Since I can't seem to find an Orbx forum here in AVSIM I'll post this here.  I'm not allowed to post anything at any of the Orbx fourms except the limited user support forum.

I downloaded and installed True Earth Northern California this morning.  My first flight was over the North bay area of the San Francisco bay which I am intimately familiar with.  Overall it was very impressive.

But like TE Washington they have omitted seaplane docks at the seaplane facilities.  The water runways are there but no place to park the airplanes.  Especially Commodore Center.  Additionally there are dozens of homes in the bay at Sausalito.  I don't know how you are going to get those cars out of the carports when they are sitting in the middle of a bay.

The Basic Orbx Northern California had seaplane docks and static boats and float planes at every one of the seaplane bases in Northern California (and in PNW).  Don't understand why they were omitted in the TE series.

Noel.

36 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Since I can't seem to find an Orbx forum here in AVSIM I'll post this here. 

Noel.

Noel,

I assume this is for your P3D install? If it’s for XP we’ll put it in that forum. 

Yes it's for my P3D install.

Noel

Check your insertion points Noel.

From reading the info about the area, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears it is not 100% photoreal but has areas that are and then are mixed in with custom landclass scenery.  Am I correct on reading it that way?

4 hours ago, Clutch Cargo said:

From reading the info about the area, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears it is not 100% photoreal but has areas that are and then are mixed in with custom landclass scenery.  Am I correct on reading it that way?

No, that’s wrong, it’s not landclass based.

If it is TrueEarth, then it should be 100% photoreal.

Since you are very familiar with the San Francisco Bay area, Noel.....what do you think of the Bay Bridge model (the section between San Francisco and Yerba Buena Island)? The bridge model looks a bit strange in the screenshot that I have seen on ORBx Central (single deck, no lattice detail, very short towers, and no tower section below the road deck).

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

You lost me there Sue.  What are insertion points?

You are right Chris.  The bridge on both sides looks awful up close.  The towers are short and it is only a single deck on the San Francisco side.  I've never crossed the bridge since the new bridge on the Oakland side was reconstructed after the earthquake.  But it seems to have an awfully long unsupported ramp on the south side.

But as I read somewhere yesterday when I was going through the Orbx forum True Earth is supposed to be viewed at 2,000 feet or higher.  I don't know much about photoreal scenery but I never liked it much at low altitude flying but it looks good at higher altitudes.   Perhaps that's why they didn't include seaplane bases.

Noel

I tend to agree that it is best to view the autogen houses and other buildings at 1000 feet or higher, because that is where they look most realistic. However, custom built 3D landmarks are a different story. I would expect models like the Bay bridge to be accurate.

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

But as I read somewhere yesterday when I was going through the Orbx forum True Earth is supposed to be viewed at 2,000 feet or higher.  I don't know much about photoreal scenery but I never liked it much at low altitude flying but it looks good at higher altitudes.   Perhaps that's why they didn't include seaplane bases.

I don't know much about photoreal scenery but it begs the question.....Will the scenery that MS2020 is saying they are going to use work the same way. If so, that seems like pretty much a non starter for the GA only users among us. Is their a difference in what MS is trying to do?

24 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

I don't know much about photoreal scenery but it begs the question.....Will the scenery that MS2020 is saying they are going to use work the same way. If so, that seems like pretty much a non starter for the GA only users among us. Is their a difference in what MS is trying to do?

Yeah, MS is trying to stream it or at least not store it locally in large quantities permanently. Good luck doing that with 25cm/pp.

Ortho with autogen can be better than landclass down low, it’s just a matter of resolution. I use 25cm/pp for the southwest of England, and its great.

13 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Yeah, MS is trying to stream it or at least not store it locally in large quantities permanently. Good luck doing that with 25cm/pp.

Ortho with autogen can be better than landclass down low, it’s just a matter of resolution. I use 25cm/pp for the southwest of England, and its great.

Interesting that you live in Baltimore but fly down low in England.

I just cranked up P3Dv5 and went to the Bay Bridge.  It's correct.  The towers look good and it is a double deck bridge on the San Francisco side.  On the Oaklamd side that gawdawfu extra ramp hanging in space in TE is gone in P3Dv5.

I think TE is pretty nice for flying your B737 from San Francisco to Seattle where you are at low altitudes on takeoff and approach and too busy in the cockpit and lining up with the runway to pay attention to the low altitude anomalies.  But my personal recommendation for those flying helicopters and Cherokees from Lake Tahoe to Klamath Falls over the southern extension of the Cascades stick to P3D whatever.

Now as Sue can tell you I am no expert in flight simulators so these are just my personal observations and subject to criticism.   But an entire neighborhood in Sausalito sitting in Richardson Bay is noticeable even at 2,000 feet...if you're looking for it.  There is so much to look at flying over the North Bay you might easily miss it.  I would have missed it had I not been looking for the Commodore Center seaplane facility.

I just flew a route at 4000ft that took me from Novato to KSFO,  across the bay to Oakland and up to Vallejo.  Things look a lot better at 4,000ft.  I see and recognize neighborhoods.  The San Rafael-Richmond bridge looks authentic as do the pair of Benecia bridges and the pair of the bridges over the Carquinez (sp) straight at Vallejo. 

I like seeing cities like San Francisco and Oakland intact from a distance without additional buildings popping up as you get closer.

Fly high and you don't see the warts.

I'll stick to P3Dv5 for GA flying and go to TE for Dash8 and B737 flying.

Noel

Edited June 14, 20205 yr by birdguy
Added another sightseeing flight from a higher altitude.

Just went over and read the comments on TE-Northern California on the Orbx forum.  Nothing but high praise so I may be all wet on my criticisms.

Noel

I don't own it and won't buy it specifically for the reason that I am a general aviation pilot that has lived in the area for 20 years and I fly over it several times a month. While I have not memorized every building and road and tree placement in the whole bay area and Northern California, I do know it enough to make the errors stand out like a sore thumb. I have used the free Bluesky Scenery for all of Northern California for several years and it has worked out ok. Yes it is flat but in real life I rarely fly below 2,000 feet outside of take off and landing so in the sim I tend to fly the same way and above 2000 it looks pretty good but there are no seasons.

 

When I tried X-Plane I downloaded and installed Ortho scenery at a high LOD for all of California but the autogen ruined it. Again, I had trees where I knew there were no trees and buildings that didn't look right or were taller than the real buildings. Lots of things were wrong with it so I ended up turning autogen off and just flying photo scenery in X-Plane. Looking at the preview pictures for TE Northern California I see a lot of similar problems with the autogen in places. I see a lot of buildings that look way off from what they do in real life and the trees really pop out a lot more than they do in real life. I bought the original TE Netherlands when it first came out and in VR my performance is not great so that is another thing I am concerned about with the Northern California version. I will stick with my plain photo scenery  and my ORBX airports for now and hopefully the new Microsoft Flight Simulator will significantly improve my Bay Area and Northern California when it comes out.