sightseer

release a demo version tile or two like I suggested and you won't have this problem. make it only available to paying customers.

I think Id be perfectly happy with that (ZL16 'Max'). at least it'd be a quicker download and I cant tell the difference. but f you can figure out how to make it as high a resolution as your Global line -- that would be awesome! :-)

maybe a 4 tile demo area would help. or 1 tile I guess...I dont remember how big tiles are in 'game space'

a few things: first - symbolic links are not needed imo. XP will work just fine in its entirety on an external USB3.0 drive using Windows 10. second - I want as good of an image as I can get...I don't care how we get there. third - I would swear the TE GB series looks clearer and crisper than Washington but it may be my imagination. fourth -- what does it look like if you increase resolution to ZL18 and then drop color depth from 8 bits down to 6 bits per pixel if thats possible...16 million colors down to 4 million colors approximately?

the first pic looks like DART. but i guess they all kinda look the same.

Rest in Peace, Neil and Peace and Love to all of Neil's family(related or otherwise). He was a very nice man and very talented as well. Sad news indeed.

I would hardly call the night lighting 'scary real'. The downtown buildings look good but the blur effect that occurs in the distance makes the overall effect not optimal. And the photoreal underneath isn't as good as it could be but that apparently wont be changing. I think it would give Orbx a bad name to a newcomer with no experience with FSX/P3D or Orbx.

my vote is also for both for what its worth. I want a good product that I can buy and install and then go fly over a large region - like PNW. It can be photoreal or the current FSX appearance -- Im fine with it so long as looks good. but you must keep xplanes night lighting.

I like the little lizards that hang around outside - and sometimes inside ... free pets

I don't see why some people are threatened by others thoughts and opinions. Who cares if someone says "this sim is the best, end of story"? I find it quite enjoyable reading sometimes.

that's pretty much where Im at. I just want to see the new tech. The Netherlands sounds like a fine place to start to me. and John - that second shot is awesome.

Alex - I've asked JV over thirty questions in all the years Ive been on these forums and he has never once responded to me directly. The streak continues. I have no idea what I did to the man. What you say makes sense I suppose. I'd rather have PNW being worked on. Will the rest of Chicago ever be done by Orbx (including the photoreal base)? Orbx does a better job with the PR than does IPACS imo.

It looks great to me and I hope as much of the world as possible gets redone with this 'photoreal plus accurate autogen' concept. (done well - like this appears to be - of course)

thank you for the laugh. I needed that.

sorry JV to bother you but I thought this was an Orbx product and so why would IPACs be doing the trees? who did the trees in Innsbruck? Innsbruck looks great. It was the Netherlands photoreal talk that got me to purchase it for FS2. Im still trying to figure out where to put my money. I was thinking this Meigs project was actually the first 'photoreal region' type thing (albeit small-ish ). I guess Im wrong?