Photoreal scenery

B

b52bob

Charter Member
Just downloaded the huge file for Puerto Rico 4x and now realize why I never bought much photoreal,
I should have known better. It's great over 10k ft but inhales deeply down low. Oh well, got it on sale so not to much of a hit on the cc. I'll stay with orbx if they ever get there.
 
Yea, and yet there are huge numbers of folks who find that "immersion" above 5000' hard to pass up. In this hobby, there are too many variations to count and that goes not only for Sim setups, but also for that elusive immersion factor and everything that entails. I have read explanations from folks who are seriously into Flight Sim and they help me realize that I am not as serious as I always imagined. . .no where close, lol. Mega Scenery is popular and I guess I see the allure, but. . . .nah. I enjoy seeing landmarks from high altitudes and being able to spot familiar roads and buildings I remember from my hometown. . .but I also want to be "immersed" all the way to the ground. I want to see traffic on the highway I pass over on final. . .I want to see trees and buildings pass under me as I'm on approach and I want to feel like I'm "there" at familiar airports when I land and taxi to the terminal. True photoreal ground textures that cover massive areas are mostly a moonscape below a certain altitude. There might be a few buildings and sparsely placed trees, but once you drop below even 2000' things begin to blur a bit and I begin to think I hear Mission Control advising me that I'm entering that dead spot as I pass around the dark side of the moon and all communications will be lost for the next 30 minutes, lol.

To those who enjoy that type of high altitude flight, even though this seems like I'm slamming photoreal I'm not really. . .if that's what makes your sim experience enjoyable then that's your business and you should continue to indulge yourself with every new product that offers another area to enjoy, and keep flying! For me, it's something I tried several times and just never "got it". It just wasn't what I wanted from flying, and I guess that's why I spend so much time sprucing up airports that should be alive with character but that Microsoft or Lockheed left abandoned. That's what makes flying interesting for me, that's what peaks my immersion factor.
 
Not all photosceneries are the same. The technology evolves.
Of course, if you just try an old photoscenery with poor resolution (5m/pixel like FS9, or 2m/pixel like some FSX ones), you're going to be dissappointed.
And even with 1m/pixel sceneries, if you don't have any autogen on it, it's not going to be very enjoyable. As you guys wrote, that kind of sceneries are made to be seen from higher than 5000 feet, because of the lack of 3D details. It's good for liner pilots, let's say.

However, there are some photosceneries with good resolution (1m/pixel or less) and good autogen. And in that case, the sitation is completely different, the visual quality surpasses any scenery with regular generic textures. OrbX airport sceneries are a perfect example here, but these are usually quite limited surface (only a few km² around the airport are photoreal, but the quality is outstanding). There are some techniques to create some good autogen for any photoscenery, automatically or by hand. Gman, if I'm not confusing, is currently working on such a scenery, and some other people have already made some nice packages too. Here are a few low altitude shots to show what I'm talking about:

Here at 1000 feet or less:
daube_image2196.jpg

daube_image2199.jpg


A just a bit higher:
daube_image2201.jpg

daube_image2204.jpg


And I could use some very low levels ones as well. With such an autogen, flying at lower altitude keeps the visual quality intact, contrary to photosceneries with no autogen.
The only real drawbacks with photosceneries are:
- they are very heavy (several Gb)
- they usually have no night textures (but the ones with autogen can compensate a bit for that)
- they only propose one season (very exceptions, including OrbX aiport sceneries for example)
So yeah, far from perfect. But not that bad at all.
 
I did not mean to criticize mega scenery. From 5000 feet all looks well. To each his or her own as was pointed out. Puerto Rico is very nice from that altitude but I prefer something with less burries down low as that is mostly where I fly. I love PR and would like to see scenery with the old town in more detail.
 
Megascenery packages are very often on sale at PCAviator, but still today I haven't bought any of their products.
I took a look at the screenshots and the quality is not pleasing, in my opinion. The textures are not precise, the color correction is missing, and (*I'm not sure about that one*) I believe I saw some clouds painted on the ground in some screenshots.
That being said, they are the only ones proposing such huge coverage so far, which is nice.
But the market lacks some higher-level photoscenery creators, I think. There ARE a few, yes, but too few...
 
I own the entire USA in MegaScenery V2. I also have the new GTX and just purchased Orbx LC NA. I agree with falcon the photoscenery is better when viewed high. I have purchased some of the super photoscenery of major cites and don't find it to be much different than the standard scenery. However, I am using a 1040p projector. Maybe if I had a 4K projector or large TV it would look better?

When MegaScenery came out with the 4K sutff, I purchased their Arizona 4K package and ran it and the standard V2 package. I didn't see enough difference to make me want to reinvest in the entire US again. I will buy Louisiana when it comes out in 4K and give them another chance. Since I have flown Louisiana so much in real life, I figure I can make a good judgement on how good it is to other options.

Currently, I am in love with Orbx LC NA. While not photoscenery it gives me the feeling of real life flying. That is good enough at the moment. Maybe when 4k projectors become affordable I will look in something new?
 
Hi John.
I fly P3D v3.3.5 on a 49 inch LG 4K TV. MSE V3 Looks horrible.
I think the problem is the hard limit LOD radius of P3D.
MSE V2 in FSX was gorgeous even at low level when I tweaked the radius to 9.5.
Even in the days of free Tileproxy in FSX it blew away most payware photoscenery.
What to do?
 
I have found that a LOD setting of just 6.5 (in FSX at least) will give me clear, blur free PR as far as I can see. Haven't really tested much PR in P3D. I find most 1m PR acceptable down to around 2500 feet or even lower, but I suppose it is up to personal preferences. There is for sure some really average PR payware out there. I have a lot of PR, both freeware and payware, yet I still find myself using ORBX scenery a lot. I like to just use PR kind of like browsing Google earth from a nice aircraft, meaning you can really have the best of both worlds, depending on your mood of the day. I suppose it depends on what kind of flying you are doing.
I would also agree with Daube's observation that nothing really beats good PR with well placed models and autogen. I find you can get away with 3D models and autogen even just around your departure and destination airports, as once you are high enough even flat, bare PR can look great.
 
I agree that the best of all worlds would be photo realistic scenery with proper autogen buildings and structures. The only time I find the MegaScenery to be lacking is when I take off and land. I also find that, at least in Louisiana, the green colors are off. They are by and large too light or yellowish.

When I fly a x-country at altitude, I will often activate the photoscenery. I like looking down at the real world while cruising on autopilot. I started buying add-on regional airports in the areas I often fly. I like coming into a realistic looking airport.
 
The debate of CG vs PR always seems to come down to practicality. PR is great at altitude, but closer to the ground the lack of autogen is a turn off. CG is great but can be lacking in realism or immersion. As CG becomes more realistic the trend towards the more efficient platform is growing, especially with ORBX creating more and more expansive coverage.

I've been working (quietly) on five major scenery projects, all of which feature ultra high resolution photoreal with hand annotated autogen. I'm hand modeling all of the buildings and some terrain feature as well.

For me, being able to explore areas like the one featured in the video presents the opportunity to experience a location in nearly virtual reality. Simulator technology has advance to the point where it is possible to use extremely detailed imagery with hyper-dense autogen coverage that captures a location at incredible detail. The only limitations are the ones we impose upon ourselves when taking on work at this level of scope and detail.

My work has been focused on PR and autogen. I've got some things in R&D that allow autogen and photoreal to be integrated over large coverage areas and still offer excellent performance. When I perfect the tech, I'll be releasing it as a comprehensive product line. The autogen in this video is an example of the blending of art and tech to create autogen that is both convincing and performance friendly.

Here's an example of "the best of both worlds" as I envision it. My project target is to do the entire Eastern Sierra including Yosemite Valley and Owens Valley from Reno Stead, south to China Lake. I'm making good progress.


 
Last edited:
OK Clutch and Gman, Where do I send the checks.

Gman, I did a lot of low level flying when I was flying RF4s. Your video reminded me of those flights. Except, I did it faster. :) Beautiful!

Clutch, your scenery is awesome also. It looks very realistic. Looking forward to the eventual release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top