MegaSceneryEarth - Western Washington State

[OleBoy]

OK gentlemen. And those of you who use this product, tell me the scoop on this photo-real scenery if you will.

There's only one stipulation. Don't compare it to any other. I don't care about any other but this developer. Photo-real is, what photo-real is.



Two questions;

1] What are the advantages?

2] What are the disadvantages?

As always, your feedback will be appreciated. I'm considering buying this as it's currently 50% off.

[airattackimages]

No disadvantages as far as I've experienced. I have Southern California and Kern County. Oh yeah, that reminds me of a disadvantage -- now I can't stand leaving the area. I just love being able to fly vfr over actual areas and being able to navigate by dead reckoning.

[pbearsailor]

It's hard not to compare it to that other company.

I have it. Had it loaded for only a short time. Flat, lifeless, and the colors were off. It does accurately depict what is on the ground, like towns and harbors are where they should be.

I don't fly high altitude much, but I'd guess it is better for that.

-steve.

[OleBoy]

It's hard not to compare it to that other company.

I have it. Had it loaded for only a short time. Flat, lifeless, and the colors were off. It does accurately depict what is on the ground, like towns and harbors are where they should be.

I don't fly high altitude much, but I'd guess it is better for that.

-steve.

I know it's hard not to compare. But then what I wanted to find out would would be in 20 posts that involve sifting through to get answers.

I appreciate your comments on this product. I know this type of scenery is lacking in the autogen area. And the low-level turns to a blur. Question is, is it really bad? And at what levels do the scenery start to turn into a blurred mess?

For higher elevations I bet it's a fantastic view in the realistic sense.

Thanks for your reply. :)

[airattackimages]

It's the sharpest photo scenery I've seen, even at 1000 ft. I could care less about autogen anyway. I dont need to see a grove of unrealistic trees or houses. I have my autogen turned off, it just gets in the way of what is actually there.

But that's just if you care what I think of course.

The other company is better at making airports. Their scenery away from the airports are nothing special.

[Meshman]

For higher elevations I bet it's a fantastic view in the realistic sense.

If photo scenery is put together "properly" and the source material is good, then there should be clarity from when you start trimming the plane after takeoff to getting ready for final approach. Or about 500-800 feet.

Photo scenery gives you an accurate view, at a particular time. Since a lot of the source for the US is done for agricultural reasons (through the USDA) it will be mid-spring to fall based. Flights done can be on different days and times, so you can see color variances and shadow differences.

Photo scenery can include autogen, but I prefer mine without. I just like to go exploring and do not prefer the FSX based trees or buildings interfering with the views. Autogen can also cut back on some of the sharpness in rendering, as it gets a higher priority in the loop.

If you want to see what photo scenery looks like from above I can find a link from my site and you can download a smallish portion (1 degree squared) of Kalifornia (northern!). LMK