Sign in to follow this  
Christopher Low

Which high resolution scenery region do you prefer ?

Recommended Posts

If you could only keep one high resolution scenery region in FU3, which one would it be....and why ?I would keep the San Francisco scenery, because I personally feel that it looks better, the terrain has more variety (the Seattle scenery is basically a valley between two mountain ranges), there are more airports capable of handling the jets, the medium length runways (2500 to 5000 feet) are wider, the Pacific coast provides a natural scenery boundary, I have made far more scenery packages for this region, and I just have a soft spot for the Bay area.Chris Low.

Share this post


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

For me, the FU2 demo with San Fran was my starting point with Flight Unlimited, and with its rather extreme weather effects was my early favourite. Now its become Seattle simply because of the mountains! And SKy Harbour is still my favourite airport - this is my "home" in FU3 world! But having both regions is best!And a Happy New Year Chris and any readers!RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris and RobD,It has to be Seattle for me.You say the Sanfran terrain has more variety? Well the Sanfran mountins might hav mor variety in terms of couler? "thats dibateabl".But it has les variety in terms of sheer steep clifs, in fact the Sanfran mountinsare all the same boring rounded shape.And as I dont use the airports, the mountins are everything to me."the Pacific coast provides a natural scenery boundary",All that Pacific sea water in Sanfran just represents wasted space to me.Theres little or no wasted space in Seattle.But dont get me rong, I do love the coast-line.Thats anuther reasan why I prefer Seattle, Seattle has mor coast-line to apreesheeate.I did used to think that the Seattle greens coulers was a little bit dark.But Hans Petter with his palett experimants changed all that for us.You say youv made far more scenery packages for Sanfran!Aer so thats why I fly mostly in Seattle, he, he.Did you know that I hav a salt water aquerium with sea horses?Thay are a bit dificalt to keep as thay will only eat very small live food.Allthow my aquerium produses inuf food in the way of small tiks and bugs,I also suplement there diyet by haching out brin shrimp eggs by the milian.And where do the brine shrimp eggs cum from? Newark San Francisco Bay.Its a small world int it. glidernut.:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaning towards Seattle too, chiefly due to the mountains.Regarding the palette experiments, I haven't abandoned them but the models palette is tricky. The problem is that while we may get quite convincing fall/autumn and winter tree colors the runways will suffer.Another of my favorite high-res regions is located in "the old world". Seawater aquarium? I had a cold seawater aquarium years ago. I used the cooling elements of an old fridge and cooled the water in a separate tray. Then I set up a pump from the tray to the aquarium and made it siphon back. My North Sea shallow water fish and invertebrates seemed to thrive :-) The current challenge is to make my goldfish and koi survive the winter out in a garden pond. A 300 w heater seems to be what it takes (keeping the pond 7 degrees C above ambient temperature).Hans Petter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gang,For me it's Seattle area hands down. There's more 3D models the whole area looks more realistic to start with.And most of my add ons with fled have been in Seattle area. In fact there was a very nice group of guys and gals that helped me make the Seattle area of FU3 really busy and populated.It's greatHave Fun :-newburnAllan and Puppyhttp://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,Can I suggest that your version of Sky Harbour is included in any future Seattle megapack ? Since this is your favourite airfield, I assume that you have made extensive upgrades to this ?Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glidernut,When I say that the SanFran scenery has more variety, I am basically referring to the fact that there are flat areas, then a few mountains, and then more flat areas :-) With respect to the mountains themselves, I tend to prefer ones that aren't too high. Mount Diablo is my favourite, since it is isolated to some extent, looks great, and is maybe only around 4000 feet high. However, I understand that your love of gliding will make the Seattle scenery mountains a far more interesting place for you to fly.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to have extended ( 100x200 mile or 140x140 miles ) SFO region & no Seattle.B.Adamski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, you've hit a winner here! This is the most popular FU3 thread we've had since Concorde. Mt Diablo is one of my favourite areas too - I posted some screenshots of a flight over it many many years ago and it is beautifully rendered. I love both areas very much, and having both areas is a great blessing. The two areas are so different. But now that Hans Petter and glidernut have improved the palette, the orangey-brown look of lowlands Seattle has been improved substantially, and to my mind (oops, I mean IMHO - have to use these nifty shortcuts or I waste a lot of space - that's 8 letters vs 4 so I should use 4, now where was I) the new palette has made flying in this region a little better. Thanks for the support for Sky Harbour. But I haven't maintained it, and would need to redevelop it for Mega5. RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer San Francisco . I tried to post a long message and somehow cookies weren't set and lost it all . now i'm all typed out CaptRolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would really LOVE to have an extension to the San Francisco scenery area (including the other two Sacramento airports surrounded by satellite mapped terrain, Mount Shasta, Fresno, Stockton, the Farallon Islands.........).If only we could find a website with the relevant colour images, all freely downloadable. Well, I can dream...... :-)Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding lost messages, usually they can be retrieved by hitting "back" once or twice. It should be in your browser's cache even though it didn't go through. Then you may copy the entire text and save it in Notepad. Actually, for a long post it's a good idea to write and edit it in a text editor first -- this way you won't lose it even if the server acts up.Avsim seems to require that we accept all cookies. I remember that I had to set the IE security level way down to be able to post from another computer than my own.Regarding the SanFran region, it might be possible to extend it southwards. I know there's a photo-realistic scenery for southern California for FS 2004 as well as for FLY, meaning that the maps exist.best regards,Hans Petter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to say Seattle, but it depends on what I want to do. San Francisco is better suited for flying the jets and turboprops to medium-large airports. I do most of those kinds of flights in X-Plane or FS2004 nowadays, and I use FU3 for the more adventurous flights.The Seattle area is more impressive with the high mountains and steep cliffs. There are more lakes to land the Renegade and Beaver, while in San Francisco you only have Lake Beryessa and LOTS of sea. It's also better for gliding because of the mountains. It's fun to see how far you can get without using an engine. Also two of my favorite airports, Tacoma Narrows and Ranger Creek are in this scenery area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glidernut,Like Chris, I think, that the SFO region has more variety & I don't know why. Simply it's my impression. Maybe the mountains are more irregular then in Seattle.I like the colours of the SFO, Seattle is too dark IMO. The mountains are beautiful in Seattle & have strong ridges, but are not so coloured.The water isn't wasted space. They included as much terrain as it was possible. Water is represented by 1 texture and the files with water are small. The water only make this area more interesting. You can paste there moving ships ( in FU3 ), and rivers close to Travis are beautiful. I like it. That is, why I'd like to expand this area.B.Adamski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if I had to choose just one area, I'd say SF. Seattle is nice, but only in the mountains - I don't like the yellowish, un-sharp look of the valley, especially in the cities. SF is more uniform IMO, meaning that it's sharp and pleasant everywhere. So when I have a flight in SF, I can fly over mountains, valleys, lakes, cities and villages, (and the ocean), and never be disappointed!And, like Chris, I too have a soft spot for the Bay Area - actually, I'm in love with those landscapes! :-)Cristian

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