2/27/2023 0 Comments P3d v3 scenery large blue blocksSince opinions and experiences seem to be what you are looking for, the more the merrier! The advantage of using something like Orbx or UTX/GEX scenery is that the scenery will look very realistic and immersive irrespective of the altitude at which you are flying and if as a ‘Downeast Bush Pilot’ you spend a lot of time flying at very low levels you might be better opting for one of these products rather than going down the photoreal route. Because of the VAS implications I decided to avoid large scale use of photoreal in FSX and instead use Orbx scenery with UTX vector data and the overall sense of realism this provides is excellent, although, if you are very familiar with an area, the accuracy of ground features may not always precisely reflect the real world. However another downside of flying with photoreal scenery is that it if you have a lot of it activated it can have a considerable VAS impact and the cumulative VAS usage during a long flight could lead to an OOM which is an important consideration in FSX. I have very little photoreal scenery in FSX apart from some Megascenery for the Hawaiian Islands which I purchased many years ago and which I must say is quite impressive. However, I understand that more recent photoreal scenery products have improved considerably and, as scotth6 says, at least one developer has enhanced it by adding autogen features (Just Flight Real scenery NexGen 3D) - I would expect that this improves the otherwise flat appearance of photoreal when flying at low level although I personally have no experience of this. There is a lot of freeware photo scenery available online, so to figure out if you like it or not I would obviously suggest trying some free stuff out first. Generally the greater the resolution of the scenery, the more hard drive space is required. It really just comes down to a matter of personal taste, and perhaps the size of your hard drives, because photoreal scenery does take up a lot of space compared to landclass based scenery. Now as hardware and software power is increasing we are seeing more PR sceneries with autogen and modelling included, and indeed you can even find a lot of autogen only products (freeware) that are designed to be used with payware or freeware photoreal scenery which does not have it's own autogen and modelling included. I always found it interesting just looking at places in Google Earth, so to do that while flying a complex airliner is awesome. I really like PR because it gives me an opprtunity to explore the real world visually while flying in flight sim. It really does come down to personal taste. 3D models are also the most resource intensive portion of a flight simulator scenery, so if they are not modelled, the performance increase is huge. From cruise altitude you really can't see much of 3D models anyway, and if you are taking off and landing at an addon airport with surrounding models of buildings and trees included, you really are notmissing out on much by not having 3D models on the terrain for the entire length of your flight. Personally I have no issue whatsoever flying over bare PR at 1m or 2m resolution if I am flying airliners. It all depends on the type of flying you do. PR resolution can also be poor in some cases, and of course that also gets worse the lower you go. The reason you hear people bagging photoreal is mainly due to the lack of 3D models included with some PR, as it can look more flat and lifeless the lower you go. I personally like both types of scenery - landclass based and photoreal. So I would love some opinions from FSX nerds about what kinds of scenery they prefer, even about what brands of scenery if pertinent, and whether Photoreal scenery is the best experience for any given level of hardware one might have. And I see video of people showing off non-photoreal sceneries of places that look pretty fantastic. But, of course, the lower to the ground the crappier things get, as its made from real satellite imagery.īut I read people crapping on photoreal when I skim forums. The photoreal scenery of my state seems so wonderfully realistic from the air, in terms of looking like I know things should look from knowing the place so well. I have purchased a handful of add-on sceneries, airports, etc., and have the photoreal scenery for my home state. I've been an FSX'er for many years, but have always been confused about the pros and cons of photoreal scenery, and more broadly, about what the most effective kinds, or brands, of scenery are.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |