I’m intrigued by a y.tube vid recently posted (by DrishalMac2) about ‘Auto Ortho for XP’ / streaming Ortho.  Anyone tried it / using it ?  Would appreciate understanding if this is really a ‘thing’ and how practical it is.  Cheers,

Hi JB,

I do not have much to offer. I installed AutoOrtho4XP and it worked right off to my surprise. However, I did not like the overlay used as it seemed very exaggerated where homes and streets stood out like sore thumbs. Maybe there is a work around. Anyway, I canned the whole thing hoping for improvements in the future.

Easy to install and use.  I use the overlays that come with SimHeaven so no problem there.  An addon you can use is ...

xRoads - hides XP12 roads, allowing the ortho roads to show.  A launch option allows default railways to be hidden, allowing ortho railways to show.  Quality of the ortho is very good.

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by MrBitstFlyer

I must say that it completely revolutionalized my experience in XP! My connection got throttled first, that’s why the results were not perfect (missing or blurry tiles). Since i’m using a VPN-connection it blew me away! I have now crystal-clear textures and a very good sharpness even in the distance. I made a flight in MSFS to compare and must say that it looked better in XP above 2000ft. Very close to the ground, MSFS is still a bit better, but then with bad default airports, missing ground effects etc.

I cannot believe that this fantastic tool isn’t being communicated more actively! 

Edited June 29, 20232 yr by Franz007

I use it too, it works well and the orthos look good.

I’ve decided to jump back into X Plane.  Thanks for all the replies - I’m gonna install XP12, Active Sky (which I loved in P3D and its on sale), and AutoOrtho.  Please keep posting tips & experiences here. Thx all.  

Hi,

 

I tried it for a day. Easy install and use, only problems I noticed were flickers/stutters/pauses. Other than that it was nice. 

It's working really well for me too. Looks better than MSFS in some places and the other way around. I've not noticed any flickering/lagging issues either, but I attribute a lot of that to having gigabit internet.

      I have to echo Mr Bits and Franz: I did have a bit of a time understanding the overall setup - three or four days of 'why this' or 'why that': larnin' how to manipulate the scenery_packs.ini: got mixed in with the fix for X-Roads (no roads!); finding the right YT vids! - SimHeaven is a must! - but I did get it all together and just packed up for the night after a good flight (Skyhawk) from KTTD - KHIO - 7S3, after which I took a couple of shots at 7S3 and took roughly the same shots with MSFS, for a quick comparison.
AutoOrtho performed flawlessly, the terrain looks great, X-Roads was good, and the graphics were exceptionally smooth - 3820x2160, with a 2nd monitor at 1920x1080. Once it's all setup, I reckon the load time is not much different to that of MSFS - just that there're just no pretty pics to help pass the time. The only beefs I really have are 1). mostly the city buildings - often repetitive, or inappropriate, and, after using MSFS over Portland, and comparing with Google Earth also - they appear to be somewhat out of scale, often too far apart, or located in various spaces without access, road, or pathway of any kind. FSX had this issue too, and it was fixed in good measure - by the folks at Orbx. They brought in realism.    #2 is similar to that of FSX, inasmuch as the vegetation - trees - could use some Orbix or Bijan work as well.

        With AutoOrtho added to XP - a major Achilles Heel has been removed. A couple of months ago, downloading mega-giga-tera bytes of Ortho4XP - and storing it - had just about stopped me from any further exploration of XP, but this is a game-changer. XP certainly has the right sounds: the 'feel' in the cockpit, and on the flight deck is authentic. and I'm quite confident that there are sufficient geniuses around who - however slowly -  can fix the 'realism' and the 'look' of this sim: I'm very satisfied with the move I've made in embracing XP12, and I'm really glad to see the number of inspirational people here whom I've known, respected, flown with, or talked with since the Bruce Artwick days has confirmed this. Thanks guys!

ATB
pj

Edited July 3, 20232 yr by Paul J

15 hours ago, Paul J said:

1). mostly the city buildings - often repetitive, or inappropriate, and, after using MSFS over Portland, and comparing with Google Earth also - they appear to be somewhat out of scale

SimHeaven are in the process of releasing V3 which includes building heights from MSFS data. Oceana has been released with rest of the world to follow.

On 6/28/2023 at 7:15 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

Easy to install and use.  I use the overlays that come with SimHeaven so no problem there.  An addon you can use is ...

xRoads - hides XP12 roads, allowing the ortho roads to show.  A launch option allows default railways to be hidden, allowing ortho railways to show.  Quality of the ortho is very good.

Can you describe in short how you managed to hide roads with xRoads when using Autoortho? It never worked here.

Thanks!

On 7/3/2023 at 7:54 PM, MrBitstFlyer said:

which includes building heights from MSFS data

What, simheaven is using MSFS as a source for the building’s height? Are you sure?

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

What, simheaven is using MSFS as a source for the building’s height? Are you sure?

It states 'Microsoft', so I read that as MSFS data - others may be able to confirm.

Hmmmm...   Microsoft has a very long and complicated web of map and mapping applications, with many links with other companies who provide them with the 'data' that simHeaven is alluding to. MSFS is just one of those applications that uses some of that data. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Maps . One quote was "On June 1, 2020 it was announced the base map data of the Bing Maps Platform would now be sourced from TomTom.", so I Googled "What mapping data does TomTom provide?"  One can read for a week on this subject. . . .

ATB
pj

Edited July 7, 20232 yr by Paul J

7 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

It states 'Microsoft', so I read that as MSFS data - others may be able to confirm.

I think you missunderstood that. It is stated Microsoft and not MSFS. We don’t even know if MSFS is using that exact same source for its buildings.