TS2 versus Photo real

[Guest Dean]

Here's a couple of interesting pictures showing the border between TS2 scenery and Matt's So Cal. I think it's safe to say that Matt's scenery establishes the highest benchmark to date for Fly II. While there is a noticeable difference between TS2 and photo base, the TS2 ain't bad and now that it is fully automated with Fly II it is within the capabilities of the average user. It looks like the saturation levels could also be bumped up a little more over the default TS2. I do not render city streets in my TS2 scenery and this comparision shows why. I also make the highways 1 pixel wider than the default but it looks like I could go wider yet. Even the railroads line up pretty well.

[Guest]

:-eek :-eek :-eek Im lost for words.No Im not....I want it I want it I want it....WonderfulStevie

[Guest Colins2]

Dean,Incredible pictures!Thanks for posting :DColin

[LAdamson 240]

Thanks for the post also. I've already figured that Matt's photo-real has to be a benchmark for scenery from altitude. It's as good as I've seen. But like you say, the TS2 isn't "bad" either. At least I'll now look into it more when time permits. I had done lots of TerraScene2 for the orignal FLY.L.Adamson

[michal 44]

The overall accuracy of TS2 is phenomenal. I never questioned that part. What I like less is the "look&feel" of the scenery specially from low altitudes (say 10,000 and below). At really low levels the FLY scenery gets really blurry and even Matt's masterpiece can't deliver here. But from mid-altitudes where bluriness is tolerable threre is something about the textures that I am just not crazy about. Where it really shines however is high altitude flying. Just my opinion of course.Michael J.

[Guest Dean]

I'll now look into it more when time >permits. Larry,That really is the beauty of the TS2.1 update. It is literally point, click and go to bed. When you wake up your scenery is podded and in the scenery folder ready to fly. Of course, like many things about Fly II, tweaking of the default render options is required to get good results. For instance, railroads are not rendered in any of the default settings within TS2. But the right choice of textures and pixel size does a pretty good job of creating them.

[Guest Dean]

>But from mid-altitudes where bluriness is tolerable threre is >something about the textures that I am just not crazy about. Michael,Dull and washed out would be a good choice of words. If you remember, I was an early critic of how bad the Fly II textures looked, particularly after slicing them into TS2 scenery. I had posted screen shots of the same El Paso mountain range done in Fly and Fly II and Fly II was pretty bad. However, with the changes Todd made to TS2.1 and the addition of his texture enhancer tool, this has changed. I bumped the saturation levels of the textures up an additional 25% over the default setting, I used the default in the above shots, and the results look pretty good. Here are a couple of mid altitude shots just west of LAX. Unfortunately, the compression necessary to post here doesn't do them justice.

[Guest Iain Spowart]

Looking at those pics you'd have to say that Todd is in with a good chance for President! Your pics show just how accurate TS2 is! Without detracting from Matt's stunning scenery of course. :-)If only there was a way to generate those scenery's on the fly from the USGS/Land Use data...Iain Spowart,Scotland.Webmaster and photographer,Scottish Claymores 2002Cheerleaders Fan Sitehttp://avsim.iainspowart.com/2002-s.jpghttp://www.claymorescheerleaders.comhttp://www.iainspowart.com