Various users at another thread are debating different choices.

I would like to have a statistic of use of some of those choices.

Thank you for your cooperation !

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by jcomm

Hi @jcomm I entered map enhancement + X-World but in reality instead of map-enhancement I am using Autoortho (that is more or less the same). But it wasn’t in the choice 🙂

With XP11 I use Map Enhancement with the default autogen.

Ortho4XP and X-World. However, Ortho4XP only for some known regions, outside of them default textures. I want (primarily) fast loading times, not to waiting 'forever' 😉 for loading textures with ME and/or Autoortho.

47 minutes ago, uwespeed said:

Ortho4XP and X-World. However, Ortho4XP only for some known regions, outside of them default textures. I want (primarily) fast loading times, not to waiting 'forever' 😉 for loading textures with ME and/or Autoortho.

I find X-World a much greater offender when it comes to increasing XP loading times than orthos.

8 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

I find X-World a much greater offender when it comes to increasing XP loading times than orthos.

Might be ... but I'm not sure about that. Autoortho/ME first have to download the textures from the net (for first time use - cache aside?), convert them and only then can display them - I have read, around 5 minutes or longer? That's the reason why I don't use them. Ortho4XP OTOH at least is stored locally.

And, I want the buildings to fit onto the orthos, thus I use also X-World. I mean, either X-World and orthos (independant which solution) OR default textures and default scenery give the 'best' result in regard to fitting to each other.

Very significative proportion of users opting for plain vanilla Xp12 scenery !

If I correctly understand, X-World provides textures and autogen substitutes right?

Ortho solutions also provide mesh, and textures, but leave structures to Xp12 or other product that replaces the default ones(?)

 

322 view 46 posts. Very busy forum.

 

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

Very significative proportion of users opting for plain vanilla Xp12 scenery !

I use the MET for ortho, but I find the default XP vanilla scenery perfectly fine in areas with plenty of trees and autogen. However, in regions with little ground cover, the terrain can feel quite dull and repetitive. Looking forward to whatever improvements Laminar has in store for ground textures!

JComm, I’m the guy who ruins polls 😂

Having long been “spoiled” by Orbx True Earth in both XP and P3D, and having IRL lived in or IRL visited most of them, True Earth is my primary preference for scenery due to their Hand Crafted (to coin a term 😉) nature. 

for a couple other areas that are important to me, I have variously sourced orthos with X-World. 

I have lately been experimenting with Map Enhancement + X-World for areas where I don’t have a good source of static imagery. So far it’s good, but is expensive in the long run ( and I would rather pay that $ to Laminar)  

i also use Global Forests, though TBH I don’t perceive much of a difference in the areas I fly  (this is likely a “me” problem).

TBH, I just don’t fly over areas that have stock XP scenery. 

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by UrgentSiesta

AO, Simheaven X-World and Global Forests, sometimes combined with Lyndiman Orthos for NZ. Might be an idea to include AO in your poll options, to perhaps get a clue as to its popularity compared to ME?

As for loading times, X-world makes no difference on our system. And AO loads very quickly - a typical boot time of AO itself is 20 seconds, and on-the-fly downloading causes no issues.  Extended loading times for XP (best 50 seconds to worst at 1m 20s) seem to be caused by scenery file complexity at the chosen start airport. I am running AO via a pretty average Starlink connection.

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by Brian Mackie

My biggest problem with default mesh / scenery are the over bumped runways and taxiways at most airports I fly to / from. Unfortunately it "plagues" particularly intensively airfields like LPPT, LPMA, ... 

I mistakenly thought that Map Enhancement Pro with some of the pro maps did something for the mesh, because I got the idea that both LPPT and LPMA have their runways less "bumpy" (?) when I use MEP + X-World, but after all I've learned in this thread/poll that MEP doesn't mess around with the mesh 🙂

Ah! Orbx must feel like Heaven !!! but they're huge and a bit expensive, and cover areas I'm not particularly interested in flying over. I wish I had "Orbx Iberian Peninsula" @Tony 🙂

Actually the Iberian Peninsula and particularly Portugal and Alentejo are poorly depicted in default Xp12, and even MEP doesn't do a big difference IMO compared, for instance, with what I get in FS 2024, and that's why for soaring these days I pick FS 2024 without thinking twice, because the areas I'm familiar with are very close to real, well not to mention the weather presets for soaring... but that's another theme....

In some aspects X-Plane's scenery does really look "real" but then it's rather dull in many places around the world, with repeating patterns of terrain textures, not that good autogen quality, etc... Yes yes... I know it's coming with the new scenery model !

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by jcomm

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

My biggest problem with default mesh / scenery are the over bumped runways and taxiways at most airports I fly to / from. Unfortunately it "plagues" particularly intensively airfields like LPPT, LPMA, ... 

There was a topic on the other forum for runways that need flattening. They can be reported

Simheaven X-World and Global Forests.