http://www.megasceneryearth.com/ :(

alright, sorry for asking...wasnt sure what it was since there wasnt an update on the thread.

http://www.megasceneryearth.com/ :(

You gotta be kidding... Is this 'the most exciting development in flight simulation since Flight Simulator itself'? Don't make me laugh! I just looked at the site and what's available and that's almost nothing. Just some parts of the US. And that 'almost nothing' would cost me... 1000 dollars (129 area's costing 7,49 dollar each...)?!? I suppose it's fun to buy the area you are living in (once it is available), but they don't expect anyone to buy it all, do they...? They do give that impression: 'welcome to your new world' and calling it MegaSceneryEarth... Yeah, right... Incredible. Almost looks like a hoax. I can't believe they are dead serous about this. But apparently they are. 'the most exciting development in flight simulation since Flight Simulator itself' LOL

You gotta be kidding... Is this 'the most exciting development in flight simulation since Flight Simulator itself'? Don't make me laugh! I just looked at the site and what's available and that's almost nothing. Just some parts of the US. And that 'almost nothing' would cost me... 1000 dollars (129 area's costing 7,49 dollar each...)?!? I suppose it's fun to buy the area you are living in (once it is available), but they don't expect anyone to buy it all, do they...? They do give that impression: 'welcome to your new world' and calling it MegaSceneryEarth... Yeah, right... Incredible. Almost looks like a hoax. I can't believe they are dead serous about this. But apparently they are. 'the most exciting development in flight simulation since Flight Simulator itself' LOL

Just purchased X-Plane 9 for $39. Comes with 6 DVDs and covers entire earth with excellent (sufficient) terrain texture resolution to my taste. A bargain?

Hi JeanLuc,

Just purchased X-Plane 9 for $39. Comes with 6 DVDs and covers entire earth with excellent (sufficient) terrain texture resolution to my taste. A bargain?

It's a great bargain indeed (I bought it too) but the X-Plane ground textures are not photoreal. They use the same approach as default FSX: generic textures made from photoreal sources. See the official FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~x-plane/FAQ-Global-Scenery.html . Also, it's not quite as "global" as one would think as most of Alaska and northern Canada and Eurasia is missing. Cheers, Holger

Hi JeanLuc,It's a great bargain indeed (I bought it too) but the X-Plane ground textures are not photoreal. They use the same approach as default FSX: generic textures made from photoreal sources. See the official FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~x-plane/FAQ-Global-Scenery.html . Also, it's not quite as "global" as one would think as most of Alaska and northern Canada and Eurasia is missing. Cheers, Holger

Yes it is like FS landclass system. What I wanted to say is that it looks almost as real as photoreal, although it is landclass/synthetic (for my personal taste). In contrast to the aforementioned scenery product and its price tag, this illustrate more the gap between the two approaches, and indeed, the need to balance price/results.Of course, should the FSX stock landclass and textures would render near photo-real, there would be less need for photoreal. I find X-Plane, amazingly, as a much better realistic feel to the synthetic terrain than FSX.

Of course, should the FSX stock landclass and textures would render near photo-real, there would be less need for photoreal. I find X-Plane, amazingly, as a much better realistic feel to the synthetic terrain than FSX.

I've been running both X-Plane 8 & 9 with global scenery; and mountainous terrain has always been one of my main priority's for flight simulation.In my experience; it's been back and forth between X-Plane & MSFS, as to what seems the most realistic. Just depends where, and what else in the way of buildings, bridges, etc are included. X-Plane does seem to have a glossier photo look to it, but it's textures repeat more often. Than can get somewhat annoying too!L.Adamson

I have the Orbx.ftx scenery-and it is very good for that type of terrain and a new high for generics. Go to the mountain West of the US or the deserts of Nevada and generic can't ever come close to duplicating all the variations, colors, and subtle graduations of real.

Not to mention WY... Without Tileproxy, I just couldn't fly there at all, period. The phototexture seem to enhance a mesh that you can't even guess without them.

Well here is fsx default and some photoscenery (thanks to Meshman)-which wins out in reality?:fsx generic:Photoscenery:Which looks more real?I'd post a compare of xplane but my copy is sitting on my shelf-however coordinates are:40

Well here is fsx default and some photoscenery (thanks to Meshman)-which wins out in reality?:Todd's post here shows what is around the corner...http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=240837

Mind you I reckon stuff like this will give it a reasonable run for it's money... when the tech is used in the NA and PNW environment.Cheers,

That does run the generics to the height of their glory. Does every building and tree match reality however? Are the cars on the roads moving?Not to say that doesn't look great-but I see a future reality even greater than this-and in some areas it is already there.The lake shot appears to be using a hybrid of photo/generic-is that so? I like a static realistic lake like that rather than the present animated fs type-but that is my preference. I live in an area of many lakes-and that is more the look than what fs provides right now.

Yes, the cars on the photo real roads are moving - even in both directions on a 2 lane road.The water is animated - i use REX textures and wave animation plus the free FSWC water shader tweaker with the calm ocean preset.

Does every building and tree match reality however?

Obviously not but I find little use for "real" buildings and trees - I don't have time to look out the window and study them and think what they should be like. When I fly for real I have no time for that either plus I enjoy sim-flying out of my local area hence I have no clue what real buildings to expect. For me personally it is always what gives me the overall impression of reality rather than what every inch or square yard looks like.

Yes, the cars on the photo real roads are moving - even in both directions on a 2 lane road.The water is animated - i use REX textures and wave animation plus the free FSWC water shader tweaker with the calm ocean preset.

The textures you see in the water (the sand on the bottom and so on), are those from FTX or REX? They make it look very real, a lot more real than the bottomless default FSX water. That water looks nice too: maybe that alone is worth the price of REX...? (Don't have it yet: I already have FEX.)

Obviously not but I find little use for "real" buildings and trees - I don't have time to look out the window and study them and think what they should be like. When I fly for real I have no time for that either plus I enjoy sim-flying out of my local area hence I have no clue what real buildings to expect. For me personally it is always what gives me the overall impression of reality rather than what every inch or square yard looks like.

I agree with that. And the shots Mango posted look awesome. But what does annoy me with generic textures are the repetitions... Seeing the same structures and fields all the time everywhere spoils it for me, no matter how good it looks... it makes it too obvious that what you see is not real.

Those shots and water do look great!As for real buildings and real vegetation/water, and especially roads-I don't know-I certainly use them all the time in real flying-at least when the weather is clear.That is what attracted me to flying in the first place-the ability to see the real world from above. Where I live where there are lots of similar trees often navigating to a particular spot is done by looking for certain patterns. In other areas like the mountain west-it is exactly the opposite-and a much more varied vegetation, and infinite coloration of soil/terrain.The first company that does my part of the world or an area I want to fly with any kind of greater reality than we get now gets my vote.

I am not a big fan of autogen, in much the same way that I have never been a big fan of generic textures. The problem is that they repeat in a recognisable pattern, and that destroys any sense of reality that they are supposed to create. I had a quick flight from New York JFK the other day in a Cessna, just to see what the area looks like. The generic urban textures looked very flat and boring, and the multitude of buildings and trees scattered haphazardly around the place didn't convince me at all.The great advantage of real world photorealistic textures is that every piece of terrain is distinctly different. It looks more real, because it is real! I prefer low level VFR flights to ten hour FL370 airliner flights, and so realistic textures, buildings, and trees are very important to me. Mind you, I would like to point out that it is better to make scenery pleasing to the eye than ultra realistic. That's where Microsoft have failed so often with terrain textures in the past (and still do). I still remember the day when I looked at FS5's "photorealistic" textures for the first time. It gave me nightmares for weeks :( They would have been far better off increasing the level of detail in the 3D graphics, and forgetting about terrain textures until they had worked out how to do them properly!I am currently concentrating on getting high quality VFR photographic scenery for the UK, and then adding lots of detailed airports. In addition, I really enjoying flying around islands, so a few addon packages are on my list (Canary Islands, Madeira, Hawaii.....why hasn't the entire island chain been rendered in photorealistic textures yet?....., Tahiti, and a few others).