X-Plane 10 scenery - stock vs HD mesh with g2xpl textures

[BonanzaDude]

So I'm guessing the photo scenery is good enough quality to fly IFR: I Follow Roads

John

[rtataryn]

I just loaded g2xpl for the SoCal area this weekend. Wow, what a impressive difference to have the orthophoto scenery textures. Took a bit of time, but well worth the effort IMO. No difference in frame rates. I loaded all 1x1 degree tiles at Zoom Level 15 and the urban regions bumped up to 17. A few screen shots . . .

[rtataryn]

One more . . .

[Ryan B]

There's no 3d objects then right if you do that? 3d meaning autogen (what it's called in FSX/P3D)

[rtataryn]

There's no 3d objects then right if you do that? 3d meaning autogen (what it's called in FSX/P3D)

Not none. Just a few - I use the default setting. That gives me a few tall buildings downtown and all the 3-D buildings in the custom airports. Otherwise, I really don't like the look of the simulated 3-D houses and buildings. To me they look fake compared to just having the photo imagery alone. Plus, it taxes the heck out of frame rates. I turn off the 3-D trees too, not a fan of them and they end up on roads and weird places. I do turn up the objects and road traffic for night time though - love the city lights.

[rtataryn]

Ryan,

Here's an approach into Palm Springs at about 4000 ft agl showing both the g2xpl photo scenery with and without 3D objects. Personally, I don't think the objects add much, and actually make it look a bit to cartoonish. So I'd rather just go with the photo texture and have default objects for towers and airport buildings etc.

[rtataryn]

Nighttime though is another story. Maxing out the objects and roads at night is much more realistic than default settings. Default is like a major power grid failure, with a few backup generators running here and there.