Megascenery titles in FSX

[jfri 42]

I got an mail stating that the megascenery titles works fine and better than FS9 in FSX. Two questions comes to my mind,Why would the same megascenery title be better in FSX than in FS9? In what way? In FS9 I have the FSGenesis 38m mesh. I think I have read that FSX still uses 1200 m. Shouldn't that make the FS9 option better?Is not the default FSX scenery already so good that no megascenery is needed?

[Guest Rick Baldwin]

I think one must read between the lines. It is what they did NOT say in the email -- that Megascenery is better than *FSX* default scenery.I daresay if they could have made that assertion, they would have! :)-Rick

[jfri 42]

>I think one must read between the lines. It is what they did>NOT say in the email -- that Megascenery is better than *FSX*>default scenery.>>I daresay if they could have made that assertion, they would>have! :)>They do have comparison screenshoots depicting default FS2004 scenery and Megascenery side by side.It would be interesting having default FSX Megascenery shots side by side.

[1mikel151 71]

Here's the deal as I see it, FSX has higher resolution scenery tiles and the ability to render at a higher resolution, which means much more detail. Now this means that the mega titles might look a bit better in FSX, BUT if they use better source data, you can have even higher detail that you get now. I would wait till a mega title comes out "specifically" designed for FSX, not just one that will work in FSX.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

[Forkboy2 27]

There are two ways FSX could be better with MegaScenery titles.A) Load Times - I could be wrong, but I seem to remember hearing something about photo sceneries in FSX would be able to wrap all the textures in a single large file instead of having thousands of small files. If true, that might help with load times.:( Texture loading/blurries - No one knows yet what changes MS may have made to the rendering priority of scenery textures, but it sounds like we can expect some improvements.Also, the default scenery can never compare with MegaScenery. That's like comparing apples and oranges.Matt

[Guest ecv737]

This might be an entire different issue! (assuming GE works in FSX).Do you really need Megasceneries (load time &HD Hog) if you own Ground Enviroment Pro.?????Edmundo CardenasCaracas, Venezuela

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg

[Guest allcott]

They are completely different concepts. One is generic, the other specific. So yes, you do.Allcott

[wmayo44 0]

I've been using ATLANTA and NW Pacific and both work fine, but just like FS9 as far as quality, load times. Seems I remember that some photoscenery was touted to be to 1 meter rez, but that since FS9 could only do less (2 or 3 or 5 or something), that is what you got in it. MAYBE such sceneries would actually play out at 1m if set up so.

[Guest dswo]

>I've been using ATLANTA and NW Pacific and both work fineDoes "both work fine" mean you have successfully installed them in the FSX beta? If so, what did you need to do?

[Guest davidvoogd]

I imagine one benefit will be the blurries fix in FSX.

[Guest kurtj]

While megascenery works in FSX I am curious about something though. Ins FSX it seems there is generic ground textures under the airports. Now with Megascenery you should get the real textures under the airports. I am wondering having the wonderful Socal v2 megascenery and the ground textures at KLAX looks like ####. This will make it look very strange. So how will this be made? I hope it would show the real satalite imagery under the aiport runways and taxi-ways.