Sign in to follow this  
Christopher Low

Comparisons

Recommended Posts

I've come to the following conclusion:-The San Francisco scenery area looks MUCH better than the Seattle scenery area.There, I've said it. The textures look better, they seem to be less blurred (particularly in built up areas), the colour palette isn't as harsh, and the textures have less tendency to shimmer.Even with 4xS anti-aliasing, some of the Seattle scenery textures still exhibit a small degree of shimmering at low level, which is something that doesn't seem to happen as much with the San Francisco scenery. In fact, I would be quite happy to fly around the SanFran area now without anisotropic filtering, but I can't really say the same for some of the Seattle scenery (the urban areas around SeaTac, Boeing Field, Renton, and downtown Seattle itself really could do with sharper textures).So, what does everyone else think ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.PS. For anyone that doesn't have the San Francisco scenery yet.........go and get a copy of FU2 as soon as possible. You really couldn't find a better bargain if you tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi Chris,I dont knot wat you meen by "textures"?The insiped colers of San Francisco look more blurred to me.In sum parts of San Francisco, the colers are to bright,in fact I need sunglasses to fly in that area.But its like a worter coler panting, all the colers are washed out and faded, sort of wishy woshy.But the Seattle scenery area is more like an oil panting.The colers are solid and more real looking. I prefer Seattle to San Francisco any day.Iv herd it sed that the San Fran scenery is better cus its biger, but most of it on the left is just worter,and too the fare right of the map its as flat as a biliard tabel,and a lot of that is just mirerd.So wat,s left is quight small comperd to the Seattle scenery area. Well that my opinion.glidernut.:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi together,I only want to give my comment also to this question. I also bought the SanFran area because Chris was loving it that much. The second reason was, that I want to take may be one of the last chances to get it anyway!After installing SanFran I first was also a bit disappointed because I loved the fresh green colors of the Seattle area more than the more grey and blue touch of the SanFran area. This colors are a little bit to blue, and sand colored and not as fresh and realistic looking than Seattle.On the other hand is the often appearing green nearly at all mountains also not very realistic to our real world.Nevertheless the area around I didn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ansgar,Yourself and glidernut are entitled to your own opinions, and I respect that. However........and this is something that I tried to explain on the MSFS Forum a while back............don't go thinking that the SanFran scenery area doesn't look realistic. You may be surprised by the greater variety of colours than the Seattle area, but trust me when I say that it looks amazingly realistic to me.To be honest, anybody that hasn't been to the San Francisco Bay area can be forgiven for thinking that the textures don't look quite right. I have only been there once (for a week in October 1995), but I can honestly say that the terrain looked very much like that portrayed in the SanFran scenery. Those sandy coloured mountains and hills are EXACTLY the same in reality ! Even if this were not the case, the SanFran scenery is just much nicer to look at than the Seattle scenery. The Seattle area suffers somewhat from having textures that vary in quality. They most definitely are NOT all equal in resolution and detail. This is much less apparent in the SanFran area.Finally glidernut, I'm not convinced that the SanFran area is smaller. Flying over the Pacific close to the coast is a pleasure in itself, and the Seattle scenery area would have benefited ENORMOUSLY from a similar piece of coastline. There is just such a huge variety of terrain on a one hundred mile stretch of coast, and this increases the visual appeal. And let's face it, if flying in FU3 and FU2 isn't just about visual appeal, then it's a very big part of it.Best Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris, & Ansgar,>If flying in FU3 and FU2 isn't just about visual appeal, then it's a >very big part of it.Well I have to agree with that. And both areas look a lot beter with all the trees youv planted.And wat there is of London so fare looks to be eeven bettter.I do hope the hight problem gets solved.Not so much fore London, cus thats flat any way, but Wales, "O" yes,Thats just right fore my glider.glidernut.:-wave:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, The cities and suburbs look better in the sanfran area. The detail is better. You can see small parks, golf courses, and some trees in the cities. The grey color is quite realistic too.Seattle is too "brown". Everything is brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmi,The mountains look fine in the SanFran area, and they really do look NOTHING like the mountains in the Seattle area. As for the "square" areas with just one colour, you'd be surprised at the colours inherent in certain areas of the Bay and Central Valley. They may well be a touch overdone, but that doesn't concern me. To be honest, I would rather have good looking, unrealistic terrain scenery than crap looking realistic scenery. That may sound strange, but you only have to look at the history of MSFS to know just how badly scenery can be rendered.............Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more point here concerns some of the textures in the Seattle area. If you want to see examples of low resolution textures, just start your flight at Ranger Creek or Bergseth Field. These areas (and the valley to their immediate west) are composed of lower quality textures than elsewhere in FU3. Some of the urban textures around Seattle/Renton/Boeing Field look rather crude also, nowhere near as good looking as the impressive SanFran textures.You can also see the above mentioned low quality textures using FLED. You will be able to "zoom in" much quicker, and this is a direct consequence of the low resolution terrain.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will post some screenshots to try to show what I mean. Original 1024x768, resized to 800x600.#1: A typical urban area in the sanfran region. Note the large variety of colors. I should have taken the shot even further south, there's even more variety over just west of the San Jose area.#2. A typical urban area in SEA. Just different shades of brownish colors.#3. The north-eastern part of the Sanfran area looks horrible. What are those weird squares with a light-green color in them?#4. This looks much better. No weird blocks of colors, and you can actually see each individual treetop.#5. Bonus shot :)I'm not saying I'm right, it's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmi,1. That screenshot looks completely normal to me (and very nice).2. Another nice shot. Are you using anisotropic filtering ? If so, how are you achieving this ?3. I can understand what you mean here, but it really isn't all that bad when you are flying over it. Anyway, there are areas in the Seattle scenery that look a touch weird. I will get a few screenshots to demonstrate this shortly.4. Again, a nice shot.5. This screenshot is probably one of the best that I have ever seen from FU3. It deserves an award.Just one final point. Isn't it strange how one person's idea of great graphics can be another person's anathema ? After all, how do you account for Flight Simulator 5 ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have probably been a bit harsh on the Seattle scenery in this thread. Many of the areas are absolutely gorgeous to look at. My only problem with the terrain textures is that there are areas which are distinctly lower quality than the rest, which is a shame. I suppose that there are certain parts of the SanFran scenery that are less pleasing to the eye, but I don't notice them to the same extent as those in the Seattle scenery.Anyway, below are three screenshots showing some of the anomalies in the Seattle region.1. Strong contender for the worst looking lake in FU3.2. The texture on the mountain to the right is lower resolution than the majority of the FU3 terrain scenery.3. Note the low resolution ground textures in this area.4. Gratuitous SanFran screenshot that I found in my FU3 folder !Best Wishes,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gang,I agree with everyone that likes the Seattle stuff, And I have been to Frisco in the real world, Believe me it doesn't look like this http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2ba4085079026a.jpgI've been up in real small Planes many times and I've never seen ground that looks like thishttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2ba548524731de.jpgI do like the Seattle Area, there is more trees to look at and things look more naturalhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2ba6db55058e92.jpgEverything in the Seattle Area looks more like the real worldhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2ba794562c1e85.jpgI like lots of trees and Buildings to fly overhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2ba873576c6121.jpgGoing over the land scape looks more normal in Seattlehttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2ba9f15963cd1c.jpgThis is the way the ground is supposed to lookhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2baae55ae18ecd.jpgAnother picturehttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2bac825d3e636a.jpgNow sorry guys, The next pics are from FS2K2 http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2bada65f144850.jpgTo me this is the best that it ever getshttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2bae9360d9bab2.jpgSome of the best Planes and the best sceneryhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2bafb1628c8c22.jpgI can fly anywhere that I have a good map for and it workshttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d2bb056637b4897.jpgHave Fun :-jumpyhttp://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gifAllan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,I couldn't agree with you more. The San Francisco area is much more real looking than the Seattle area. Like you said, you just have to fly over that area in real life to campare and see how amazingly close to the real thing it is.Although I like Seattle, the colors are too dark for me and the resolution not as sharp in my opinion. Having said that, there is nothing prettier than flying in the North Cascades. The colors and sharpness are much better than around Seattle. It may be just my eyesight, but it looks to me like the Seattle scenery at any angle other than straight down is somewhat blurred, except in the mountains. I suspect the scenery was "blurred" more at a distance perspective to help on frame rates.I also wish FU III elevation views at a distance were more accurate. You can be at 2000 AGL at Everett and still can't see the North Cascades. In real life they are very dominating from any position along I-5 going north. You can also see this going south on I-5 from Seattle. Mount Rainer is so dominant and large, but in FU III is looks small as if it were 200 miles away.Like you I wish the Washington coast had been part of the high rez scenery. It would have looked great.But heck, I still fly FU III as much as FS 2002. I love both sims.I'm looking forward to this new london scenery.Jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell me Allan, why did the San Francisco area look similar to the FU2 scenery when I was there ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this