Arguments for and against photo scenery

Ughhh! Do we have to say this every week?

1. FSX cherry-picks the scenery they show.
2. FSX does mountain very well, I will give them that.
3. Most of the stuff is aftermarket 3rd party pay-ware.
4. They usually only put decent detail around landmarks and airports. Everything else looks the same.
5. Does earth have 2 suns? Because Sat photos have shadows from buildings and mountains that cannot move because they are part of the texture.
6. Still looks like crap up close, you have to stay in the "sweet spot" which is usually a few thousand feet to get the "good views".
7. Satellite images don't really work for WWII sims due to all the overpasses, 8 lane highways, modern buildings and landscapes, etc... Removing them would have to be done by hand, and that would take a hell of a long time.

See you all in the next exact same thread in 10-20 days.

[Chivas]

Photorealistic scenery is well suited for civilian airline sims where you only need detailed ground graphics at airports, the rest of the time your flying above 10000ft. In other areas they generally use low resolution photorealistic graphics that looks quite ugly when you add 3d trees and buildings.

In combat flight sims the fighting can get quite low especially when doing jabo ground attacks. There are some aspects of the COD terrain I don't like but I'm sure the developers will fine tune what they have and modders will also add alot to the overall look of the terrain and it won't cost me a cent.

[Timberwolf]

Hey without bashing ether/or. I think a good between would be to have a cookie cutter or stencil of the maps and take out highways and modern citys and keep the landmarks ... i mean if fields have 8 diffrent shades of green then copy the sat, shot paste it into country sides ..blend in low level flying and add depth of grass trees hills etc.. I know its alot of work but If you atleast look at diffrent ideas more doors open .. I haven't yet played a sim where diffrent lenghs of trees or houses were present ...i'm sure in years to come we wil have best of both games Hell i still remember playing pac-man for 6 hours

[Jumo211]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

Ughhh! Do we have to say this every week?

1. FSX cherry-picks the scenery they show.

So many similar amazing looking videos on youtube it's almost disgusting , what cherry picking ?
some of them are made with even older FS2004
Yes , such scenery packages can cover the whole globe and take 100GB+
of hard disk space but that's not a big deal these days
FSX globe size coverage against CloD Battle of Britain ground coverage .
BoB textures could have been almost gold plated by this time , really .
There is indeed no point at all in comparing commercial airlaners simulator with WWII simulator ,
yes but FSX is not even close looking to what was
originally released by Microsoft and the game is also old by today's standards .
We will have to wait and see how many 3rd parties will jump on CloD and
start pumping out some of the new ground and aircrafts visual amazing stuff
Thus far number of private businesses and companies still working on FSX
is beyond believe .
FSX don't have shitty ground looking textures anymore .

S!

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

lol