• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Question; UTX or GEX?

L

Lionheart

SOH-CM-2014
Hey guys,


I am thinking of getting something to add to FSX. What would you recommend for ground terrain? UTX or GEX?

At Flight1, GEX looks best in the screenshots.



Bill
 
If I could have only one, it would be UTX, because for me, having accurate shorelines, roads, etc is most important. I could live without the textures in GEX, though the "desert" fall/winter textures introduced in FSX are really horrible and make flying in that time of year painful without GEX.

scott s.
.
 
Yup, UTX first. But make sure to get GEX in the future too. Both of them are top notch addons that EVERYONE should have.
 
Which bother you more, default textures or default shorelines? For me, it's the shorelines.
 
I agree with David, although I bought both as soon as they were available, I did not consider going 'FSX only' until UTX was released. To be honest, I typically won't fly in any area that isn't covered by the program, as it 'spoils you' real quick.

That said Bill, get both, as GEX does improve the visuals greatly as well.
 
As nice a combo that UTX and GEX makes, adding a third-party land class product helps round out the scenery. Too much of the default calls are mis-classified, so the LC product doesn't have to do a lot to make things better.

There's FS Genesis, Scenery Tech or Cloud9 for U.S./North America.
 
Meshman said:
As nice a combo that UTX and GEX makes, adding a third-party land class product helps round out the scenery. Too much of the default calls are mis-classified, so the LC product doesn't have to do a lot to make things better.

There's FS Genesis, Scenery Tech or Cloud9 for U.S./North America.
Click to expand...

Thanks Meshman.

I'll check that out now.



Bill
 
Best thing about UTX is that you can fly VFR a lot more realistically by following roads,railway lines etc.
Go with both ,Bill, for the ultimate sim experience.
 
Agreed about the landclass recommendation. I prefer Cloud9 for most all areas, but SceneryTech does a better job in the SW U.S. area, as example. Sorry to say, but, IMO, FSGenesis landclass does not compare to the others. IMO.
 
UTX is by far the best, but your putor might take a fpm hit. Mine did a little, but well worth it to make you scenery much, much better.Play with the settings that you like the best and what your putor can handle.
ps get both.hehe!!!
 
Just to follow up on land class and UTX. The Europe version of UTX contains it's own "full" land class calls, whereas the U.S. and Canada versions implement a synthesized urban land class. Neither U.S. or Canada deal with rural land class aspects.
 
Since most of my flying is based out of Fla, accurate coastlines and beach areas are very important.

When FSX, UTX and FSG's US Mesh & US LC were all first available I tried different combos to see how to get the most accurate Fla. I could.

I've been running the UTX, FSG Mesh & LC combo ever since. I also still use both Arnaud Clere's FSX Terrain Patch and Luis Féliz-Tirado's Modified Terrain.cfg files.

By far the UTX element made the single biggest jump towards accuracy over the default Fla scenery. Sandy beaches, barrier islands, harbors and bays are much closer to real world.

The one thing I have to agree on as a UTX negative is it is a heavy hitter on performance. There are still some graphically intense aircraft that I have to be very careful with when flying in UTX territory or risk the dreaded OOM error. That group of AC has remained consistant, the CS C-130X, A2A B377 and the Coolsky MD-80. I just notch back the sliders a bit when using them and most times it's okay.

The pics below are UTX, before and afters of one of Fla's more recognizable unique aerial features, the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant cooling canals.
It's basically a 170 mile long radiator that FSX turned into a large swimming pool looking thing.

FAC
 
FAC257 said:
. . .The pics below are UTX, before and afters of one of Fla's more recognizable unique aerial features, the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant cooling canals.
It's basically a 170 mile long radiator that FSX turned into a large swimming pool looking thing.
FAC
Click to expand...
Doesn't take much to realize that it looks more like an oversight on the part of FSX by leaving out a bitmap or two as there's little if any difference in the two shots except for the addition of the cooling system being dropped into the holes left in FSX.
 
Not really a good example of what UTX provides. Believe me, the difference overall is 'night and day'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top