A big day in LA...(jc patchz)

[tcco94]

[img]http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/unitedexpresspatzhcontest.jpg
[/img]

Let me know what you think its a scenery I downloaded at blue sky scenery.

[Fozzer]

That small area looks fantastic, tcco...(There is no mention whether it was for FS2004 or FSX!), but I must admit that I'm not a great lover of Photo-realistic Scenery.

Most times I try it out for a while, and then always go back to Microsoft Autogen Scenery, including the various three dimensional, add-on scenery files.

Photo-realistic scenery always reminds me of the flat, featureless scenery, displayed in Flight Unlimited II/III...fine at hight altitudes, but not at, or near, ground level!

Excellent for high altitude Photo-shoots, but not for skimming the Tree-tops!......!
...and not forgetting the abrupt change in scenery definition as you travel in and out of the various Autogen/Photo-zones!

Its always worth a try-out, but I've never found it suitable for my low-level activities...(As the Bishop said to the Actress!)...... ...!!

Paul....G-BPLF..FS 2004....and a nice bit of Autogen... ...!

[ShaneG_old]

Paul, I'm worried that you still can't tell which sim it is just by looking.  You above all others should know these things. :-/  :D  ;)

I see more Autogen in the shot than I do flat photoreal.  Blue sky makes some of the Best photo scenery out there, and more and more of it comes with custom Autogen now, because just like you, no one else likes flying over flat pictures with no eye candy popping out at them. 8-)

After all these years of dedication to FS9, you should be able to spot it from a room full of Flight simulators.  ;D


There are three things I see that immediately tell me this is FS9:

-The first give away that this is FS9  is that FSX is  A LOT more colorful and cartoony than FS9.


-The second give away is the roof tops, FSX roofs are mostly messed up and display wrong. FS9 didn't have this problem.
Even the new 'Enhanced' autogen buildings in FSX have this 'messed up roof ' feature.  ;)


-The third give away: is the low texture resolution, FSX at it's lowest settings, still has a much better looking texture resolution than FS9.


And if all those fail, Tcco94 said he was done with FSX and went to FS9.  If not, then I'm blaming his laptop for fooling me.  ;D

[tcco94]

Shane wins  ;D, yes it is FS9.

The wierd part about the scenery is it doesn't show to well at a higher altitude so I flew low and got the best I could but it has LOTS of buildings in downtown LA. Also the pic had to suffer through lots after I took it. It was 2mb when it started now at 140 kb killed the quality so the plane looks like junk  >:( and I had to resize it smaller. :-/

My original shot had a bit more detail and the plane was better.