MegaScenery Earth; Washington State v2.0?

[OleBoy]

Just received an email noting that MegaSenery/Washington State v2.0 has been released. A scenery package I'm wanting to try. http://www.megasceneryearth.com/stor...product_id=803
Has anyone else bought it, that can show a series of shots throughout the state? The more the better!

Those who have it, what are your thoughts of the visuals?

[AndyE1976]

I probably won't get Washington as I have ORBX to cover that area, but the new hen MegasceneryEarth stuff is really good so I'd suggest giving it a try. I have GA, NY and NJ and they get a lot of use.

[TheGrunt]

I also have few MSE 2.0's. I prefer mainly southern states, where lack od seasons is not that big deal and that they don't also overlap unnecessarily with ORBX stuff. So far I have New Mexico, Utah and Arizona which are all great with lot's of terrain features where photogen stuff really shines. I also have New York which is not at that same quality level IMO. I remember reading from somewhere that creators themselves mentioned that they intend to release improved textures for it later and that MSE 2.0 NY isn't the best representative ov MSE 2.0 series. They have also planned to release night textures for the series in later time.

[OleBoy]

I have ORBX PNW myself. It's quite the step up from default scenery, just not necessarily up to my likings in the accuracy category given the sources available.
Then there's the trade-off.

ORBX has autogen scattered about everywhere.
Photo-real has very little if at all. Maybe the default stuff.

At a thousand feet ASL the photo-real stuff looks great!
When you come down to land it's all flat. No trees. Nothin. I think.

I've always been on the fence whether to buy a photo-real package, so I'm hopeful of someone that has Washington will share their input along with an array of screen shots to entice me.

[TheGrunt]

I think everyone that is unsure if investment in MSE 2.0 is worth it, should first try terrific freeware photogen regions from BlueSkyScenery. They give quite good picture what you can expect from high quality photogen. MSE 2.0 offers more compared to BSS, like some buildings in larger cities and texture quality is perhaps even better. The point is, that if you like what you see with BSS, you'll like MSE 2.0 too.

[Gdavis101]

The colors in 2.0 are much more vibrant compared to the old 1.0 files.. I run both, Prepar3d is my Orbx home and FSX in my MSE 2.0 home. There is no autogen though, unlike 1.0

[falcon409]

I have ORBX PNW myself. It's quite the step up from default scenery, just not necessarily up to my likings in the accuracy category given the sources available.
Then there's the trade-off.

ORBX has autogen scattered about everywhere.
Photo-real has very little if at all. Maybe the default stuff.

At a thousand feet ASL the photo-real stuff looks great! When you come down to land it's all flat. No trees. Nothin. I think.
I've always been on the fence whether to buy a photo-real package, so I'm hopeful of someone that has Washington will share their input along with an array of screen shots to entice me.

I purchased New Jersey, not long after it came out. . .very disappointed in the color. . .no where near even coming close to matching the outer areas. I kept it for a while just to fly around all the old haunts then dumped it and went back to GEX and UTX. Never quite understood the excitement over terrain that looks decent from a couple thousand feet and then like the surface of the moon when you land. I guess it comes down to what you like and the type of flying you do. . .I enjoy both the aerial adventure and the ground immersion. . .others are different.

[OleBoy]

MSE sounds disappointing at best going based on replies. There's no autogen? Wow. I was figuring on having MSE Washington installed and then de-activating Orbx.
From the sounds of things so far I'll get off the fence so I don't fall the wrong direction. I was hopeful someone would have some good to say about the product. But since there's no autogen I'll forget purchasing for the time being.

All the input is appreciated this far everyone. :salute:

[dharry]

I also have few MSE 2.0's. I prefer mainly southern states, where lack od seasons is not that big deal and that they don't also overlap unnecessarily with ORBX stuff. So far I have New Mexico, Utah and Arizona which are all great with lot's of terrain features where photogen stuff really shines. I also have New York which is not at that same quality level IMO. I remember reading from somewhere that creators themselves mentioned that they intend to release improved textures for it later and that MSE 2.0 NY isn't the best representative ov MSE 2.0 series. They have also planned to release night textures for the series in later time.

Hi Grunt, I have the V1 version of northern Arizona so would it in your opinion be worth the outlay, and how much of an improvement would I see of the Grand Canyon for instance? If I could request It, as you have Utah, could you post any screen shots of Monument Valley and the Mexican Hat please?

[TheGrunt]

Hi Grunt, I have the V1 version of northern Arizona so would it in your opinion be worth the outlay, and how much of an improvement would I see of the Grand Canyon for instance? If I could request It, as you have Utah, could you post any screen shots of Monument Valley and the Mexican Hat please?

I can't say about V1.0 as I haven't owned it. I only had Colorado and V2.0 beats V1.0 hands down, although V1 is also nice. Grand Canyon in MSE 2.0 is really good. When I purchased MSE 2.0 Arizona, I did a quick comparison to OZx Grand Canyon and IMO MSE2.0 was better texture wise.

Here are few quite large screenshot crops (I have 6080x1080 triple screen, so some cropping is needed for forums to get aspect ratio to reasonable levels) from the area of Monument Valley and Mexican Hat. I am not sure if there is some certain area in Monument Valley you'd like to see and as I'm not from USA, I'am not that aware of the "must see" locations of MV. About the Mexican Hat, of course the rock itself isn't there as recognizable land mark as you would need some helluva mesh for it and best option would be to create it as an object, not as scenery contour. Same goes with these other steep rock formations and in the end it comes to the mesh resolution how good they look with even the best photogen available. I use FSGenesis and results are here. I also use Prepar3D, but that shouldn't make any difference here compared to FSX. REX realtime weather wasn't enabled for the screenies. LOD radius is 6.5 although devs recommend even 7 or 8.

First two are around the Mexican Hat. In the third one you can see the state line to Arizona. Distinctive borders are quite typical for large area photogens. After all, source material is handled by different cameras, different photographers taking pictures at different time of day, weather and season. Devs handle really good the alterations inside the one state, but you can expect larger differences in the borders. Equalizing the contrast for the whole continent would be enormous task.

All I can say, that the more I fly in the MSE 2.0, the better it feels. Some time ago I wasn't interested in large photogens at all and only one I cared were MegaSceneryX stuff, which have more autogen, but represent smaller areas (SoCal is largest). Then I tried BlueSkyScenery and saw the benefits. Now I use both "regular" autogen scenery and photogens happily. Both have benefits over each other as well as deficiencies. The unrepetitive nature of photogen scenery and realism of the photograph based textures are strong points for any photogen.

[dharry]

I can't say about V1.0 as I haven't owned it. I only had Colorado and V2.0 beats V1.0 hands down, although V1 is also nice. Grand Canyon in MSE 2.0 is really good. When I purchased MSE 2.0 Arizona, I did a quick comparison to OZx Grand Canyon and IMO MSE2.0 was better texture wise.

Here are few quite large screenshot crops (I have 6080x1080 triple screen, so some cropping is needed for forums to get aspect ratio to reasonable levels) from the area of Monument Valley and Mexican Hat. I am not sure if there is some certain area in Monument Valley you'd like to see and as I'm not from USA, I'am not that aware of the "must see" locations of MV. About the Mexican Hat, of course the rock itself isn't there as recognizable land mark as you would need some helluva mesh for it and best option would be to create it as an object, not as scenery contour. Same goes with these other steep rock formations and in the end it comes to the mesh resolution how good they look with even the best photogen available. I use FSGenesis and results are here. I also use Prepar3D, but that shouldn't make any difference here compared to FSX. REX realtime weather wasn't enabled for the screenies. LOD radius is 6.5 although devs recommend even 7 or 8.

First two are around the Mexican Hat. In the third one you can see the state line to Arizona. Distinctive borders are quite typical for large area photogens. After all, source material is handled by different cameras, different photographers taking pictures at different time of day, weather and season. Devs handle really good the alterations inside the one state, but you can expect larger differences in the borders. Equalizing the contrast for the whole continent would be enormous task.

All I can say, that the more I fly in the MSE 2.0, the better it feels. Some time ago I wasn't interested in large photogens at all and only one I cared were MegaSceneryX stuff, which have more autogen, but represent smaller areas (SoCal is largest). Then I tried BlueSkyScenery and saw the benefits. Now I use both "regular" autogen scenery and photogens happily. Both have benefits over each other as well as deficiencies. The unrepetitive nature of photogen scenery and realism of the photograph based textures are strong points for any photogen.

Thanks very much for the reply and screenshots. Looks like I will have to acquire the south western states at some point.

[airattackimages]

I have Southern California north to Kern County in MSE, and I will never again fly without it. Seeing everything below you as it actually looks is awesome, and given that I fly aerial firefighting type missions in FSX, being able to identify exact canyons, meadows and parts of mountains is needed.

[Gdavis101]

I have been checking out Washington, Idaho and Oregon and from what I have seen so far I really like it. I like being able to look out the plane and say, "hey! I have been there!"