On the edge of the difference - Mega Scenery X S. California

[Bernabie 0]

Here are some pics I have taken on what is going to be a complete around tour of Mega Scenery X Southern California to let viewers witness the difference between the default FSX and this scenery.

I hope you will enjoy your flight, and thus...

...enjoy the beauty. Pictures have been taken in Winter time!!

Thanks for watching, and I hope you have enjoyed the show, as I did so by flying it.

Hope that they will develop the next part of California as well all the way to at least Frisco.

[Marc W. 0]

Thanks for those very nice pics!

I have to say though that I do not care much for that type of scenery - high -res ground textures are no good if you can't fly low anyway because there are no 3d objects except for the default objects ...

Pretty from high altitudes, though! But that was true for the earlier incarnations of Megascenery too ...

btw : that's not Aerosoft scenery, is it? :wink:

[Bernabie 0]

Yes, It's from Aerosoft, but from Aerosoft Australia.

It has been published by PC Aviator and is also being sold through Aerosoft Europe.

And you have a point with regard to 3D buildings, but it anyhow is far better than flying over the default FSX scenery, don't you agree?

[Marc W. 0]

but it anyhow is far better than flying over the default FSX scenery, don't you agree?

I wouldn't say that ... I actually do prefer the default scenery IN FSX when flying low ... no trees, no buildings, that does look very very weird!

No argument about high altitudes

[Bernabie 0]

No trees???? :?

No buildings???? :?

I do have quite a lot of trees in this scenery as well as 3D buildings, but this flight is largely over the desert and a mountaineous region.

And there are very little buildings in the desert anyway. :wink:

I'm not quite sure tho if it are the default buildings I do see when so, or that it's a combination of both, meaning own created 3D buildings of Mega Scenery and default ones.

But they are definitely there.

You can see them even in a few pics here, but also in the Los Angeles area thread.

So feel free to nose around, and above all notice the immense difference between default and this scenery!!

And it's also a very amazing scenery at lower altitudes.

[Marc W. 0]

No trees???? :?

No buildings???? :?

I do have quite a lot of trees in this scenery as well as 3D buildings, but this flight is largely over the desert and a mountaineous region.

Dont' trust me, trust the makers themselves :

I quote from the Megascenery homepage :

"MegaSceneryX does not add custom 3D buildings but instead adds the photo backdrop for the scenery area."

Merry Christmas

[Manta 0]

Thnak you very much, very appreciated

I'm quite new with FSX or FS9 for that matters, and so far I own Megascenery Phoenix and Megascenery Hawaii, and I can see any default tree and building your rig is able to generate. Megascenery doesn't clear off any building, you keep them just like as a default scenery.

I really like Megascenery package, my only tiny complaint is that the transiction from Megascenery to Default's should be done with a little blood loss.

Cheers

Manta

[Bernabie 0]

Well, the developers may have written that, but the pics themselves shows what people will beget when buying Mega Scenery X SoCal, and when putting the sliders in the settings as advised.

Mine are even here a bit higher than advised.

As it states in the manual by the way: They have replaced many default 3D buildings to their more accurate position on the photo scenery.

So even when they wouldn't have build them themselves, which I thought thus wrongly, then they now have the means to build them if they want and create an additional package whether done by themselves or others. You can place them exactly where they should be put.

And they have adjusted them, which means that you will see quite a lot of 3D buildings in their correct position. So, I don't think that the place can be called barren as you would try to assume Algernon.

As I wrote earlier: You have already here a view of those buildings. But In the LA thread do you see those who have been adjusted to their correct position so that they would blend in nicely with the photo scenery.

And that makes it a most amazing package to be recommended to others for sure. It's maybe not the same as VFR Germany West, but it surely will be a extreme difference with the default because what you will see mostly of default buildings is the same as the default ones, but then on a photo scenery, and much more interesting to fly VFR rules!!!

But if you want own made 3D buildings: Then why don't you ask the developers if you may build them for them. I'm sure that they wouldn't mind it at all. Then we all will have in a next release an even greater Mega Scenery experience.

Anyhow, many people's computer are not up to the task as of yet to such a realistic view with a lot of own made 3D buildings. You just have to look at what those write who have bought them Venice X.

[skydvdan 2]

Dont' trust me, trust the makers themselves :

I quote from the Megascenery homepage :

"MegaSceneryX does not add custom 3D buildings but instead adds the photo backdrop for the scenery area."

Merry Christmas

Megascenery doesn't add custom 3D building but does add the default ones back in so it's no worse than the default scenery except that you get the added benefit of seeing the world as it really is in the photo. Photoscenery has changed alot from FS2004 to FSX. I think you still have the FS2004 rules in your head.

[Bernabie 0]

No Dan, I have not the 2004 rules in my head because FSX is my first.

But I realised my mistake in that. I confused putting buildings in the right spot as own created ones, even mingling one product with another as I when having bought Mega Scenery X SoCal also did buy my VFR Germany West at the same time and read both manuals when installing it on my PC.

I probably have mixed up both with each other when writing that.

But having placed many 3D default buildings on the spot where they should be standing is as equally perfect as if you would have build it yourself. It means that it will stand not on a street or on someone's elses house.

And that makes the product as real as it gets and most recommendable to be bought. It makes flying in FSX superbly and it enhances FSX to the max making it a terrific product where those of Microsoft shouldn't be ashamed of in anyway so that they put off fS11 a bit longer and we all can enjoy to the fullest this version first of all.

[skydvdan 2]

Look at who I quoted. Not talking to you. I'm trying to explain to Algernon.

Nice pics by the way. :wink:

[Marc W. 0]

Megascenery doesn't add custom 3D building but does add the default ones back in so it's no worse than the default scenery except that you get the added benefit of seeing the world as it really is in the photo. Photoscenery has changed alot from FS2004 to FSX. I think you still have the FS2004 rules in your head.

No, Dan - I do know that - it's just that the DEFAULT SCENERY puts buildings in FSX according to the landclass. Now since the default landclass doesn't have buildings excactly where there are PAINTED in the photo scenery, you have to deactivate the autogen or else you get most weird looking scenery at low altitudes ... (to do it right, FSX would have to put a 3D building on each spot where it's shown on the photo ... I wouldn't mind if a few are missing, but the problem is you get buildings where none are supposed to be)

Even the "makers" must have realized that this looks bad, they have no 3d buildings showing in their shots from low altitude on their site ...

[skydvdan 2]

No, Dan - I do know that - it's just that the DEFAULT SCENERY puts buildings in FSX according to the landclass. Now since the default landclass doesn't have buildings excactly where there are PAINTED in the photo scenery, you have to deactivate the autogen or else you get most weird looking scenery at low altitudes ... (to do it right, FSX would have to put a 3D building on each spot where it's shown on the photo ... I wouldn't mind if a few are missing, but the problem is you get buildings where none are supposed to be)

Even the "makers" must have realized that this looks bad, they have no 3d buildings showing in their shots from low altitude on their site ...

If the "maker" hand places the autogen/ 3D objects then they lie right on the pic where they are supposed to be. This pic is with autogen turned way down.

[Marc W. 0]

If the "maker" hand places the autogen/ 3D objects then they lie right on the pic where they are supposed to be. This pic is with autogen turned way down.

yep, just like your pic it should be ... if MS would look like that, it would be a sure buy for me

... but this is MS : all flatland ... with default buildings in the middle

[skydvdan 2]

yep, just like your pic it should be ... if MS would look like that, it would be a sure buy for me

Really?

[Marc W. 0]

Really?

yep ... note the difference between your shot (what scenery is that?) and the Megascenery X SoCal shot I put in my post above ... the latter has very high-res ground textures, granted - but there are the ugly default buildings and virtually no others ... understandable of course, even if somebody would take the effort to individually place buildings on all the spots buildings are on the PHOTO, every machine would break down

Well, who knows - perhaps FS XI ? New cpus? Whatever ... :roll:

[Bernabie 0]

Yes, it could well be possible for every area if we all upgrade to a Vista 64 bit system with 8 GB Ram or more.

Personally, I don't know how many Ram will be needed, but one thing is known, and that we can witness by those who have bought Venice X for instance. It's hard for the older machines, but the newer ones seem to hold it out for the time being.

Of course, it's only a very small and tiny spot on Earth, and I don't have it yet to test it out myself on my machine which is a quad core 4Gb Ram with Vista 32 bit, but can be upgraded quite easily to a 64 bit system with 8 Gb of Ram as he is already built for that purpose.

But honestly do I think that it will only be possible in a FS 12 or 13 to the latest. If they intend to bring out a new version every 2 years, then this will cover about 6 years, and just about the proper time for PC's to become upgraded to a very high standard of maybe even the possibility of putting in it 16 to perhaps 32 Gb Ram, and who knows Vista 128 bit.

I don't know if many people are willing to wait that long before flying over some more sunny landscapes instead of depressing ones!!

[Marc W. 0]

But honestly do I think that it will only be possible in a FS 12 or 13 to the latest.

Well, who knows ... a couple of years ago we had "phantasy" scenery mostly ... with the exception of handmade stuff ... today we got real-world-data for rivers, shorelines, lakes, dams, railroads, minor roads, bridges, parks - even graveyards! This data is available to FS scenery makers ... who knows ... perhaps in the near future there'll be BUILDING data ... then, every house could be precisely placed AUTOMATICALLY!

...

... and years after that, satellites will transmit the position of each person on that planet and instantly upload it into FS XVIII.

The truth is out there. :shock:

[Bernabie 0]

Well Algernon, I know that at least one developer is about to go on that journey of building a data of every house.

At least for the England and Wales region, namely Horizon. And they intend to work on it, as even to come out with a 3D package of their own probably in the course of next year.

Those 3D buildings will be put on top of their present photoscenery where they should be placed and by using an own autogen system for doing so. But they do already say that they won't do so for large cities like London, or at least not the entire city, as this is just not possible to do so.

I think Aerosoft knows this very well with their VFR Germany West product of what I'm saying here, as this is clearly also becoming a project as where they are building a data base of hundreds of thousand houses in Germany alone.

So they are bussy with it which means that they are making themselves ready for when the future pc's will hit the market some years from now who will be able to handle all this stuff.

In the mean time is it more than worth to enjoy what is on offer already right know and enjoy to the max FSX because it's really a pearl in the sky, especially with all those scenery add-ons. And I know I have the privelege of saying that because I have never had a previous version of FS.

So I don't have had this trouble of many add-ons that seem to refuse to work in FSX. No, I'm very satisfied with it till now, and hope to be so till fs12 because I honestly find the talking about a next FS11 at the end of next year a bit too soon. There is much to be explored, especially with all those scenery add-ons that are and will become available for it unless, like I have written once, they can be installed in FS11 without any problems at all, even flying over it.