How To Get FSX To Look Amazing ?

How can i manage to get my fsx like the youtubers out there i have a very good pc but where can i find these addons or configs i have some addons on mine but still not that good, i had rex but rex looks a bit unrealistic so if anyone here knows how please feel free to help me out.

Example:

http://i.imgur.com/3cknHbJ.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JNP_v40oCF8/maxresdefault.jpg

Thank You..

How can i manage to get my fsx like the youtubers

You don't say which Youtube videos you're looking at but one of your pics shows what looks like an Orbx aiport. If you want your FSX to look like that picture, buy Orbx. The other pic evidently shows some detailed airliner add-on but the scenery could be pretty much anything. Again, if you want it to look like that, buy that aircraft. It looks like it's also had a 'smeary window' effect added afterwards, or perhaps that's in the model. Apart from that, there isn't much else you can do to a video in the edit beyond changing the tone and dynamic range. I don't know why you felt REX looked unrealistic, my REX clouds are awesome.

I've had FSX for about 7 years and it's so beautiful straight out of the box that the only addons I've installed in all that time are a strip of southern England photoscenery and a bunch of planes.

For example here's a shot of default New York, looks good enough to me..:)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-storchA_zpscab49c19.jpg~original

Read a lot and spend a lot.

Doug

Confirmed on some of the FSX youtube videos are doctored.

Now, here is one I have currently posted:

It is not doctored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0epijHrdGgM

Here is my video of what I have for a FSX computer. NOTE: the gentleman/company that built my rig is no longer in business, the website is defunct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4QQ5Dmd7tM

In the full video description are the whole specs for my rig.

I have simmed for almost a decade and given that FSX is a 32 bit system there is only so much you can do.

Payware AC look really good on my set up. I also use Steve's DirectX fixer that I understand is no longer available.

I would have to say IMHO a VERY good graphics card helps a bunch.

Finally, my three monitor set up does crash (memory error) on very detailed airports with high autogen. Again, a 32 bit system game such as FSX can only do so much.

As said, Read and Spend!

EDIT

To be specific when I run the multi monitor set up and I hit a detailed airport (usually a freeware addon) I get a virtual address space (VAS) error.

I use Process Explorer to monitor this. And have a 'ding' set up in Windows to alert me.

Interesting question.

I have a question for you. What are your priorities? Do you want to travel through a perfectly scenic world? Or are you interested in a true as possible Flight Sim experience?

If you're really into those picture perfect scenes, revert to I-tube or whatever & enjoy the photos and videos that you see. If however, you actually want to experience the closest thing to real world flying at a realistic budget, you must recognize the system you are using is limited.

Unless you are using $25K-30K worth of hardware along with hugely expensive photo shot scenery, there is no way you can see real world pictures and have an accurate simulation of scenery and flight simulation inputs.

The rest of us make do with scenery that is good, not great. Because we feel accuracy of our aircraft response is more important than picture perfect scenery.

It's your dime, you paid for the call.

I think with very highl quality he means something like this:

https://youtu.be/HvXNHR1DgSY

It's not from me, i don't know which hard- or software he use.

I don't think this is very much edited. Perhaps a little bit saturation or contrast, bit wussy else?

But I think, it's not the fsx, it's prepare3d with many high class add-ons and high end computer...

Gesendet von meinem LG-D802 mit Tapatalk

Rupert, if u have $30k to spend on as-realistic-as-can-be rig, what would u choose, in terms of hardware and software for world-wide realistic smooth scenery. I prefer a 3-projector 220 deg screen setup (I have it already but my sceneries are basic P3D and really "cartoony")? Thanks for the info.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think this is very much edited. Perhaps a little bit saturation or contrast, bit wussy else?

Quite. This is pretty much how FSX will look to anyone with Orbx scenery and a weather program.

I think with very highl quality he means something like this:

 

https://youtu.be/HvXNHR1DgSY

 

It's not from me, i don't know which hard- or software he use.

I don't think this is very much edited. Perhaps a little bit saturation or contrast, bit wussy else?

 

But I think, it's not the fsx, it's prepare3d with many high class add-ons and high end computer...

 

 

Gesendet von meinem LG-D802 mit Tapatalk

I agree, that clip doesn't look a lot different from what I see. I noticed the way the main gear floats during taxi. Plenty good enough for me but not great. I'm not however up to the level of the first poster's shots.

Rupert, if u have $30k to spend on as-realistic-as-can-be rig, what would u choose, in terms of hardware and software for world-wide realistic smooth scenery. I prefer a 3-projector 220 deg screen setup (I have it already but my sceneries are basic P3D and really "cartoony")? Thanks for the info.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might consider the rig I posted on 24 July, "And you thought your sim rig was special!" But to be honest, all that's so far out of my budget I haven't really given it much thought.

Good but not great is the standard I try to achieve with payware like Orbx & three monitors in panoramic mode. And most of the time, I'm happy enough with what I see when "flying" that my emphasis still stays on flight accuracy.

I think with very highl quality he means something like this:

 

https://youtu.be/HvXNHR1DgSY

 

It's not from me, i don't know which hard- or software he use.

I don't think this is very much edited. Perhaps a little bit saturation or contrast, bit wussy else?

 

But I think, it's not the fsx, it's prepare3d with many high class add-ons and high end computer...

 

 

Gesendet von meinem LG-D802 mit Tapatalk

This is FSX allright, but as he says in the notes, he is running ENB, that is where the contrast comes from. In fact, all this addons are mentioned in the notes, and this seems pretty consistent with what there is to see. But you never know what he did in post processing.

I might consider the rig I posted on 24 July, "And you thought your sim rig was special!" But to be honest, all that's so far out of my budget I haven't really given it much thought.

 

Good but not great is the standard I try to achieve with payware like Orbx & three monitors in panoramic mode. And most of the time, I'm happy enough with what I see when "flying" that my emphasis still stays on flight accuracy.

Thank you, I will look into that, but I am still curious and I would like to know what the super setup for FSX/P3D would be for 3 projectors and 220 deg screen, software and hardware, one or four computers or whatever!

@Rupert,

I just took a look at the FM210 fight simulator featured in the AOPA Newsletter.

I am really unimpressed! This looks very amateurish! I do not know why they will offer it for $30000? Setting up 6 monitors in landscape mode and throwing in a couple of car chairs is far from being a realistic flight simulator. Using a large touch screen does not make it any more of a flight simulator.

I have been on the lookout for over three years now and I ended up with a TRC 472 (Cessna 172 simulator) and a JetPits B737 sim.

I am still looking for the super rig (upgrades in software) that will show photo realistic scenery on 220 deg 3-projector screen.

All the videos i have seen so far on YouTube seem to be made of FSX/P3D running on monitors (mainly single HD monitors), rarely did I see any made of FSX/P3D on a projector setup.

A few thoughts on the projector topic.

- Projectors lack resolution considering the picture size they generate. Even 4K stretched over a couple of square feet will look grainy when viewed up close

- It is not as easy as it looks to make 3 projectors overlap seamlessly

- Not much is needed in terms of "super" as the hardware for the scenery display is concerned. As the resolution of the projectors is not higher than on a triple LCD screen setup, you only need the same amount of computing power. The additional PCs are most often there to manage the instrument displays and control devices, not for managing scenery. Furthermore you don't need the VC or panels displayed on the projectors, so only scenery needs to be computed for that.

- "photoreal" - what do you mean by that? You are aware that photoreal scenery for FSX is only flat pictures stretched over mesh, right? So the trees and houses - if you even get them - are not realistic, but autogen (unless the developer put in the effort to model custom buildings and objects, they do this mostly with airports).

- The larger the picture gets, the more the imperfections, that are evident in the FSX world display, will shout at you.

This is very informative and I appreciate your feedback.

I guess choosing project ties and 220 deg screen means I have to give up on resolution and accept cartoonish scenery.

As for photorealistic scenery and since I have not tried any yet I can only judge from videos and presentations put out by those who have used and recommend these sceneries!

Anyway, can u guys recommend add-ons that will enhance the resolution and realism of textured scenery or must one use specific airports add-ons to see anything decent?

Thanks for your feedback.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said, photoreal scenery is an aerial image/photograph stretched over the simulator elevation model = mesh. As it is made from photographs, it is by definition flat, it lacks any real objects like houses or trees. There are a few packages out there where you can add autogen objects to the scenery, but these still are the plain old FSX autogen, nothing more. Well done photoscenery starts to look good when you fly above 2000-3000 feet. Below that, the resolution is so bad, that there is not much room for immersion. The simple reason is, that there is no photographic set in existence that covers major parts of the landmass in such high resolution anyway. Probably in a couple of years, as the source data continuously improves, someone will go ahead and compile new scenery sets.

I am using a lot of photographic scenery too, as it complements my style of flying. It is not "superior" for every application though (like "very low and very slow"). And you don't have seasons with photoreal, which stands to reason too. Noone is doing much aerial photography in winter...

Your best bet when drawing these huge pictures would IMO be the ORBX regions. Texture based, hand crafted autogen, the works.

[emoji106][emoji4] thank u.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It did not occur t me that weather (seasons) will not show correctly!

I will give ORBX a try.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It did not occur t me that weather (seasons) will not show correctly!

I will give ORBX a try.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of which, what you need even more than ground scenery is decent weather. So REX4 textures, REX SoftClouds and ActiveSkyNext are a basic requirement too.

[emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji4][emoji4][emoji4] thank u. Keep the advice flowing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk