Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Is Megascenery for FS8/9 as good as FU3?

Recommended Posts

Greeting FU3 freax. Sorry for my leave of absence in this forum. I still get around to flying Flight3 on occasion, but with business and kid commitments it is hard to find the time.Still, a question. Our favorite sim is now celebrating its 4th birthday, and M$ are constantly trying to better it. The sexiest addon pack I have seen so far is megascenery (as in the .com) covering some of the DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, as it is known by conservative gun lovers over there). The pack features 5 square meter tiles, and a lot of them, in lots of pretty colors. Is this as good as Flight3?Constantly spilling your coffee (FU3 joke),Lior

Share this post


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

liori have installed the new megascenery into fs2004 and flown it several hours now.imho, its is higher quality than the fu2/3 secenery that i have known and loved for so many years and there is zero performance hit.in particular, the flight from banning to palm springs will take your breath away.i hope megascenery offers more of this scenery in the future. i'd gladly pay $1000.00 for alaskan scenery done to this degree.don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear that you're still around Lior :-)I've been looking at the "mega scenery" myself since I've been known to fly other flight sims than FU3. I even checked out X-plane a few days ago but it seems that it doesn't like my Voodoo 5500 card...The FS mega scenery looks spectacular, as one would expect from an aerial photo scenery. However, let's keep in mind that this isn't a Microsoft scenery -- it's a photo scenery adapted by the Australian group "Mega Scenery" Thus, when Don writes, "if you don't think fu2/3 were light years ahead of their time just look at how long it took microsoft to catch up" I agree, but we shouldn't give MS credit for this scenery :-)In other words, when you adapt aerial photos to a sim you can't go wrong. The only downside is that it requires GBs of disk space. It doesn't tax the flight simulator since it doesn't work any harder rendering correct texture tiles than it does rendering generic ones. The only cost of a "megascenery" is that it requires lots of disk space -- there's no extra processing "cost".So, any sim could be set up to run pretty scenery with great detail. What the improved scenery doesn't change or affect is the sim's flight "engine". Don't get me wrong, FS has a quite good flight "engine" that can be used to simulate flight quite realistically. However, it's limited. Let me add, the FU3 flight "engine" is limited too albeit in different ways. X-plane and FU3 use flight "engines" that rely on separate modeling of units of mass, inertia and mathematical "shapes" interacting with the airflow. This approach is better at capturing the feeling of flight. But then, the more "clinical" FS modeling is better at getting the exact numbers and specs right. If you want an aircraft to cruise at the correct speed at a given altitude, drawing the correct amount of fuel the MS FS flight "engine" is your best choice.However, for "riding the wind", bobbing around and experiencing the effect of downwash and ground effect the X-plane / FU3 approach is better since it relies on shape / wind interaction.I might buy the FS2004 mega scenery for California to relive the 6 months that I've spent in San Diego. best regards,Hans Petter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The megascenery looks very good but I''m wating for them to release some other scenery area, the LA area doesn't interest me much. FS2004 still only supports 5M/pixel (FU3 is 4m) but the colours are better in FS (not as much grey and brown) as the photos for the scenery can be imported in true colour mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,"i have installed the new megascenery into fs2004 and flown it several hours now.imho, its is higher quality than the fu2/3 secenery that i have known and loved for so many years and there is zero performance hit."That is good to hear... I like your screenshots too! I have a copy siting here that arrived while I was up in Washington State. I haven't had a chance to load it up as I just got back some hours ago and have been fighting another virus... looking forward to it."in particular, the flight from banning to palm springs will take your breath away."I will be sure to try it out."i hope megascenery offers more of this scenery in the future."Me too!"i'd gladly pay $1000.00 for alaskan scenery done to this degree."Shhhhh... somebody might be listening. :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think FU3's Seattle scenery suffers a bit from haze colouration. I'm not sure what it is but snow shouldn't be yellow. Even with Jon's explanation. This is not just a palette limitation but something slightly wrong with the palette choice. I meant to look at it but got too busy with other things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tomglad to see them expanding their scenery offerings.i really would like to see alaska "done right" :)don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,They seem to be going for high density population areas... probably in hopes that many more people will want to buy them... I don't agree with their logic but it will be interesting when they get some screenshots up for the new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I meant haze when they took the satellite pictures! Compare the UK-South colouring (taken from a light plane). :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Megascenery arrived yesterday and got itself installed on FS9.The machine involved: P4 1.5 GHz, 256 Mb, GeForce 2 64Mb.The verdict: FU3 continues to kick M$ arse, and will continue to do so until I get a PC with four times the horsepower! FS9 is very pretty, especially over San Diego, but the framerate makes you want to heave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my son is running fs9 on a p4 1.5 768mg ram gf 5200 128 mg card with good clouds on and gets very good performance.don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I have or have had all the sims, and I think a more appropriate comparison might have been Megascenery Seattle which was released a couple of years ago for FS98 I think. I am an eye candy freak mostly and the Megascenery California offering which I installed in my FS2004 yesterday, is about the best scenery I have ever seen in any sim. I think to be honest that the FS2000 scenery onwards for Washington State is better than the FUIII scenery, but I still much prefer to fly in the FUIII environment. The ATC is a lot better and the way the planes feel and fly is just fantastic.Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you here. I have both FS2000 and FS2002 (and strangely enough, they were installed on my PC....once), so I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Seattle area scenery in these two versions of MSFS is nowhere near as good as that in FU3. The only part of the MSFS scenery that might be the exception is Mount Rainier, which does look rather good. However, the coastlines and generic ground textures just do not match the quality of FU3's satellite mapped terrain. In fact, they don't even come close. Yes, FS2002 might have had Autogen, but so what ? Seeing lots of buildings and trees is great in principle, but all I see are the ugly ground textures beneath.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I conclude with much mirth is that flight sim frame rates are a major motive factor for developing more powerful PCs. I think that optimum performance for a given sim can be achieved about 4 years after it is released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don,First question.....is that FS2002 or FS2004 ?Second question.....is that anywhere near Seattle ?I don't deny that those textures in the screenshot look good, but they aren't those ugly green "forest type" textures or the very bland, generic city textures that Microsoft provided us with in FS2002. Autogen trees and buildings in FS2002 do not blend in very well with those types of textures, which results in a rather unconvincing appearance (in my personal opinion).It all depends on what you consider to be pleasing to the eye. Unconvincing textures ruin everything for me. Not that FU3 doesn't have its own problems in this area. There are patches of lower resolution terrain textures in certain areas, and rather strange bits of landscape that don't even appear to have any textures AT ALL :-eek. Still, these are extremely rare.I am also talking about flight at rather lower levels than that demonstrated in your screenshot. No offence mate, but the Seattle area TERRAIN in FS2002 looks rubbish compared to that in FU3.End of rant.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chris1. i removed fs2002 15 minutes after installing fs2004 so all shots are fs2004 with default scenery (except for megascenery in socal).2. no, that is about 8 miles northeast of juneau alaska where i spend 90% of my fs timei totally agree with you about some of the fs textures. they are really ugly and i dont understand why they cant come up with textures for some areas.and yes, we all have our own definition of what is pleasing to the eye :)i have attached pics taken about 50 miles east of seatac. they are not as good as the alaska textures but i have seen worse :)have a good day donhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36077.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Don. I didn't want you to think that I was "having a go at you". I just get very defensive when anyone suggests that the scenery in FS2002 is better than that in FU3 :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chrisno offense takenback when everyone else was raving about fs2000 and fly being so great i (after buying both and flying them) was simply amazed that these same people would bad mouth fu2/3. to me there was no comparision. but i realized that all of us do not see the same object the same way.i just wish there was a fu4. there is plenty of room in the marketplace for a dozen top knotch flightsims and i can always keep adding hard drives :)don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Don.The new scenery addons for the Ms. sim is great!!,- I have noticed this from the beginning.What I really want to discover for the ms. sim is the real weather changes, and flight behavior of the aircrafts involved.The reason for me to stay with the Flight unlimited series is the great feeling of flight.You have all options here, and I do not understand why the producersof Microsoft DO NOT ANYTHING to the source code of flight behavior,-and the eviroment for their sim.It has been the same all over again and again.Those ms. people sitting on their descs, and are not listening to the so called"MS.pilot experts".If they did, the MS. series flight sims would kick #### everywhere.It is possible.we have seen it from looking glass studios.A good article to this was posted on the internet some days ago.You can try this link:http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/op-ed/ed316.htmBest regardsLars Peter.:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the low speed handling characteristics of the planes in FS2002 are very strange. I can't comment on FS2004 in this regard, but there are plenty of other aspects of FS2002 that I hate.....which I will not elaborate on here ;-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lior,I have no frame problems with the LA/SD scenery... I guess my 2.8ghz machine has something to do with that... but I do find the load times with the scenery pretty bad.

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