Help Chosing my scenary/texture add on

Hello all,

with Christmas coming up, I plan to improve my sim graphics a little.

I want something for the ground, not weather or sky or clouds...

Simply better scenery and and ground textures.

What add-on or collection of multiple add-ons is the best right now on the market

Thanks a lot

Nic

Megascenery Netherlands looks good, you'll be able to see your house and all the dykes-

http://www.aviationmegastore.com/mega-scenery-earth-the-netherlands-download-for-fsx-dl-mse-neth-pc-aviator-dl-mse-neth-fsx-mega-sceneries-earth/product/?action=prodinfo&art=123751

Megascenery Netherlands looks good, you'll be able to see your house and all the dykes-

http://www.aviationmegastore.com/mega-scenery-earth-the-netherlands-download-for-fsx-dl-mse-neth-pc-aviator-dl-mse-neth-fsx-mega-sceneries-earth/product/?action=prodinfo&art=123751

Thanks, this is a good start, I was looking at a larger area, like full Europe which is where I fly most but even the whole World.

Any suggestions for this?

There are dozens of products out there covering much of the world, but as you say you fly mostly in Europe, Megascenery photoreal covers much of Europe, but surprisingly France doesn't seem to be included in their range-

http://www.pcaviator.com/store/home.php?cat=887

However if you go here and click the name of any country a list of scenery and other juicy goodies will come up, including France-

http://secure.simmarket.com/fsx-europe-page-1.chtml

PS- there's also a nice selection of assorted stuff here to buy yourself a Christmas present from-

http://www.pcaviator.com/store/home.php

Thanks, this is a good start, I was looking at a larger area, like full Europe which is where I fly most but even the whole World.

 

Any suggestions for this?

Does it have to be photoreal? This can get really expensive real fast and you need a lot of disk space to accomodate it. I have Europe pretty much covered in photoreal and this adds up to 600 GByte and a lot of euros.

For France visit FranceVFR. The Netherlands can be covered for free with NL2000. Likewise Spain, Belgium and Italy, there are free photoreal projects out there.

If it doesn't have to be photoreal, how about the Ultimate Terrain line of products from Flight1? Maybe add a texture replacement like FTX Global or the GEX packages.

Does it have to be photoreal? This can get really expensive real fast and you need a lot of disk space to accomodate it. I have Europe pretty much covered in photoreal and this adds up to 600 GByte and a lot of euros.

 

For France visit FranceVFR. The Netherlands can be covered for free with NL2000. Likewise Spain, Belgium and Italy, there are free photoreal projects out there.

 

If it doesn't have to be photoreal, how about the Ultimate Terrain line of products from Flight1? Maybe add a texture replacement like FTX Global or the GEX packages.

No, it does not need to be photoreal, infact I wanted just one product for the whole world, I don't want to install various regions.

So do I understand you correctly that FTX Global Base and UTX Europe would get me what I wanted?

No, it does not need to be photoreal, infact I wanted just one product for the whole world, I don't want to install various regions.

 

So do I understand you correctly that FTX Global Base and UTX Europe would get me what I wanted?

FTX Global replaces all ground textures and UTX Europe V2 IMHO is a really great addon for vector data like roads, rivers and coastlines. The landclass and night lighting is not bad either.

But you should study as many sceenshots as you can find to evaluate if you really like the looks of Global. Maybe even request a few screenshots in the forum of a place you know in real life.

..it does not need to be photoreal, infact I wanted just one product for the whole world, I don't want to install various regions...

If you want to see your house, Photoreal is the only scenery that will show it.

Non-photoreal scenery may look prettier but your house won't be on it.

I use Photoreal because I like to navigate cross country by following roads, rails and rivers, but you can't do that with Non-photoreal because things are missing.

And like Nuitkati said, you won't get the whole photoreal world on just one disk, it's too big..:)

Thanks guys,

the reason why photoreal isn't needed for me is because I fly mostly 737-800

While I do make short flight so cruising altitude is rather low, I will not be low enough to fly over my house :-)

I think I have narrowed it down to FTX Global and UTX Europe V2

It will cost under 150 euro and I am sure it will be a huge improvement from what I have now.

Thanks

Thanks, this is a good start, I was looking at a larger area, like full Europe which is where I fly most but even the whole World.

 

Any suggestions for this?

Have a look at GEX (aka Ground Environment X by Flight 1) - you could start with their Europe package (costs about 25-30 Euros). But first, I suggest using google to find demo vids of the various products out there. I'm pretty sure that if you search for a Ground Environment X demo you will find lots of links to you tube vids that not only show GEX but also comparisons between GEX and other products. A word of caution though, such videos tend to have had 'enhancements' and/or shot on high end computers and so may not, in reality, always show the actual results that your rig may achieve.

FTX Global on sale as of this morning for $47 USD

+1! IMHO that's a good product at a very good price. That will get you started well. However, unless you're unlike most of us, you'll soon be looking for more detail in your scenery.

When that time comes, you'll be a lot better off if you carefully consider the style of scenery you prefer and buy scenery of that style. The two most talked about are the Photoreal & FTX (texture) styles. I suggest you look at lots of screenshots and even better. buy one piece from each genre of the same area of the world. Specifically an area you already know quite a bit about. You can then compare the two by flying them back to back using your favored style of flying and decide which way you want to go.

Mostly, I don't consider the two really compatible in an enjoyable way. I still use a few pieces of Photoreal that I haven't replaced yet and the changeover is to me, very uncomfortable. It's like you enter a different world when you fly out of airspace in one format and into airspace in the other format. It messes with my mind & even almost gives me a headache when I do that.

Scatterbrainkid and many others love photo real scenery, because it is derived from a photo. He likes to as he puts it see his pub, house, etc. I dislike it because unless you're flying pretty high, most structures and features look like they've smashed to the ground. And when I fly that high, I can't see the details anyway.

I am among many in the FTX ORBX fan club because it looks much more 3-D, or for the sake of argument, "real" to me. He dislikes it because it doesn't show every single building or detail exactly in place as Photoreal does. IE: It's a texture design, not a real picture.

Either way is fine, as long as that's your choice. But as I said, I'd make that choice pretty early in the long term purchase phase. I'm far from having world coverage in ORBX, but I buy a piece at a time that matches. I'm sure the fans who prefer Photoreal are doing the same thing. :cool:

One other thing you should consider. You mentioned flying airliners. If you start shopping fancy airliners with PMDG, etc., you're probably not going to happy with frame rates if you also buy fancy scenery. That's too much for your CPU to manage well.

You'll probably either have to choose your preferences between what you're looking at or what you're flying. I don't consider high priced scenery with way hugely backed off sliders very unsatisfying because I like to fly low. So I mostly stay with simpler planes.

IMHO, If you're really into RW style airliners with lots of automatic equipment, don't waste too much money on high priced scenery. At FL300 you're not going to see a lot of detail anyway.

Thanks Rupert and all.

I have already added FTX Global Base in the shopping cart, I am now waiting for a response on their forum to decide on the second and probably last for the moment, which is either FTX Global Vector or UTX, I have the feeling that they do the same thing but I am not sure, so I asked.

As for what I fly, I do not fly PMDG, I fly the model from Prosim with their entire suite.

Here is a little pick to my set up including my YouTube Channel:

I also have the TQ now but is not in the picture yet

https://www.youtube.com/user/737ngxsim/videos

I have UTX USA v2 and I'm delighted with it. There have been a lot of discussions about stutters, OOMs, and poor performance associated with Vector. I don't have first hand experience so I can't say, but I can say I see no performance penalty at all with UTX and almost everything enabled (what's not enabled was a matter of visual preference rather than performance). On the other hand Vector's on sale now too and it covers the world where UTX is regional.

The UTX landclass is better IMO than FSGenesis US Nat'l LC Project which I've been using since the FS9 days. I do think OpenLC USA will be light years ahead though and plan on making the switch on release day.

..Scatterbrainkid and many others love photo real scenery, because it is derived from a photo..

Yes, you can't get any more realistic than that. I like flying mostly light aircraft low down around 1500 feet with photoreal but like people have said, if you fly higher non-photoreal is quite good enough.

Somebody posted a while back saying he bought non-photoreal OrbX and was disappointed to see his house wasn't on it, so it's important we should let newcomers know the difference between photoreal and non-photoreal.

For example I'm currently doing a spot of "aerial archaeology" with my southern england photoreal scenery and have spotted interesting stuff like this east of Swindon.

1- Dragon Hill where St. George slew the dragon, note how its blood burnt the grass off the top and where it trickled down the sides.

2- Uffington Horse carved into the chalk 3000 years ago.

3- Uffington Castle dating from the same period, only the defensive ditch and earthworks remain.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-Sthn-engl2_zpstfaajxhc.jpg~original

(PS- Contrary to some peoples belief, hills, mountains and contours ARE 3D in photoreal, it's not a pancake-flat landscape.

I also use the 'Treescapes' program which puts 3D trees on photoreal scenery as in the pic)

Yes, you can't get any more realistic than that. I like flying mostly light aircraft low down around 1500 feet with photoreal but like people have said, if you fly higher non-photoreal is quite good enough.

Somebody posted a while back saying he bought non-photoreal OrbX and was disappointed to see his house wasn't on it, so it's important we should let newcomers know the difference between photoreal and non-photoreal.

For example I'm currently doing a spot of "aerial archaeology" with my southern england photoreal scenery and have spotted interesting stuff like this east of Swindon.

 

1- Dragon Hill where St. George slew the dragon, note how its blood burnt the grass off the top and where it trickled down the sides.

2- Uffington Horse carved into the chalk 3000 years ago.

3- Uffington Castle dating from the same period, only the defensive ditch and earthworks remain.

 

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-Sthn-engl2_zpstfaajxhc.jpg~original

 

(PS- Contrary to some peoples belief, hills, mountains and contours ARE 3D in photoreal, it's not a pancake-flat landscape.

I also use the 'Treescapes' program which puts 3D trees on photoreal scenery as in the pic)

So as I understand it, you used an add-on program to make trees 3D. Since you've chosen a shot where there are no buildings showing, does that mean there isn't yet another add-on program to make buildings 3d as well?

So am I correct, your structures, except possibly a really low wall, are still smashed? And that's good??

I admit there's a lot more of the UK that I haven't seen than what I have. But It'd really limit my flying there if I didn't want to fly over smashed structures. BTW: How tall is Windsor Castle, the pickle, or the V&A in Photoreal? They look proportional in FTX.

Thanks Rupert and all.

I have already added FTX Global Base in the shopping cart, I am now waiting for a response on their forum to decide on the second and probably last for the moment, which is either FTX Global Vector or UTX, I have the feeling that they do the same thing but I am not sure, so I asked.

 

As for what I fly, I do not fly PMDG, I fly the model from Prosim with their entire suite.

Here is a little pick to my set up including my YouTube Channel:

I also have the TQ now but is not in the picture yet

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/737ngxsim/videos

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]184766[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]184767[/ATTACH]

Sorry you couldn't buy good hardware! NOT!! I'm now into serious hardware envy!

So as I understand it, you used an add-on program to make trees 3D. Since you've chosen a shot where there are no buildings showing, does that mean there isn't yet another add-on program to make buildings 3d as well?

So am I correct, your structures, except possibly a really low wall, are still smashed? And that's good??

I admit there's a lot more of the UK that I haven't seen than what I have. But It'd really limit my flying there if I didn't want to fly over smashed structures. BTW: How tall is Windsor Castle, the pickle, or the V&A in Photoreal? They look proportional in FTX.

Here are a couple more screenshots from my VFR GenX photoreal which will help explain.

This is London and it's chock full of 3D buildings which you don't have to add, they come with the disk. For example there's Buckingham Palace under the right wing, and Big Ben and Parliament further back, and St Pauls and Tower Bridge in the distance.

Most of the other tall buildings are standard FSX defaults and therefore not accurately placed, but make good eye candy.

There are 3D bridges everywhere.

The colours are real, for example the roads near Buck Palace really are reddish (I once cycled down them), and the Thames really is a muddy brown.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-photor-lond1_zpsrhx84ph8.jpg~original

This shot is over 3D Windsor Castle towards the right. All the other buildings look 3D but it's a very good illusion, they're flat 2D..:)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub2/FSX-photor-windsor_zpsdm3bdg4o.jpg~original

For more screenshots (including mountains) there's a good review here-

http://www.mutleyshangar.com/features/mulletman/genx.htm

I have UTX USA v2 and I'm delighted with it. There have been a lot of discussions about stutters, OOMs, and poor performance associated with Vector. I don't have first hand experience so I can't say, but I can say I see no performance penalty at all with UTX and almost everything enabled (what's not enabled was a matter of visual preference rather than performance). On the other hand Vector's on sale now too and it covers the world where UTX is regional.

 

.

I'm using Global and Vector here, and for the most part the performance seems OK.

I have seen the reports of sluggish frame rates, and OOM's, but I really haven't seen

much of that here. The only place I see a bit of frame rate drop is at the really big

airports/cities like LAX, maybe JFK, etc. But the scenery is pretty dense in those areas.

I've never done tests to see what Vector options hog the most resources.

FTX Vector does add a definite load vs default vector, but my puter seems to keep up OK

at the majority of the other airports I go to.

And I run Vector with all options turned on, and FSX has scenery and autogen at max

settings. Have had no OOM problems even running the NGX with max scenery.

I don't have any of the ORBX land class packages, nor regions.

As far as the puter, I'm running a i7 4790 at 3.8 ghz steady on all cores, and 8 g Ram..

Not a slouch, but not particularly special either, being it's not clocked up.

The main reason I went Global and Vector was to cover the whole globe with one swat

as far as those two.

I just posted a few London screenshots on the screenshots page. They're right as I flew around 16:30 this afternoon, real world weather & time. Only software FTX EU England & FSX. BTW: These are typical of what you see with FTX. In fact at airports you often have moving baggage handlers, loading planes, people walking around, at one airport there's even a guy with a grill where he's smoking food.

No, these aren't photos but nothing ever looks smashed, regardless of altitude either! :cool:

your decision will depend in part on whether you like flying large aircraft out of big airports or smaller aircraft out of small airports. I like the latter and have become a huge orbx fan, largely because they focus more on smaller, lesser known fields. And, from now until the end of the year they are having a 35% off sale on all products released before december 1, of this year.

great!! Time to go shopping!!

This just popped up on my screen saver. This is the kind of low altitude flying I enjoy. FTX Rockies. :D