Orbx SCA question

[griphos]

So...I have most Orbx regions and airports. I love NCA. But I've held off on getting SCA. My concern is the reports of low FPS I've read. My question is if I don't fly over LA or San Diego, will my performance be about the same as NCA? I'd like to get the Agua Dulce airport, and maybe Palm Springs, but would mostly fly over the rural areas.

[b52bob]

I have a I5 and run p3d 2.4. I have no trouble running my 20fms in rural areas. Big cities like San Diego brings it down to around 12.

amazing scenery!

[griphos]

I probably should have stipulated I run FSX. I'm not sure if there's a difference. I'm wondering if the performance hit happens anywhere else besides San Diego and LA. Would flying Agua Dulce or Palm Springs (on the other side of the mountains) be okay?

I run an i5 at 4.4 oc and a GTX 970 4 gb

[rich12545]

Imo you'll be fine even in the cities. But the best place to ask is the orbx forum.

[griphos]

Thought I might get a more objective assessment here.

[heywooood]

I would expect that too. Being a resident of So.Cal I am also interested in the Orbx scenery but have not bought it for the same reason..
Now if Ramona and Carlsbad can be flown with solid frame rates (I like 30+) then I would buy it but if the whole show is under 20?
Fugedaboudit

[b52bob]

Just to clarify, my max frame rate is set got 20.

San Diego can be very hard on the frame rates but is well done. It's worth the price imho.

[lownslo]

My experience has been that SCA has a bit more performance hit than, say... NCA. The latter has always run great on my system, but SCA definitely causes a bit of a hit in the more populated parts of the region. Also, SCA seems to have a bit of a memory leak for me... after flying in the more populated parts of the region for a couple hour flight my system resource use is noticeably higher. This is with FSX Accel... I am as I write this moving over to the Steam Edition, so maybe the situation will change for the better.

Having said this... my solution is simple: When flying in SCA I just lower my Autogen from full right to one notch from full, and all is well. I'm certainly glad I bought SCA. It is clearly outstanding, and flying in the region is always enjoyable... after I dial back the autogen.

HTH

Greg

[JimH]

With Orbx SCA I had problems with low frame rates, stuttering and CTDs, mainly in the vicinity of the Long Beach area. Turning down the FSX autogen setting didn't seem to help much, but turning down the scenery complexity setting did help (but then the scenery objects disappear). I didn't have any major problems running Orbx SCA over inland areas, over Palm Springs (Orbx KPSP) or over (Orbx L70) Agua Dulce. I ended up leaving Orbx installed in order to retain the Orbx airports and scenery objects, but I am now also running MegasceneryEarth 4X photoscenery over the Orbx autogen scenery (the photoscenery automatically takes precedence over autogen), which reduces the load on my computer.

FSX with Acceleration; i7 3770k overclocked to 4.3 GHz; nVidia GTX 670 GPU.

[trucker17]

I have ORBX SoCal. i run it in a laptop that is 8 years old.
I get some stutters, here and their in the LA Basin and San Diego, but no more then i get anywhere else.
With SoCal you definitely need to turn down your graphics settings in FSX.
But you also have to remember that their are more then just computer quality at work here. You have to figure your computer performance, scenery size and aircraft. Some aircraft freeware and payware are heavy on FPS themselves. All these things effect your FPS as well as background programs, Graphics card, etc, etc, etc.

My laptop runs windows 7 HP, with a 1T harddrive, and 8Gigs ram. Big system with lots of power, but that does not matter much when you use a lower grade graphics card.

My self i have no complaints with ORBX SoCal. Its an awesome addon, that covers a vast area.
Here is the coverage area for Northern California.
http://i.imgur.com/IMLN4jc.jpg (http://imgur.com/IMLN4jc)
And the coverage area for Southern California.
http://i.imgur.com/IEfPRCN.jpg (http://imgur.com/IEfPRCN)

[scotth6]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head in your post Griphos. The only areas that struggle a bit are LA and San Diego. Even then if you have only SCA without heaps of other addons the performance isn't too bad. I tried adding Aerosoft's US Cities LA, and that pretty much turned in to a slide show, SCA on it's own is not too bad. There are options to turn things off if you need to. Aerosoft's Las Vegas wasn't too bad on top of SCA. I also tried Latin VFR's San Diego, and unfortunately that was a no go, but I only tried that once. I could probably even get that to work OK if I played with the settings a bit.

Cheers,

[griphos]

Thanks for all the helpful feedback, guys. I have Megascenery LA, and used it when I used to fly on Pilot's edge a lot (it's no longer installed). But I really don't have much interest in flying over LA or San Diego. I guess the real pilot in me just gets sweaty palms thinking about all the clearances and radio traffic I'd have to simulate. :-)

I would just be flying SCA with those two Orbx airports, and no other addons, and I don't fly very demanding aircraft. Just the high quality A2A and RealAir GA stuff mostly.

It was also helpful to look at the coverage map again. There's lots of desert to explore where I suspect fps won't be an issue, and the coast from Monterrey to Santa Barbara likewise should be beautiful and not too demanding.

I think I've decided to pull the trigger.

Thanks.

[johannesl]

I bought Orbx SCA and felt the scenery in the city was a little generic so I overlayed Megascenery on it and the combination works pretty well adding some nice features.

I use my own Gillespie Field as the Orbx version isn't really any more accurate than the stock version.

You can fly quite a lot of San Diego without getting clearances. The VFR corridor over San Diego Bay is really nice on a clear sunny day.

[strykerpsg]

I bought Orbx SCA and felt the scenery in the city was a little generic so I overlayed Megascenery on it and the combination works pretty well adding some nice features.

I use my own Gillespie Field as the Orbx version isn't really any more accurate than the stock version.

You can fly quite a lot of San Diego without getting clearances. The VFR corridor over San Diego Bay is really nice on a clear sunny day.

Hmmmm, I had not heard of that capability. I thought they were similar products and therefore not compatible. Any chance you can post of comparison screenshots of the with and without megascenery? I really like as much detail as possible, as to me, it just adds to the depth of immersion when I can identify more accurate city blocks and outlying areas for VFR flying.

[JimH]

Surprisingly, MegasceneryEarth (photoscenery) and Orbx are compatible. If you have both turned on, the Orbx airports and scenery objects remain, but the photoscenery replaces the Orbx autogen scenery. In many cases the two sceneries blend together well. This can be a useful combination, giving 3D scenery at the airports, where you usually fly low, and giving precise photo-real scenery accuracy in other areas where you fly higher. It's very easy to switch back and forth between the photoscenery and Orbx on-the-fly by going to the FSX scenery library and turning the photoscenery on or off. In areas where my computer struggles (Long Beach), I prefer the Orbx/photoscenery combination. In other areas, pure Orbx might be better. It has a lot to do with the particular area, and personal preferences.

[griphos]

Hmmm....very interesting. Which is higher in the scenery library for this to work? I have Megascenery LA.

[strykerpsg]

Surprisingly, MegasceneryEarth (photoscenery) and Orbx are compatible. If you have both turned on, the Orbx airports and scenery objects remain, but the photoscenery replaces the Orbx autogen scenery. In many cases the two sceneries blend together well. This can be a useful combination, giving 3D scenery at the airports, where you usually fly low, and giving precise photo-real scenery accuracy in other areas where you fly higher.


It's very easy to switch back and forth between the photoscenery and Orbx on-the-fly by going to the FSX scenery library and turning the photoscenery on or off. In areas where my computer struggles (Long Beach), I prefer the Orbx/photoscenery combination. In other areas, pure Orbx might be better. It has a lot to do with the particular area, and personal preferences.

Apologies for multi-quoting you, but I just wanted to clarify....in the upper quote you state they are compatible and blend well together, so I can have both 3D objects and photo real scenery. That's what I would like, however, having used photo scenery before, I did not like the very 2 dimensional appearance when flying down low.

In the second quote you mention ease of switching back and forth....is that just mean your preference in say an area very FPS heavy, like a large city and one is operating an older system that struggles with the autogen 3D objects? I didn't want to misunderstand that it's an option for one or the other, just that there can be that option if needed, during the occasional slide shows with FPS on an older system. I hope that made sense and did not sound contrary to what you mean.

Thanks for the feedback. I am hoping to see a screenshot, but if not, may just purchase a photoreal set that matches one of my Orbx regions.

[johannesl]

Here are some screen shots of MegaScenery and Orbx. MegaScenery loses the autogen scenery but keeps the underlying road traffic from Orbx.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37111&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37112&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37113&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37114&stc=1

[strykerpsg]

Thanks for sharing Johannes. I am not certain it's an additional financial transaction I want to add to FSX or not. Perhaps I will try a small photo scenery add on, and give it a try this weekend. One of the best benefits of hanging out in this forum is the ability to learn something new from time to time, as well as see the great paints and screenshots.

Nice screenshots also. Thank you.

[scotth6]

Thanks for sharing Johannes. I am not certain it's an additional financial transaction I want to add to FSX or not. Perhaps I will try a small photo scenery add on, and give it a try this weekend. One of the best benefits of hanging out in this forum is the ability to learn something new from time to time, as well as see the great paints and screenshots.

Nice screenshots also. Thank you.

Hi. You should checkout Bluesky Scenery. They have almost all of California covered, along with several other states. It is excellent PR with water masking etc, and best of all it's free. It's been a while since I downloaded any tiles, so they may have even finished California by now.

I have quite a few US States by Megascenery Earth, and also a few that Bluesky scenery have done, and I would say that Bluesky are done better than the payware, especially regarding water masking.

I have also tried out PR scenery with ORBX on top. I usually leave ORBX entries untouched,and move any photoscenery down to the bottom, below any other addons and just above the default FSX entries. This way, some 3D objects appear in the scenery, and as I use ORBX and other airports, they are placed over the top of the photoscenery. The only thing you may have to adjust manually is mesh, as ORBX includes some, as does Bluesky scenery, so you just use one or the other.

I would highly recommend all of the Blueskyscenery titles. One of the best freeware offerings out there.

http://www.blueskyscenery.com/

http://www.blueskyscenery.com/CA.html


Cheers,

[griphos]

Just checking back in on the thread to wrap it up. The big sale was too much for me. I got SCA, KPSP and L70 (plus the two NZ airports I've been eyeing a while).

I'm very glad I got it. Performance is fine. I'm flying around the NE LA urban area now (near Van Nuys) from L70 and FPS is just fine, and the scenery is fantastic. L70 is probably my favorite Orbx airport. Misha's work on those rock textures is amazing. Most realistic scenery in FSX for me so far.

Thanks for all the feedback and help. I'm happy with this purchase and look forward to exploring quite a lot of scenic territory.

[airattackimages]

Actually being from SoCal, I just couldn't stand SCA. In particular, flying around areas that aren't major cities, not seeing real stuff where it should be is a deal killer. I guess I've been spoiled by Megascenery -- I expect to see things where they should be.

Maybe if I didn't know the area, I'd be ok suspending belief and just enjoying the falsified view ;) But when I fly over my house and see no homes and a bunch of pine trees, I just can't enjoy that. In MSE, I see my house and the entire neighborhood around it. I see my grocery store, instead of a generic industrial building.

[JimH]

Actually being from SoCal, I just couldn't stand SCA. In particular, flying around areas that aren't major cities, not seeing real stuff where it should be is a deal killer. I guess I've been spoiled by Megascenery -- I expect to see things where they should be.

Maybe if I didn't know the area, I'd be ok suspending belief and just enjoying the falsified view ;) But when I fly over my house and see no homes and a bunch of pine trees, I just can't enjoy that. In MSE, I see my house and the entire neighborhood around it. I see my grocery store, instead of a generic industrial building.


I have Orbx SCA and it's great. But I'm also very impressed with MegasceneryEarth's new extremely-high-resolution "4x" scenery for southern California. I've done a lot of comparing between Orbx and MSE and in many cases the 4x MSE scenery is not only much more accurate, it also looks better. And the MSE gives higher frame rates and smoother operation. But, of course, with photoreal scenery you lose the seasons, 3D at ground level, etc. Too bad we can't have it all in one package.

[GypsyBaron]

MY experience with OrbX SCA has been a mixed bag. I have flown from San Diego up the
coast into the NCA area (Moffett Field) and all along the way I was getting 4-5 second freezes.

Additionally I found a number of airports with elevation issues (sunked runways and taxiways)
and only a couple were able to be corrected with the Global Vector configuration tool.

I've also flown from Boeing Field down to Moffett Field, pretty much following the coast and
did not experience any stutters or freezes.

I was flying mostly at 3K to 6K to enjoy the scenery in my A2A P-51D (civ). I have pretty much
all of the FTX regions installed except Norway and Wales, along with Gloabal and Global Vector,
Pilot's 2010 mesh and OLC Europe and OLC North America.

I run with FTX Central set to 'Hybrid' mode.

Paul

[griphos]

When I want to see reality around where I live, I fly in real life. In the sim, I want convincing terrain. PR scenery like Megascenery doesn't even come close to that for me anywhere but desert areas. I have MegaScenery for southern California (bought it when I was doing Pilot's edge, 'cause I couldn't stand default), but I didn't like it. To each his own, I suppose. But 2-D just doesn't look at all real to me at the heights I typically fly.

I only fly Orbx regions and airports. I have no interest in Global or Vector or any of those, so I don't have to worry about the integration problems. So far, the region by itself has been great. As I approached LA, there is some slow down at my settings, but I can live with it, particularly as I don't really like flying around LA. :-)

[Obie311]

Actually being from SoCal, I just couldn't stand SCA. In particular, flying around areas that aren't major cities, not seeing real stuff where it should be is a deal killer. I guess I've been spoiled by Megascenery -- I expect to see things where they should be.

Maybe if I didn't know the area, I'd be ok suspending belief and just enjoying the falsified view ;) But when I fly over my house and see no homes and a bunch of pine trees, I just can't enjoy that. In MSE, I see my house and the entire neighborhood around it. I see my grocery store, instead of a generic industrial building.

Air Attack has a good point here. I had been running BlueSky for my SoCal scenery. I'm a financially grounded aviator with a lot of VFR SoCal experience so the accuracy of BlueSky was amazing. I even created a nearby STOL airport about a 1/2 mile from my house in a vacant lot that the FD uses as a helispot. The catch is (as previously mentioned) if you're a low and slow flyer like I am, the lack of 3D autogen is a bummer.

The ORBX SCA has the roads, terrain contours, golf courses, and railroads accurately placed so you can IFR* for pilotage. The broad strokes are there it's just the specific details are missing. It is nice seeing the 3D houses and trees from the air.

In a final analysis, it boils down to what kind of FS flyer you are. For the time being, I think I'll enjoy the SCA just as it is. If I get ambitious, I may experiment with a hybrid system but then again maybe not. I'm at the point where I've slimmed down my hangar and addon scenery file and want to fly more than tweak. I now have ORBX scenery from the Western USA contiguous from the Mexican to the Canadian border. I think I'll concentrate on that with the notable exception of a little Air America flying (when the Aerosoft PC-6 is released!) in Laos and Vietnam.

Oh BTW isn't the cafe at Agua Dulce located on a slight hill? When I made my own L70 from stock objects, I didn't have the skill to put it on a hill but I was hoping Misha Cajic would. Maybe he was working from photos and couldn't see the elevation?

Obie

*I Follow Roads

[johannesl]

I live about 9 miles east of heywooood so hi sort of neighbor. As stated before I've also spent a number of hours flying in and out of KSEE Gillespie Field and I like to see the area I live in look like the place I live in so I overlay MSE over Orbx, though the lack of 3d objects is sometimes a little disappointing when flying low and slow, it is not a deal breaker. Also, I will sometimes try out a real flight to a new location to get a feel of what to expect and maybe pick out the VFR waypoints or other VFR points.

One other point I also stated before was that both stock and Orbx versions of KSEE are not that great so I made my own. (Self serving available at Avsim). I agree it's not up to payware standards, but it is a bit more accurate than the others.

[heywooood]

hello johann - bienvenidos

I like what you did with the PR scenery bash..interesting.
I only fly low and slow in FSX so the ORBX scenery for me is a plus, even if it is somewhat inaccurate - as long as the area is unfamiliar.
I have the NorCal, Northern Rockies and all right up into Alaska for that reason.
But San Diego is familiar - and so far disappointing in FSX no matter what 3rd party payware or freeware I have tried.
I don't like the PR because of the crap appearance at low altitude. Its just a non-starter for me.

I don't think it will gert any better in the near future either, but maybe in my lifetime. I switched to kale and am laying off the pizza just to hedge my bet. lol

[johannesl]

I agree, at 500 ft PR isn't very good. At 3000 - 4000+ ft it's okay and in unfamiliar or unpopulated places Orbx and others work fine most of the time.

I hope the kale thing works for you though, so you can see FS12 (Steam or P3D), 3d VR goggles, and 6+Ghz processors, but I'm nearing the third half of life and pizza and Hodad's are still on my list;-)

[JimH]

For me the ultimate is MSE 4x, which is good down to about 1,000' AGL, combined with an ORBX airport (e.g. Palm Springs) which includes a very large 3D scenery area surrounding the airport.