Envtex vs rex

[nbata1234]

Good afternoon to the group,

 

I was wondering if anyone here has used envtex, I currently use Rex for fs9 however I was wondering if anyone here uses envtex and wondering if it might be better than Rex?

 

Thanks

[Skywatcher12]

I use both together. Doesn't have to be one or the other.

[HornetAircraft]

ENVTEX rules in every aspect except runway textures and clouds. the ENVTEX clouds are very FPS heavy. check out my youtube channel Short Final and you can look at some examples of my sim with ENVTEX installed with REX clouds. best combo ever

[nbata1234]

Awsome right!! I was thinking Rex clouds and the sky textures from envtex

[Skywatcher12]

I find the opposite. The REX clouds are very much overdone. People like to use shaders for FS9 as well and they equally overdo FS9.

 

It's as the individual prefers. It's their sim and they are the ones that have to look at it. I prefer to keep FS9 looking as realistic as possible. When MSFS comes out, that sim is clearly catering for the I want the visuals "in my face" crowd at the expense of realism. FS9 we at least have the choice on this aspect.

Edited March 28, 2020 by Skywatcher12

[Skywatcher12]

ENVTEX clouds are very FPS heavy

 

I just checked this, there should be no difference to default FS clouds.

[lmhariano]

I liked how Envtex looked in my old FS9 system. I kept REX just for the WX engine (because FS Real WX was not that reliable).

[HornetAircraft]

I tried the 1024 32bit from ENVTEX. my testing consists of 3 layers of overcast cumulus 4000ft thick. then I load up heathrow and a heavy airplane and go for a spin. the REX clouds I found to be best were cumulus 41. a bit softer with less defined lines and make the sim look very nice. as for shaders, i just tweaked the blues and saturation a bit. the default sim has a very grey washed out appearance, so this fixed that and made it look a bit more like P3D (which I was wanting)

to each his own however

[Skywatcher12]

I tried the 1024 32bit from ENVTEX. my testing consists of 3 layers of overcast cumulus 4000ft thick. then I load up heathrow and a heavy airplane and go for a spin. the REX clouds I found to be best were cumulus 41. a bit softer with less defined lines and make the sim look very nice. as for shaders, i just tweaked the blues and saturation a bit. the default sim has a very grey washed out appearance, so this fixed that and made it look a bit more like P3D (which I was wanting)

to each his own however

 

Yes, if you use higher res textures fps will suffer. Running Envtex normal textures has no effect on fps from default FS9 clouds.

 

The default sim has no room to move with shaders. As soon as you touch shaders, you lose detail.

FS9 contrast is perfectly fine. The eye will always be drawn to higher contrast immediately and see it as better regardless if it is actually better or worse if a direct comparison is made. It's how they sell you TV's in stores by making sure the contrast is set high.

 

If you view FS9 on it's own, without comparing, the FS9 contrast is perfectly fine. Soon as you try and add more, then it's not.

 

Edit: Thinking about it a little, it may very well be how they have tried to sell people a little on visuals in FSX and P3D by upping contrast over FS9.

I haven't used either FSX/P3D enough to remember their visuals well. This contrast element might very well be part of the reason why some people have made complaints about FSX graphics suggesting they look fake and prefer FS9.

 

I'd have to really go check FSX which I don't intend to do. I'll just stay happily planted in FS9 as it's the best sim. I'm not fussed if FSX has contrast issues. I'm not the one having to deal with them.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Skywatcher12

[JSMR]

Both FSX and P3D look horribly washed out to me. I do like a little sweetfx to give it a little more 'blue' feel but just a smidge.

[Skywatcher12]

Both FSX and P3D look horribly washed out to me. I do like a little sweetfx to give it a little more 'blue' feel but just a smidge.

 

Describing it as "washed out" would imply contrast.

Your blue comment is interesting as I remembered something after reading your post. I do know FSX tended toward a warmer color than FS9. It's another visual "we are selling this to you" component. The mind prefers to see warm tones over cold. As per contrast, doesn't mean more warmer is better. It may very well mean less color accuracy.

 

Anyhow, as I said, that's all stuff in FSX. I don't really care what issues FSX has. I know what is in FS9 is completely acceptable and that's all that matters.