produces bands of MegaScenery in my scenery:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156209.jpgI don't know why FS decides to display MegaScenery tiles although my scenery is on a higher layer. But I can offer a workaround. Although I have tested this workaround with my copy of SoCal MegaScenery Vol.1, it is at your own risk! Please make a backup of MegaScenery before!You can copy all the .bmp files of my texture directories LAX_North2006_LRtexture and LAX_South2006_LRtexture into the texture directories of Megascenery. For SoCal Vol.1 you would copy my files into LosAng_etexture and LongBe_etexture. Copy only the .bmp files! This replaces the MegaScenery textures with my textures. Afterwards you can disable my LAX_North2006_LR and LAX_South2006_LR sceneries in the scenery library - and voila, no more bands:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156210.jpgRegards,

Works with SoCal V2 also. Green SoCal V2 bands are gone. How come your scenery looks so much better than Megascenery?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/156214.jpg

The part that people seem to be ignoring is the trees. Man, when you get around a heavily forested area, it looks amazing. Try taking off from KSHN in Washington. The whole airport is pretty much surrounded by dense forest. Even at a notch down from full autogen, it looks absolutely amazing.