Fsx airport scenery photo real software#
Fsx airport scenery photo real simulator#
Fsx airport scenery photo real free#

I have very little photoreal scenery in FSX apart from some MegasceneryВ for the Hawaiian Islands which I purchased many years ago and which I must say is quite impressive.В However,В I understand that more recent photoreal scenery products haveВ improved considerably and, as scotth6 says,В at least one developer has enhanced it by adding autogen features (Just Flight Real scenery NexGen 3D) -В I would expect thatВ this improves the otherwise flat appearance of photoreal when flying at low level although I personally have no experience of this.

Fsx airport scenery photo real free#

There is a lot of freeware photo scenery available online, so to figure out if you like it or not I would obviously suggest trying some free stuff out first. Generally the greater the resolution of the scenery, the more hard drive space is required. It really just comes down to a matter of personal taste, and perhaps the size of your hard drives, because photoreal scenery does take up a lot of space compared to landclass based scenery.

Fsx airport scenery photo real software#

Now as hardware and software power is increasing we are seeing more PR sceneries with autogen and modelling included, and indeed you can even find a lot of autogen only products (freeware) that are designed to be used with payware or freeware photoreal scenery which does not have it's own autogen and modelling included. I always found it interesting just looking at places in Google Earth, so to do that while flying a complex airliner is awesome. I really like PR because it gives me an opprtunity to explore the real world visually while flying in flight sim. It really does come down to personal taste.

Fsx airport scenery photo real simulator#

3D models are also the most resource intensive portion of a flight simulator scenery, so if they are not modelled, the performance increase is huge. From cruise altitude you really can't see much of 3D models anyway, and if you are taking off and landing at an addon airport with surrounding models of buildings and trees included, you really are notmissing out on much by not having 3D models on the terrain for the entire length of your flight. Personally I have no issue whatsoever flying over bare PR at 1m or 2m resolution if I am flying airliners.

It all depends on the type of flying you do. PR resolution can also be poor in some cases, and of course that also gets worse the lower you go.

The reason you hear people bagging photoreal is mainly due to the lack of 3D models included with some PR, as it can look more flat and lifeless the lower you go. I personally like both types of scenery - landclass based and photoreal. So I would love some opinions from FSX nerds about what kinds of scenery they prefer, even about what brands of scenery if pertinent, and whether Photoreal scenery is the best experience for any given level of hardware one might have. And I see video of people showing off non-photoreal sceneries of places that look pretty fantastic.

But, of course, the lower to the ground the crappier things get, as its made from real satellite imagery.Д«ut I read people crapping on photoreal when I skim forums. The photoreal scenery of my state seems so wonderfully realistic from the air, in terms of looking like I know things should look from knowing the place so well. I have purchased a handful of add-on sceneries, airports, etc., and have the photoreal scenery for my home state. I've been an FSX'er for many years, but have always been confused about the pros and cons of photoreal scenery, and more broadly, about what the most effective kinds, or brands, of scenery are.