Scenery Tech Landclass?

[rpowers 5]

Anybody have any more input or reviews on Scenery Tech LC versus Xcloud of FsGenesis?I have both and just wondered if it offered anything different.Thanks,Ron

[Geofa 108]

It probably depends on where you fly the most.Right now I think I'd rank them 1) Scenery tech 2) fsgenesis 3) cloud9. In reflecting sizes of cities with appropriate buildings Scenery Tech does the best, as well as getting rid of a good part of the "desert" in the default fsx. Also, areas like the mountains of the Sierra Nevada in California-although classified as "high desert" have lush pine trees as in real life-the mountains of San Diego have a more realistic look also.However-the immediate area I live in (flying over my house) is better reflected in the fsx default.I'd post some screenshot compares but can't do it for another couple weeks-perhaps someone could do some direct compares....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[rpowers 5]

Thanks Geofa,I guess I'll just go and get it.What was that reference to Chester Rogers in your comment about the Sierra Nevadas?I searched thinking it may be scenery,but didn't find anything.Ron

[Geofa 108]

It is just an airport in the Sierra Nevadas (very beautiful by the way) that I have flown into several times in the real world. If I recall in the other landclasses it shows up as complete desert-with the Scenery tech not only does it show up as pine tree covered as in real life-but the finger sticking into the big lake (Lake almanor) also has a golf course and small houses completely and accurately depicted-pretty amazing detail for an out of way place. It is just one of the areas I usually test for landclass as it is usually not well done.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[rpowers 5]

Thanks,After I thought about it I figured that was it.I'll have to try it tonight.

[victorwest2 0]

Has anybody found the Scenery Tech landclass showing less tree coverage then other landclass files?

[virtuali 4,419]

> In reflecting sizes of cities with appropriate buildings> Scenery Tech does the bestPlease, ensure you have latest update ( 1.03 ) for XClass US, because the correct size of buildings, and the differentiation between center/mid/suburb areas was the main improvement of that patch.If you have the update and you still think there are issues left, I kindly invite you to report on Cloud's forum with coordinates and problem description, because it's not possible to fix a global landclass product without user input. A *single* suggestion, often leads to an improvement on a global basis.

[Guest Derek D]

The ST landclass shouldn't have any effect on tree coverage (I assume you are talking about autogen). That is controlled by the slider in your graphics options.Or perhaps you are referring to there being less forest tiles in places where there used to be more. This would typically only happen if the default landclass was exaggerating the sizes of forests and the ST landclass is simply correcting that. Of course without more information I can't say for certain what you are experiencing, but if you feel that a certain area is being represented incorrectly it would be helpful to send a mail to SceneryTech support detailing the location of the problem.

[Guest BOPrey]

I just bought it. It is great and IMO, better xclass. The Grand Canyon plateau is properly represented. The slope technology is great. Now you don't have the pixels stretchs on the cliffs. Wait I have to check on that.

[FlyingsCool 3]

Um, I'm not sure I understand your question. As far as trees per square inch of landscape, it looks the same to me. As the previous poster said, the Grand Canyon looks forested much better now. North of Boston, I would say there is too much forest if anything. But it much more closely matches the population of this particular(ly small) area than Default or FSGenesis does at the moment. But I know Justin will be fixing his landclass over time. The US is a pretty big place to cover. So I'm glad that I have both, as I'll be able to see each grow over time.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

[victorwest2 0]

>The ST landclass shouldn't have any effect on tree coverage>(I assume you are talking about autogen). That is controlled>by the slider in your graphics options.>>Or perhaps you are referring to there being less forest tiles>in places where there used to be more. This would typically>only happen if the default landclass was exaggerating the>sizes of forests and the ST landclass is simply correcting>that. Of course without more information I can't say for>certain what you are experiencing, but if you feel that a>certain area is being represented incorrectly it would be>helpful to send a mail to SceneryTech support detailing the>location of the problem.Here are a couple of images that show what I mean. Both seem to use the same underlying texture but one (from a well known landclass producer) appears to show more complete tree coverage. It's at Langton Airstrip (MT60) in Montana but, as I don't live there, I have no idea which is more correct. Just seems strange that what appears to be the same texture produces different levels of autogen.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171373.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171374.jpg

[cklink 0]

One thing is I noticed is the almost non-existance of 142 (Rock Ice) or 130 (Rock) anywhere? I double checked viewing the bgl with tmfviewer and can't find them on any mountain ranges from BC through to AK.I like the modified lookup.bgl in most cases, as it adds a fringe of srub prior to switching to rock. I have both FSG and SceneryTechs, and I'm still in the market for something to fix up that whole AB/BC/AK region. So for know I'm still using a combination of Holger's old landclasses and the UT Port - and scenerytech layered underneath on the bottom. Following pics show what I mean. Both pics are of Mt. Robson, first being default second Scenerytechs.Regards'Garetthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171375.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171376.jpg

[Guest JimC1702]

I always used FSGenesis Landclass in FS9. When I switched to FSX, I moved the FS9 landclass over. Then I purchased the X-class landclass for the US, Canada, and Europe. When Justin released his FSGenesis landclass for FSX, I bought it, but was disappointed that my area of the northeast US was all ugly looking swamps. So then I purchased Scenery Tech landclass and was disappointed to find that none of the local villages are present, and my area seemed way too wooded.Now that Justin has updated his landclass, I've switched back to FSGenesis and it's by far the best FOR MY AREA. No landclass is perfect and it's highly subjective. Each user has to determine what's best for him in the area in which he flies. For me, it's currently FSGenesis with the new update.Jim

[Guest Derek D]

Thanks for posting those pictures. After investigating those coordinates, I've determined that the default landclass uses tile #22 (cool conifer forest) almost exclusively in this area, and this tile has a very dense autogen definition. The ST landclass on the other hand uses a variety of tiles in this area: 22, 3 (coniferous forest), and 4 (deciduous conifer forest). Although all of these tiles use similar ground textures, they have different autogen definitions--some are less dense than others.Incidentally, checking the location on Google Maps seems to validate that the region isn't supposed to be quite as densely forested as the default landclass is showing. You can see the map here:http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=N4...1&t=k&z=13&om=1So the good news is what you are seeing isn't actually a problem, it is in fact working as intended--the landclass is creating a more varied environment by utilizing a variety of terrain tiles. You do however raise a legitimate concern, which is whether some forests are being under-represented due to less dense tiles being used. I will investigate this further to ensure that this isn't happening.Thanks,Derek D.

[Guest Derek D]

Hi Garett. You will not find any references to tile #142 (rock ice) or #130 (rock) in the "ground" landclass because those tiles have been deferred for exclusive use by the slope landclass. In other words, with the ST landclass you will only see rock ice when a #122 (ice) tile is at a certain steepness. All of the rocky tiles are integrated into the slope landclass in this fashion.So with this in mind it appears you are inquiring about the lack of #122 (ice) tiles being used at the location of Mt. Robson. The simplest answer I can give is that the source data didn't indicate any permanent ice at that location.Of course, that still doesn't answer the question of whether there *should* be permanent ice at that location. Here are some pictures I've found of Mt. Robson on the internet:http://www.ourbc.com/travel_bc/bc_cities/y...bson_01_640.jpghttp://www.uniqueproperties.ca/mtrobson/ma...Mt%20Robson.jpgSo it appears that there is some permanent snow/ice near the summit, but it seems the default landclass is greatly exaggerating the extent of the ice coverage. The ST landclass on the other hand seems to be under-representing the amount of ice, so I agree it would be nice if some snow were represented at the summit. Of course, if the season is set to early spring/fall/winter in FS then the mountain and surrounding area will be covered in snow simply due to the time of year, as it should be. Adding permanent ice to areas that aren't specified as such in the source data would be difficult (basically it would have to be done by hand), but I'll investigate the possibility of adding perma-ice based on elevation data.Thanks,Derek D.