didn't know where to put this...

FSX including FSX Steam version.

didn't know where to put this...

Postby jetprop » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:22 am

but is the val d'aosta worth the 3 hour download for the 2 parts?
since i want some more scenery to soar in i decided to download it.
but now i am wondering:is it worth the download time?
it has to be relatively fps freindly.(yeah,like 800MB is often frame rate freindly.)
this isn't a demand but i am curious. ;)
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.

Re: didn't know where to put this...

Postby Daube » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:42 am

It's photoscenery SO it's FPS friendly.
Photosceneries often have very sparse autogen (most of the times, no autogen at all) and very sparse scenery objects. As a consequence, there's nothing to hammer your CPU, other than the usual texture loading.
Knowing Frank's stuff, you should be good to go ;)
User avatar
Daube
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 6611
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:34 am
Location: Nice (FR)

Re: didn't know where to put this...

Postby Boikat » Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:02 pm

Like Daube said, photo real scenery is great for frame rates.  I prefer photo real for desert areas, like the Utah scenery sets, and most mountain sceneries, too.  You can see the frame rates drop when  you move out of the photo real area, and the sim throws up the autogen trees. 
Image
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" Adam Savage, Mythbusters
User avatar
Boikat
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:23 pm
Location: NW Loueezianner

Re: didn't know where to put this...

Postby jetprop » Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:27 pm

thanks.
this got me over my fear of downloading even more photoreal scenery since i am a fan of photo-real. ;)
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.

Re: didn't know where to put this...

Postby RSorochak » Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:15 pm

thanks.
this got me over my fear of downloading even more photoreal scenery since i am a fan of photo-real. ;)

Photoscenery is about the only thing I fly these days. Default FSX which, when I first got the sim I thought was great, now leaves me cold.


Rich
Image
User avatar
RSorochak
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: NH

Re: didn't know where to put this...

Postby Daube » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:44 pm

Depends on what kind of flights you like.
Photosceneries without any scenery and autogen are absolutely terrible and ulgy when it comes to low-and-slow flying, bush flights etc...
Photosceneries WITH autogen and scenery objects can be extremely cool though. The problem is:
- you only get one season
- you often get only DAY textures, which look terrible during nights/evenings/mornings
- you almost never get any autogen/scenery.

That's why, for now, nothing beats the generic textures with good landclasses.

Like Boikat said, I only enjoy photosceneries in those place that never change all year long (tropical, deserts etc...) and only in places where I fly at a certain altitude. I love the Death Valley scenery for example, and I also love the Kauai island, but I never fly them at low altitude. I only fly those places at medium-high altitude, often with military jets :)
Last edited by Daube on Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Daube
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 6611
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:34 am
Location: Nice (FR)

Re: didn't know where to put this...

Postby jetprop » Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:18 am

i am a low flyer but the places i do fly at medium altitudes i do use photoscenery.

and the ironscenery for hawaii is good,even for low altitude. ;)
Image
User avatar
jetprop
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:03 am
Location: a chair infront of a monitor.


Return to Flight Simulator X (FSX) and Steam

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 582 guests