alainneedle1 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So betwenn UTX and this new scenery wich one look the best....UTX is on the left on this one..... http:// UTX on the right http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// http:// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J van E Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Can't really compare UTX with photorealistic scenery... UTX is mainly roads and waters, so what you see here is mostly FSX-default textures versus a photographic addon (at least so it seems to me). The photorealistic stuff seems a bit green all over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 I was thinking the same about the green coloring..... here if you want to take o look at the scenery it's free.. http://blueskyscenery.com/GLACIER.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobofat Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm a huge fan of photoreal sceneries, but only when it's high resolution and uses good source imagery, otherwise even default textures are better (even if repetitive). The greenness of that I would find annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugdani Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hello, I have this free scenery since few weeks Quality is not always there but I have made two pics, here there are: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Hj8QCuA8m_4/SZA_9aNgBzI/AAAAAAAABag/aL990hAgMRs/s1600-h/Twin-01.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Hj8QCuA8m_4/SY66Xh_xBBI/AAAAAAAABaY/FnVEqqMlZuY/s1600-h/206-01.jpg What do you think about ? Bug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Guys, with the exception of showing off shiny new aircraft, the screenshots forum on these Orbx forums is mainly to share your screenshots over Orbx FTX products. Posting a bunch of shots of UTX etc is not really what we had in mind with the community screenshots forum. Also for what it's worth, that photoreal colouring is all wrong - too bright, not enough contrast, and the tones are all wrong. With photoreal products you should insist on: - 4/5 seasons colouring support (what is the point of summer only???) - Proper colour correction (i.e. suitable tones and contrasts, and even colour spread across large areas) - Proper night lighting textures (most use a lazy Photoshop filter which looks crap - roofs glowing in the dark??) - Accurately placed autogen with enough variation in trees to make it realistic (photoreal without good autogen = Google Earth FlightSim) No large scale photoreal product on the market for FSX can meet all those criterea, because it's too expensive and labour intensive to do. Therefore most of the large area photoreal products are either freeware, or payware which is overpriced and under-developed and frankly, not worthy of your hard earned money. The only two companies which are doing photoreal areas right is Orbx and EarthSimulations, and even then it's for smaller areas no larger than 150km sq. at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krigl Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The guy at BlueSkyScenery produces some great stuff and shares it for free, which is very kind of him and it's fun to fly over, but you need to be at a certain height for the lack of autogen not to matter so much and for it to look as real as it can. Even low down photoreal often looks better than rubbish default textures, but when there's no autogen the realism factor goes down a lot at low level. Photoreal is best for rocky areas without many houses or trees... Ultimate terrain doesn't make any texture changes (besides adding some new area types I think), so you are basically comparing the typical hotchpotch of default textures and autogen with freeware photoreal...neither are ideal, but I've had a lot of fun with BSS... ...I'm a bit puzzled about what you need opinions for though, one's default, one's free and covers only a limited area, and you surely know what you like yourself?? If you do like this try Frank Dainese's amazing scenery, if you want it but can't find it on google pm me, I don't want to plug other sites here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm familiar with the BSS stuff, and he does a pretty good job of it. Also worth noting are the photoreal projects from the OZx team which are excellent also, especially the quality they are getting using 2m/pixel source data in some cases, combined with Holgermesh. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-photoreal, and freeware photoreal is a great plus for our hobby - but I do get amused at the asking prices for payware photoreal products which have just been cranked out using minimal correction work and shoddy techniques. I imagine they don't sell in high numbers, but those developers should spend more time on their work and focus on smaller, more immersive areas. Otherwise, you might as well use TileProxy, which is getting pretty sophisticated these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alainneedle1 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 Guys, with the exception of showing off shiny new aircraft, the screenshots forum on these Orbx forums is mainly to share your screenshots over Orbx FTX products. Posting a bunch of shots of UTX etc is not really what we had in mind with the community screenshots forum. Also for what it's worth, that photoreal colouring is all wrong - too bright, not enough contrast, and the tones are all wrong. With photoreal products you should insist on: - 4/5 seasons colouring support (what is the point of summer only???) - Proper colour correction (i.e. suitable tones and contrasts, and even colour spread across large areas) - Proper night lighting textures (most use a lazy Photoshop filter which looks crap - roofs glowing in the dark??) - Accurately placed autogen with enough variation in trees to make it realistic (photoreal without good autogen = Google Earth FlightSim) No large scale photoreal product on the market for FSX can meet all those criterea, because it's too expensive and labour intensive to do. Therefore most of the large area photoreal products are either freeware, or payware which is overpriced and under-developed and frankly, not worthy of your hard earned money. The only two companies which are doing photoreal areas right is Orbx and EarthSimulations, and even then it's for smaller areas no larger than 150km sq. at a time. Hey! John, I was not trying to show another product on your site but since the photoscenery was over USA it's kind of hard to show Australia to compare, I should have said "Need your take between default and this new scenery" and "voila" problem solved.Was just trying to get other people to confirm (like you did) my mixed feeling about this new "FREE" scenery. Orbx is the best... but it's always nice to have others opignon on stuff like that...... Please say you forgive me..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Lol, forgiven mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad_strebor Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I tried some similar freeware PR scenery in europe on FS9 some time ago.. The one thing that bothered me most (besides the lack of colour definition) was that it didn't matter what time of day it was, the shadows on the mountains never moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.