FTX Global vs Photoreal

[EagleSter]

Which do you prefer and why. I really wish we can have the best of both worlds. But ultimately if you guys had to choose one, what would it be? I see an awful lot of potential for FTX Global, with its openLC stuff coming out for it. I'm considering scrapping photoreal and have the whole world replaced with FTX Global+OpenLC. The night lighting system looks unbelievably gorgeous when flying dawn, dusk, night and makes the night time flying experience totally different, I also love the autogen stuff, something that photoreal scenery lacks, everything is flat when you're flying low. I'm confident that the team at OrbX will continue to work and make this the best add-on for FSX. They never cease to disappoint me. The level of quality in their products is fantastic. Please keep up the great work and I can't wait to buy all the openLC addons to complete the entire world!

[cabnz]

I personally think photoreal is best used where there are lots of mountains and hills. I think photoreal really shines in this department but FTX Global is much better in cities and farms etc.

[EagleSter]

I agree with you on that. Photo real over mountainous terrain looks amazing. 

[AlexFF]

Photoreal is a bad option as FSX loads ALL photoreal scenery despite having it on the side of the world perhaps. FTX Global would definitely not do this, but also includes awesome autogen!

[EagleSter]

I believe well made, hand placed land class such as in the upcoming OpenLC can really make FTX Global much more realistic. 

[boleyd]

The coloring of photoreal is not real in some cases. The photos were taken for agricultural purposes and show strong green to aid in crop and forestation identification. I have the Pennsylvania state scenery from Global and its clarity is good but the overall green is not. I have made lots of my own photoreal down to 7cm per pixel but coloring has always been an issue. Disk space is also a factor.

 

The ORBX product is the first that has a universal hope of advancing landclass and textures for the world. Their Regions show what can be done with effort and expense. The blending technique is a big element in landclass for FSX/P3D. I am anxious to see the USA package and compare it to my $30 photoreal. Unfortunately I do not have $120 laying around so I will drool over those that do.

[MichaelMoe]

Photoreal is a bad option as FSX loads ALL photoreal scenery despite having it on the side of the world perhaps. FTX Global would definitely not do this, but also includes awesome autogen!

 

 

Is this true ? Does it slow down loading times  and makes OOM a bigger thread?

 

If its true then FTX Global will perform better then ?

 

Michael Moe

[jaydor]

Photoreal is a bad option as FSX loads ALL photoreal scenery despite having it on the side of the world perhaps. FTX Global would definitely not do this, but also includes awesome autogen!

Your answer is untrue, Firstly photoreal loads faster than anything else and second there is no autogen as the texture is photographic.

I would assume by your answer you have not used photoreal as it is better for FSX not bad as you say..

[Hank]

I have the UK VFR Photoreal package that was out a few years ago, but have uninstalled it after ORBX

came out with it's EU products. Now we know that it is not exact in all the placement of houses etc,

but the result of having 3D housing estates and trees and all the other candy make it a lot more

realistic to fly in.

 

Thats my two pence worth.

 

Cheers

Hank

[Rob Newman]

It's horses for courses I feel...

Personally, I prefer FTX full regions over anything else, but sticking strictly to "FTX Global vs Photoreal", I would go with FTX Global... Sure, I'm a little biased, but I was always attracted to FTX because of the autogen and overall "almost photographic" feel.

I fly low and slow for the most part, so for me, having a world full of trees, villages, farm houses, power lines and night lighting is a must... It just makes things more convincing.

On the other hand, those who spend most of their simming time up at FL330 would probably not even notice autogen, so perhaps the "real" photo scenery would be the way to go there... Not for me though!

Like I said... Horses for courses

[AlexFF]

Your answer is untrue, Firstly photoreal loads faster than anything else and second there is no autogen as the texture is photographic.

I would assume by your answer you have not used photoreal as it is better for FSX not bad as you say..

Of Course I have. Photoreal scenery is loaded by FSX even if you are on the otherside of the world. It takes up unwanted VAS which you woulnd't want.

[norfolk mike]

I recently purchased the VFR Photoreal UK from Horizon, or Playsim as I believe they are now called. £40:00 for Southern England (including South Wales), Central England and the corresponding slice of Wales and Northern England/Wales.

 

It wasn't because I'm dissatisfied with FTX England at all (I'm not), but merely because I have a spare sim (P3D), and wanted to see what this PhotoReal malarkey was all about.

 

Soon, my P3D will be used solely for FTX Regions and the custom made FTX airfields for those regions, whilst FSX will be a FTX Global platform, with UK2000s and Aerosofts Airports.

 

I wish I had three sims, but something has to give! And in my case it will be VFR Horizon's Photo scenery. Don't get me wrong, I think its brilliant, but for me, its interest will be shorter lived.

 

I've planned a UK tour in the Alabeo Piper Tomahawk, and once I've completed that, I'll hop over the North Sea for a spot of sightseeing over the NL2000 Photographic landscape!

 

Once that's done, I'll shelve VFR. I have a PPL and flew Piper Tomahawks as well as Cherokee Warriors out of Norwich for years. The Alabeo Tomahawk over VFR Photoreal evokes memories of that era beautifully, and I've just completed my first nostalgic leg from Norwich to Southend via Clacton VOR this morning!

 

The downside, for me is the flatness below 3000. Above that, things start to look uncannily three dimensional, so it isn't a problem for most of the time. The scenery can be a little slow to snap into focus. I haven't noticed that in the Tomahawk, but in the A2A P:51 Mustang, it found difficulty in keeping up, but I'll concede that's probably system specific. Then there are the "gaudy fields" that can break the otherwise wonderful illusion. You know how you used to dye Chicken eggs at Easter time, when you was a kid? Well, its THAT gaudy! Its not everywhere, but when you see it, its just horrible!

 

The only issue I have with FTX England is the fact I live here, and am consequently way too critical. The airfields (payware) are brilliant however. If the objective is to fly from FTX Cardiff, to FTX Southampton and then on to FTX Elstree, looking mostly at the instrumentation in between, with a casual sideways glance at the beautifully hued generic landscape, the dense woodland and houses reflecting the low sun, then FTX (in my opinion) is where its at. If you are an American, and you don't know England from the air like I know England from the air, you'll find FTXs English landscape totally absorbing, in the same way I know I'll love PNW when I eventually get it. Having said that, spotting the Thetford power station amidst acres of forest, the rail line and then the A11 road to Norwich during a "bad weather" FTX flight was a "bloody hell, this is FANTASTIC" moment. The total absence of the significantly larger factory at Cantley, or the omission of Ely Cathedral, not so wonderful. But, that has all been explained by John, and the logistics involved are quite understandable.

 

I recently visited "Old Warden" in Bedfordshire for the very first time. I've flown out of, and into FTX Old Warden numerous times, but never in life. I tell you, that was the weirdest "De Ja Vu, I must have been reincarnated" experience ever! Knowing a place intimately, without haven't ever have been there is just spooky!!

 

FTX England is an artistic representation, and sometimes, in its own way, it can evoke reality in a way a comparatively sterile photograph cannot. Photoreal reflects the "actuality" of flying, whereas FTX captures the spiritual essence of it, and I kinda like that better.

 

In my view, both have a valid place, and its just down to how you enjoy using your sim time.

[Nick Cooper]

Of Course I have. Photoreal scenery is loaded by FSX even if you are on the otherside of the world. It takes up unwanted VAS which you woulnd't want.

This "problem" can easily be rectified.

However, you will have no need of the solution

as for you "photoscenery is a bad option"

 

Regards,

Nick.

[Mike R]

Norfolk Mike.  I really liked this part of your post...

 

'FTX England is an artistic representation, and sometimes, in its own way, it can evoke reality in a way a comparatively sterile photograph cannot. Photoreal reflects the "actuality" of flying, whereas FTX captures the spiritual essence of it, and I kinda like that better.

In my view, both have a valid place, and its just down to how you enjoy using your sim time'.

 

I often get very surprised by how aggrieved some people get when personal views are questioned by other posters. If it suits you then do it! My preference for flying is for airliners from the Dash 8 upwards but I do enjoy the BN2 Scottish inter-island services from time to time. For me, as another poster has stated, I find photo scenery works really well in sparsely populated areas but really needs the colour palette to have been well sorted by the scenery provider, (which is not always the case). In areas of towns or cities then the autogen in the FTX areas and Global give a much better representation. I actually have a combination of both installed and currently that makes for a pleasurable experience when flying and, after all, that's what it's all about.

 

By the way. I've seen the view that photo scenery areas worldwide all load into FSX and may cause OOM's before but have never seen an authoritative view on this. I've never experienced it but I did find that when I had a large photoscenery area deselected in the 'scenery library' there was a reduction in front-end loading of around 10 seconds but it made no difference to the overall FSX performance as far as I could see. It would be interesting to know if this is another of those widely held beliefs that are actually untrue.

 

MIke      

[Ripcord]

If you are that guy who just absolutely HAS to look down and see exactly those buildings, your house, your kids school, the real actual layout of the place where you live, then you will be disappointed with ORBX -- get photo-real scenery.  Its looks nice, for the most part -- until you fly to the edge of it and you can clearly see where it photo ends and the regular FSX textures begin again.

 

The photo-scenery that I have purchased I have all now removed, with just a few exceptions.  I had photo coverage of NAS Key West and I've found that it managed to fit well with airbase scenery from a MAIW package and so I kept it.  Also I have the Aerosoft US Cities products, all of them, and they are great but there again I just don't like reaching the edges of those areas. 

 

If you just want good looking VFR scenery, that conveys the right look and feel of the location where you, then FTX EVERYTHING is what you want.  Addon airports fit just fine with ORBX, including FlyTampa, UK2000, FS Dreamteam, which I consider to be among the best.  Aerosoft stuff ranges from excellent to very good (maybe avoid the really old stuff) and it also fits very well. Tropicalsim and LatinVFR are also very good, as are the Thai Creations airports. I like the airports and VFR objects for FranceVFR (I stayed away from their photo real products). All of this stuff plays nice with FTX Global.