Question About REX for FS9

I've been looking at the REX for FS9 product and it says "photo realistic". From various comments I've read in the forums my impression is that PR scenery will bring a slower PC to its knees, so I'm wondering if my PC is capable of running it.

My PC is a "mini" (basically a small box with laptop parts), meaning it can't take a graphics card and uses the Intel HD 3000 graphics built into the CPU. It's an i5-2520 which runs at 2.5 ghz and turbo up to 3.2 ghz. It has 3g of RAM (actually 4g but runs Win7-32) so there's around 2g available after bootup. It's great for my FS9 as it is now (fps between 50s and 80s) but I'm not sure how it will be with REX. In one reviewer's comments he said he uses the lower res clouds because his PC is slow (but didn't say what it was), so at least it has that option.

Can anyone here who has used it share your thoughts about this?

Thanks very much,

Clayton

I think there is a difference between "photoreal" and "photorealistic"; the former uses high-res files of aerial photos and typically only covers a small area (the BlueSky scenery covers large areas and will bring all but the best systems to their knees); the latter means whatever someone wants it to mean, usually textures that are more detailed than defaults but not photo based and often not as high res files. (FWIW, I rarely use photoreal scenery, not because it isn't attractive, and for small areas the performance impact is rarely noticeable, but because I hate the abrupt transition from it to the surrounding area ...it's like looking at a tile floor where one tile is completely different from the rest.)

I tried REX textures and found them a definite improvement over the defaults, but eventually returned to GEPro (merely a personal preference); neither made an appreciable difference to my frame rates. I do still use the REX cloud textures however, they are among the best I've seen.

Jgf,

Thanks for your explanations, it's a big help.

Clayton