UK VFR Photographic Scenery



P

Paul Saunders

Guest
Maybe OT, but maybe not, so perhaps I should mention this for the
benefit of those who may be considering it.

I've just bought Flight Simulator 2004 with the Wales VFR Photographic
Scenery add-on from Just Flight (www.justflight.com) At least one
person here has shown an interest in this as an alternative to the 3D
Photo Mapping produced by Anquet Maps, so I thought you might like to
know how it compares.

The bottom line is this (purely from the point of view of the 3D
photographic scenery, not the game). In most ways, Anquet is far
better, in only one way, the game is better. So if you aren't
interested in flight sims, buy Anquet, it's as simple as that. There's
no contest.

For those who are interested in flight sims, read on...

Disadvantages of the FS2004 Photographic Scenery

1. It's blurry! At first I couldn't figure out why it looked so bad.
I knew it shouldn't because I'd seen the screenshots, but I'd noticed
someone else complaining about this in a user review, and it took me a
while to figure out what was causing it. Bottom line is that you need a
very powerful computer to see it at it's best. Mine is certainly not
top of the range, but it's not that bad. It's an Athlon 2000+ with 512
meg of RAM and a 32 meg GeForce2 graphics card. I suspect the graphics
card is the weak link. I think you'd need one of the very latest with
loads of memory, like 128 meg. A bloody fast processer wouldn't go
amiss either. My memory is probably okay though.

The cause of the problem is that the program tries to maintain a minimum
frame rate, which you can specify. For game purposes you have to keep
it reasonably high. Mine is set to the default 20fps, which is
acceptable, although it stutters now and again (but don't ever visit a
busy airport like Heathrow). I tried the minimum of 10fps and it was
unplayable.

Anyway, the clever thing about maintaining a minimum frame rate is that
the game remains playable on lower spec systems, but "less critical"
aspects of the game suffer. Needless to say, drawing the scenery is low
on the list of priorities when it comes to allocating processing power,
so unless you have a monstrously powerful games machine, buying this
game for the UK photographic scenery is *almost* a waste of time.

Careful tweaking of the settings and reading of the manual did enable me
to get barely acceptable results though. For best results you need to
fly slowly, so pick a slow plane like a Cessna. Second, use the spot
plane view and set it to look more or less straight down. Tilted up a
little is okay, but the smaller the area you have in the picture the
better, because the computer then has less to draw, so it draws it
faster.

If you're looking at half of Wales the whole thing is a fuzzy blur,
because it can't possibly render that much detail, so it just gives a
blurry rendition of all of it, but by narrowing the field of view it
draws it faster. It also loads scenery in advance by anticipating where
you are going next, so if you keep changing direction it tries to load
lots of different areas, rendering none of them well, but by flying in a
straight line looking at a small area below you, it can render the area
well, although rarely the whole screen at once. It's quite common for
only half of the screen to be sharp whilst the fuzzy part is still being
drawn.

Of course, this no doubt sounds terrible, but it's not as bad as it
sounds, and you'd get far better results with a more powerful computer,
especially a better graphics card. In spite of the above limitations, I
have had a lot of fun flying over various areas, so it's just on the
border of acceptability for me, but I really need to upgrade to get full
value for money out of this.

With Anquet on the other hand, there are no such problems. The scenery
draws almost instantly, even far into the distance, since the view is
usuall static, it's not pre-loading anything into a buffer, and there
are no other demands on the CPU, unlike a flight sim which is pretty CPU
intensive.

One more thing, the FS2004 photo scenery is very blurry at low level,
you need to get at least 1,500ft above it for it to look acceptable,
this is no doubt due to anti-aliasing. With Anquet, if you go close to
ground level it becomes very pixellated, which also looks horrible, but
in a different way. I think the resolution is identical, in fact I
think the photo mapping is identical, I've seen the same errors and
cloud shadows.

2. No height data included. This is where the hidden costs start to
manifest themselves. Once I started flying slowly enough and aiming the
view carefully enough, I was horrified to discover that everything was
the wrong shape! It turns out that there's no height data included with
the photo scenery! Instead the game uses the default height mapping
which is not only inaccurate, but extremely low res, 1.5km per point!
This is atrocious! Jagged peaks become rounded hills! I flew over
Snowdonia and I didn't recognise the place! Where had Tryfan gone? The
gentle rounded hill of Crib Goch? Oh my Gord! What was I to do?

It turns out that the height data can be purchased separately, in
another add-on, FS Terrain. This gives a resolution of 75m per point
(almost as good as Anquet which is 50m per point). The bad news is that
it's a hidden extra cost which is not pointed out on the CD cases or on
the website. This is a devious marketing practice since the
photographic scenery isn't much use without accurate hi-res height data.

The good news is that it doesn't just cover Wales, it covers most of
Europe and the whole of the US, so you can have fun flying over a 3D
realistic Alps or the Pyrenees or Norway for example. Even if the
scenery isn't photo realistic, at least the shape of the mountains is.

3. Errors in the height data. Sadly, whilst the aerial photography
seems to be identical, the height data isn't. I was pleased that that
the very silly shaped protrusion in Cwm Oergwm isn't there, but not so
pleased to discover some really horrible corruptions in the landscape.
The whole of the coastline of the Gower is corrupted, Llyn Llydaw makes
a complete mess of Snowdon, as does Llyn Ogwen, and...

Hang on a moment, I'm beginning to see a pattern here. All the
corruptions are next to water! Either on the coast or by large lakes.
Now the new higher res height data is supposed to completely replace the
older less accurate height data, so what's happening here? Perhaps the
old land data is being replaced, but not lake and coastal data?
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any "water" height data to
disable. I've tried a few different settings but can't seem to fix this
one. It's a real pity. Although most of the landscape looks great,
anything next to a large body of water is ruined. A major bummer in the
case of the Gower coast, since I can see the nasty corruptions every
time I take off from Swansea Airport.

4. The costs can add up. So let's see. Someone mentioned that it was
cheaper than buying the Anquet Photo Mapping. Let's start with the
basic game, FS2004, which cost me £35 (down in price from when it was
first released), then the VFR Photographic Scenery cost me £15 for the
Wales and SW England disk (£20 for the other three), so that's just £50
as a basic cost. Not bad, but then I had to add another £30 for the
terrain height data, for a total of £80 for the lot.

Since I obviously bought it as a game and not just a 3D terrain viewer,
I decided to also get the Wales and West Midlands Airports add-on. I'll
be spending a lot of time at the airports so I figured I may as well get
the maximum realism for Wales at least, and very pleased with it I am
too. Much better than the simplistic default airports. I also bought
the 2004 Traffic disk to fill the world with planes, to add a bit of
life to the game. This too is pretty cool. That was another £40.
There are lots of other add-ons. Besides the extra planes and airports
there's the other three UK scenery disks. This could become addictive
and cost a lot of money. I'm stopping here for now, but the other
scenery disks may well appeal when I become bored with Wales. (Bored
with Wales?????)

Then there's the hardware! To play a game like this properly you really
need a decent joystick. Fortunately I already have an MS Sidewinder FF
joystick which I bought a few years ago, which has all the features
ideal for this game. That cost me £100. New buyers with no joystick
should be prepared for some extra cost. A non-FF stick should cost only
£25 or so, but even that would be way better than trying to control the
plane with the keyboard.

Then there's the other hardware - new graphics card, new processor, more
memory... May as well get a new computer! Anquet is starting to look
very cheap in comparison.

5. Size. Oh yes, hard drive space. The basic game, the photo scenery
and the height data each come on 4 CDs, the whole lot mentioned above
consumes 9 gigabytes of disk space. Each scenery CD is about 1.6 gig I
believe.

Advantages of the FS2004 Photographic Scenery

1. It's more immersive. Yes, it does have one good point, it's fun to
fly around it! Arguably this is a game advantage rather than a scenery
advantage, but I really do find it more enjoyable to fly around it
rather than simply look at it. With Anquet (or the Memory Map Swansea
demo) I'm just looking at a 3D photographic representation on a computer
screen, whereas with FS I'm actually in a plane flying over my home
town! It's so much more interactive and engrossing, it almost feels
like I'm there doing it for real, having to control the plane, listening
to all the ATC chatter from Swansea airport.

More to the point, since the planes move so much more slowly, you have
much more time to really look at the terrain beneath you. Okay, you
could do that with Anquet, but somehow it's not the same. With Anquet
you're just looking at a static picture, but with FS it feels more like
you're actually there! Psychological I know, but it really is a more
enjoyable way of experiencing the terrain, in spite of all the
disadvantages mentioned above. I guess enjoying flight sims helps...

Obviously with Anquet I can look at anywhere I want instantly, and get
the exact view I want in a matter of seconds by pressing a few keys,
which is a big advantage over FS, where I may have to spend half an hour
or more flying to an area remote from airports, but Anquet is dead and
lifeless compared to the simulated "reality" of the game.

As I say, for simply looking at 3D photographic terrain, Anquet is far
better, but FS gives you a more enjoyable way of interacting with
terrain.

Conclusion

So that's my considered opinion. You decide what to make of it.

If you want to look at static images with the maximum of control,
convenience, speed and quality (plus all the advantages of route
planning, GPS functionality etc.), get Anquet.

On the other hand, if you want to experience the terrain first hand, to
actually simulate being there and interacting with the environment (and
if you enjoy flight sims of course), then by all means get FS2004, the
FS Terrain add-on and the VFR Photographic Scenery disks of your choice.
Just be aware of the limitations mentioned above. If you already have a
powerful computer, it will work much better.

The Game

Oh yes, I should say a few words on that. The game is good fun.
Especially if you're really interested in flying. The instrument
navigation is really cool, and challenging, especially at night when you
can see bugger all...

Pual
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in news:cppbnv$3rr$1
@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Maybe OT, but maybe not, so perhaps I should mention this for the
> benefit of those who may be considering it.
>
> I've just bought Flight Simulator 2004 with the Wales VFR Photographic
> Scenery add-on from Just Flight (www.justflight.com) At least one
> person here has shown an interest in this as an alternative to the 3D
> Photo Mapping produced by Anquet Maps,


Me, I suspect - cos I had it and can't justify Anquet from scratch at the
moment.

> so I thought you might like to know how it compares.
>

I'm glad you got around to trying it, Paul.
> The bottom line is this (purely from the point of view of the 3D
> photographic scenery, not the game). In most ways, Anquet is far
> better, in only one way, the game is better. So if you aren't
> interested in flight sims, buy Anquet, it's as simple as that. There's
> no contest.
>

Absolutely - you wouldn't buy the flightsim software plus addons just for
the 3-D.
> For those who are interested in flight sims, read on...
>
> Disadvantages of the FS2004 Photographic Scenery
>
> 1. It's blurry! At first I couldn't figure out why it looked so bad.
> I knew it shouldn't because I'd seen the screenshots, but I'd noticed
> someone else complaining about this in a user review, and it took me a
> while to figure out what was causing it. Bottom line is that you need a
> very powerful computer to see it at it's best. Mine is certainly not
> top of the range, but it's not that bad. It's an Athlon 2000+ with 512
> meg of RAM and a 32 meg GeForce2 graphics card. I suspect the graphics
> card is the weak link. I think you'd need one of the very latest with
> loads of memory, like 128 meg. A bloody fast processer wouldn't go
> amiss either. My memory is probably okay though.
>

There are extensive discussions about this on the forums as
visualflight.co.uk. Very specific settings are required to resolve it - and
different people find different things work - but your machine spec looks
fine apart from the graphics card memory.

> The cause of the problem is that the program tries to maintain a minimum
> frame rate, which you can specify. For game purposes you have to keep
> it reasonably high. Mine is set to the default 20fps, which is
> acceptable, although it stutters now and again (but don't ever visit a
> busy airport like Heathrow). I tried the minimum of 10fps and it was
> unplayable.

Many people say remove the limit for better scenery quality.
> Anyway, the clever thing about maintaining a minimum frame rate is that
> the game remains playable on lower spec systems, but "less critical"
> aspects of the game suffer. Needless to say, drawing the scenery is low
> on the list of priorities when it comes to allocating processing power,
> so unless you have a monstrously powerful games machine, buying this
> game for the UK photographic scenery is *almost* a waste of time.
>

Don't agree - but you have to be prepared to tweak.

> Careful tweaking of the settings and reading of the manual did enable me
> to get barely acceptable results though. For best results you need to
> fly slowly, so pick a slow plane like a Cessna. Second, use the spot
> plane view and set it to look more or less straight down. Tilted up a
> little is okay, but the smaller the area you have in the picture the
> better, because the computer then has less to draw, so it draws it
> faster.
>

There are a lot of settings in the FS9.cfg file (and other config files)
relating to this that should improve things immensely over what you get out
of the box or relative to what you can adjust from within FS9. But I grant
you, it's not trivial getting them right, or even finding out about them
without going to the visualflight forums.
> If you're looking at half of Wales the whole thing is a fuzzy blur,
> because it can't possibly render that much detail, so it just gives a
> blurry rendition of all of it, but by narrowing the field of view it
> draws it faster.

I can see all of Snowdonia in sharp focus from 4-5000 feet on my 2.8Mhz
Pentium with 512Mb RAM and my somewhat dated Geforce 4600 card.
It also loads scenery in advance by anticipating where
> you are going next, so if you keep changing direction it tries to load
> lots of different areas, rendering none of them well, but by flying in a
> straight line looking at a small area below you, it can render the area
> well, although rarely the whole screen at once. It's quite common for
> only half of the screen to be sharp whilst the fuzzy part is still being
> drawn.
>
> Of course, this no doubt sounds terrible, but it's not as bad as it
> sounds, and you'd get far better results with a more powerful computer,
> especially a better graphics card. In spite of the above limitations, I
> have had a lot of fun flying over various areas, so it's just on the
> border of acceptability for me, but I really need to upgrade to get full
> value for money out of this.
>

Yes - just the card should make a big difference I'd have thought.
> With Anquet on the other hand, there are no such problems. The scenery
> draws almost instantly, even far into the distance, since the view is
> usuall static, it's not pre-loading anything into a buffer, and there
> are no other demands on the CPU, unlike a flight sim which is pretty CPU
> intensive.

Yes - Anquet is only trying to do one thing. Make sure FS9 has autogen
turned off, water effects reduced, no dynamic scenery (other aircraft),
terrain mesh only about 80%, etc. Antialiasing etc can kill it too.
> One more thing, the FS2004 photo scenery is very blurry at low level,
> you need to get at least 1,500ft above it for it to look acceptable,
> this is no doubt due to anti-aliasing. With Anquet, if you go close to
> ground level it becomes very pixellated, which also looks horrible, but
> in a different way. I think the resolution is identical, in fact I
> think the photo mapping is identical, I've seen the same errors and
> cloud shadows.

It's blurry at low level because (I believe) the scenery is significantly
reduced in quality over the best Getmapping imagery.

> 2. No height data included. This is where the hidden costs start to
> manifest themselves. Once I started flying slowly enough and aiming the
> view carefully enough, I was horrified to discover that everything was
> the wrong shape! It turns out that there's no height data included with
> the photo scenery! Instead the game uses the default height mapping
> which is not only inaccurate, but extremely low res, 1.5km per point!
> This is atrocious! Jagged peaks become rounded hills! I flew over
> Snowdonia and I didn't recognise the place! Where had Tryfan gone? The
> gentle rounded hill of Crib Goch? Oh my Gord! What was I to do?
>

MS default terrain makes snowdonia look like Dartmoor!

> It turns out that the height data can be purchased separately, in
> another add-on, FS Terrain. This gives a resolution of 75m per point
> (almost as good as Anquet which is 50m per point). The bad news is that
> it's a hidden extra cost which is not pointed out on the CD cases or on
> the website. This is a devious marketing practice since the
> photographic scenery isn't much use without accurate hi-res height data.
>

Sorry Paul - that's not fair. This world-leading scenery combo has been put
together by one man - John Farrie (visualflight) who is generous with his
time, support, and (in my case on one occasion) free software. The good
terrain mesh (height data) is a very recent addition to the overall package,
and it is superb - way better than everything else there is for FS at the
moment.
> The good news is that it doesn't just cover Wales, it covers most of
> Europe and the whole of the US, so you can have fun flying over a 3D
> realistic Alps or the Pyrenees or Norway for example. Even if the
> scenery isn't photo realistic, at least the shape of the mountains is.
>

No - the best one (VFRterrain) doesn't. There is a product (FSTerrain I
think) that has the coverage that you describe but for the UK it's a poor
relation to VFR Terrain which has 19m resolution!! More than that, John has
painstakingly corrected the entire coastline so that the MS tiling is
removed and all cliffs, inlets etc are modelling in impressive detail.
> 3. Errors in the height data. Sadly, whilst the aerial photography
> seems to be identical, the height data isn't. I was pleased that that
> the very silly shaped protrusion in Cwm Oergwm isn't there, but not so
> pleased to discover some really horrible corruptions in the landscape.
> The whole of the coastline of the Gower is corrupted, Llyn Llydaw makes
> a complete mess of Snowdon, as does Llyn Ogwen, and...

You've got the wrong height data!
> Hang on a moment, I'm beginning to see a pattern here. All the
> corruptions are next to water! Either on the coast or by large lakes.
> Now the new higher res height data is supposed to completely replace the
> older less accurate height data, so what's happening here? Perhaps the
> old land data is being replaced, but not lake and coastal data?
> Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any "water" height data to
> disable. I've tried a few different settings but can't seem to fix this
> one. It's a real pity. Although most of the landscape looks great,
> anything next to a large body of water is ruined. A major bummer in the
> case of the Gower coast, since I can see the nasty corruptions every
> time I take off from Swansea Airport.

Get VFR Terrain - it's a FANTASTIC addon - your coastline concerns will be
entirely resolved. I'll email you some screeenshots of the Gower if you
like.
>
> 4. The costs can add up. So let's see. Someone mentioned that it was
> cheaper than buying the Anquet Photo Mapping. Let's start with the
> basic game, FS2004, which cost me £35 (down in price from when it was
> first released), then the VFR Photographic Scenery cost me £15 for the
> Wales and SW England disk (£20 for the other three), so that's just £50
> as a basic cost. Not bad, but then I had to add another £30 for the
> terrain height data, for a total of £80 for the lot.
>


> Since I obviously bought it as a game and not just a 3D terrain viewer,
> I decided to also get the Wales and West Midlands Airports add-on. I'll
> be spending a lot of time at the airports so I figured I may as well get
> the maximum realism for Wales at least, and very pleased with it I am
> too. Much better than the simplistic default airports. I also bought
> the 2004 Traffic disk to fill the world with planes, to add a bit of
> life to the game. This too is pretty cool. That was another £40.


That will kill the smoothness of the scenery though. Best not use them both
together on your current machine.
> There are lots of other add-ons. Besides the extra planes and airports
> there's the other three UK scenery disks. This could become addictive
> and cost a lot of money.


Yup! Take a look at this incredible scenery addon: I'm stopping here for
now, but the other
> scenery disks may well appeal when I become bored with Wales. (Bored
> with Wales?????)
>
> Then there's the hardware! To play a game like this properly you really
> need a decent joystick. Fortunately I already have an MS Sidewinder FF
> joystick which I bought a few years ago, which has all the features
> ideal for this game. That cost me £100. New buyers with no joystick
> should be prepared for some extra cost. A non-FF stick should cost only
> £25 or so, but even that would be way better than trying to control the
> plane with the keyboard.
>
> Then there's the other hardware - new graphics card, new processor, more
> memory... May as well get a new computer! Anquet is starting to look
> very cheap in comparison.


That all depends on your starting point!
>
> 5. Size. Oh yes, hard drive space. The basic game, the photo scenery
> and the height data each come on 4 CDs, the whole lot mentioned above
> consumes 9 gigabytes of disk space. Each scenery CD is about 1.6 gig I
> believe.
>
> Advantages of the FS2004 Photographic Scenery
>
> 1. It's more immersive. Yes, it does have one good point, it's fun to
> fly around it! Arguably this is a game advantage rather than a scenery
> advantage, but I really do find it more enjoyable to fly around it
> rather than simply look at it.


And you can get realistic lighting at various times of day - and use FSW2004
for dramatically improved cloud effects including well-rendered low cloud
ceilings part way up the mountains.

With Anquet (or the Memory Map Swansea
> demo) I'm just looking at a 3D photographic representation on a computer
> screen, whereas with FS I'm actually in a plane flying over my home
> town! It's so much more interactive and engrossing, it almost feels
> like I'm there doing it for real, having to control the plane, listening
> to all the ATC chatter from Swansea airport.
>
> More to the point, since the planes move so much more slowly, you have
> much more time to really look at the terrain beneath you. Okay, you
> could do that with Anquet, but somehow it's not the same. With Anquet
> you're just looking at a static picture, but with FS it feels more like
> you're actually there! Psychological I know, but it really is a more
> enjoyable way of experiencing the terrain, in spite of all the
> disadvantages mentioned above. I guess enjoying flight sims helps...
>
> Obviously with Anquet I can look at anywhere I want instantly, and get
> the exact view I want in a matter of seconds by pressing a few keys,
> which is a big advantage over FS, where I may have to spend half an hour
> or more flying to an area remote from airports, but Anquet is dead and
> lifeless compared to the simulated "reality" of the game.
>
> As I say, for simply looking at 3D photographic terrain, Anquet is far
> better, but FS gives you a more enjoyable way of interacting with
> terrain.
>
> Conclusion
>
> So that's my considered opinion. You decide what to make of it.

You're still missing the critical bit Paul - VFR Terrain. You'r review is
incomplete until you've experienced that! Sorry - you're going to have to
spend more money :)

>
> If you want to look at static images with the maximum of control,
> convenience, speed and quality (plus all the advantages of route
> planning, GPS functionality etc.), get Anquet.
>
> On the other hand, if you want to experience the terrain first hand, to
> actually simulate being there and interacting with the environment (and
> if you enjoy flight sims of course), then by all means get FS2004, the
> FS Terrain add-on and the VFR Photographic Scenery disks of your choice.
> Just be aware of the limitations mentioned above. If you already have a
> powerful computer, it will work much better.
>
> The Game
>
> Oh yes, I should say a few words on that. The game is good fun.
> Especially if you're really interested in flying. The instrument
> navigation is really cool, and challenging, especially at night when you
> can see bugger all...
>

Thanks for taking the time to post this review. I'm not arguing for one
thing over another - but having gone so far you really need to see the FS
option at it's best!

Stuart
 
Stuart Mann wrote:

> I'm glad you got around to trying it, Paul.


So am I.

>> 1. It's blurry!
>>

> There are extensive discussions about this on the forums as
> visualflight.co.uk. Very specific settings are required to resolve it
> - and different people find different things work - but your machine
> spec looks fine apart from the graphics card memory.


I'll no doubt need a new card then. Any recommendations?

>> Mine is set to the default 20fps,
>> which is acceptable. I tried the minimum of
>> 10fps and it was unplayable.


> Many people say remove the limit for better scenery quality.


Removing the limit gives 10fps, that's the minimim. Or is there a
different way of removing it? No point anyway because it's unplayable
at low frame rates.

> Don't agree - but you have to be prepared to tweak.


I don't mind a bit of tweaking but I don't want to spend endless hours
searching through forums and more enless hours experimenting. It's just
a game after all.

> There are a lot of settings in the FS9.cfg file (and other config
> files) relating to this that should improve things immensely over
> what you get out of the box or relative to what you can adjust from
> within FS9. But I grant you, it's not trivial getting them right, or
> even finding out about them without going to the visualflight forums.


Well I'm reasonably happy with my current settings, for now at least.
Does altering the config files make that much difference to what you can
change in the game?

> I can see all of Snowdonia in sharp focus from 4-5000 feet on my
> 2.8Mhz Pentium with 512Mb RAM and my somewhat dated Geforce 4600 card.


So buying a decent graphics card should mostly solve that then? Or is
tweaking config files still necessary?

> Yes - just the card should make a big difference I'd have thought.


And how much will a decent one cost these days?

> Yes - Anquet is only trying to do one thing. Make sure FS9 has
> autogen turned off,


I thought autogen was automatically disabled for the VFR areas?

> water effects reduced, no dynamic scenery (other
> aircraft), terrain mesh only about 80%, etc.


The problem is that those settings kill other aspects of the game. I
didn't buy the airports and traffic just to switch them off! Each of
the add-ons has optimum settings which basically amount to turning off
the other add-ons. For the best scenery you lose the airports and
traffic. For the best traffic you lose the scenery, and so on.

Okay, if I just want to go sightseeing I can turn the other stuff off
temporarily, but I'm finding that I don't want to do just that, I find
the whole experience more interesting. I like listening to the radio
chatter while I'm exporing the hills and encountering the odd plane here
and there. I want it all, the complete immersive experience. If I just
want to look at scenery I'll use Anquet.

> Antialiasing etc can kill it too.


Yes, I didn't like that at all.

> It's blurry at low level because (I believe) the scenery is
> significantly reduced in quality over the best Getmapping imagery.


Is it any worse than Anquet though?

> MS default terrain makes snowdonia look like Dartmoor!


Quite.

>> This is a devious marketing practice since
>> the photographic scenery isn't much use without accurate hi-res
>> height data.
>>

> Sorry Paul - that's not fair. This world-leading scenery combo has
> been put together by one man - John Farrie (visualflight) who is
> generous with his time, support, and (in my case on one occasion)
> free software. The good terrain mesh (height data) is a very recent
> addition to the overall package, and it is superb - way better than
> everything else there is for FS at the moment.


Okay, maybe calling it devious was a little harsh, but I do think it
should be pointed out (on the website and on the CD cases) that the
photographic scenery does not come with height data. Since programs
like Anquet include such data by default, it never occured to me that
the scenery disks wouldn't. After all, claiming the photo scenery to be
the ultimate in realism just isn't true if the shape of the scenery is
wrong.

All that's needed is a simple note along the lines of "These scenery
disks work best in conjunction with the VFR Terrain Add-on" or similar.
The fact that I was completely unaware of this shows that this needs to
be pointed out to potential buyers of the scenery disks.

>> The good news is that it doesn't just cover Wales, it covers most of
>> Europe and the whole of the US, so you can have fun flying over a 3D
>> realistic Alps or the Pyrenees or Norway for example. Even if the
>> scenery isn't photo realistic, at least the shape of the mountains
>> is.
>>

> No - the best one (VFRterrain) doesn't. There is a product (FSTerrain
> I think) that has the coverage that you describe


Yes, that's the one I bought. How was I supposed to know it was the
wrong one? I failed to notice the VFR Terrain on the website.

> but for the UK it's
> a poor relation to VFR Terrain which has 19m resolution!!


But only 38m in FS2004. Why is that? Are you using FS2002?

> More than
> that, John has painstakingly corrected the entire coastline so that
> the MS tiling is removed and all cliffs, inlets etc are modelling in
> impressive detail.


Sounds good. I'm glad there's a solution, I was a bit ****** off about
the corruptions.

> You've got the wrong height data!


So I see. This really should have been made clearer. But I haven't
wasted my money on FS Terrain though, have I? It's still an improvement
for the rest of Europe and the US.

> Get VFR Terrain - it's a FANTASTIC addon - your coastline concerns
> will be entirely resolved.


Will do.

> I'll email you some screeenshots of the
> Gower if you like.


I'll probably buy it before you can email them to me, if I can find it
in my local shops. What's the best way to take screenshots of the game
anyway?

>> I also bought the 2004 Traffic disk to fill the world
>> with planes, to add a bit of life to the game. This too is pretty
>> cool. That was another £40.

>
> That will kill the smoothness of the scenery though. Best not use
> them both together on your current machine.


Well I tried it with and without, and the scenery was no worse with.
Fact is, there's not a lot of traffic around Wales, often only 2 or 3
other planes around, and the scenery doesn't seem to suffer because of
it.

>> There are lots of other add-ons. Besides the extra planes and
>> airports there's the other three UK scenery disks. This could
>> become addictive and cost a lot of money.

>
> Yup! Take a look at this incredible scenery addon:
> the "Misty Fjords" addon for Alaska:
> http://www.fsaddon.com/products_misty.html


Looks excellent! Are there any other good scenery add-ons for other
bits of the world? I'd be particularly interested in New Zealand if
there's one available.

While we're on the subject, are there any add-ons that give you a whole
bunch of extra planes? I'm not going to fork out £20 for an
ultra-realistic representation of just one plane, I'm not that
interested in plane realism. But I would like more choice of planes.
The Traffic add-on gives a lot of extra planes but they're mainly
designed for AI use so aren't very realistic at all, and they're mostly
passenger jets anyway, which I'm not terribly interested in.

I've noticed a few war plane collections which look good (RAF,
Luftwaffe, Cold War etc.), but they're designed for older versions of FS
and for CFS. I don't suppose they'd work with 2004 would they?

>> Then there's the other hardware - new graphics card, new processor,
>> more memory... May as well get a new computer! Anquet is starting
>> to look very cheap in comparison.

>
> That all depends on your starting point!


Of course.

>> 1. It's more immersive.

>
> And you can get realistic lighting at various times of day -


I haven't looked too closely at that. Doesn't it change suddenly from
night to sunrise to day? They say the photo scenery only works well in
daylight though, don't they?

> and use
> FSW2004 for dramatically improved cloud effects including
> well-rendered low cloud ceilings part way up the mountains.


Is that Active Sky wxRE? The clouds look pretty good to me as they are.
Does it need a good graphics card to function properly though?

> You're still missing the critical bit Paul - VFR Terrain. You'r
> review is incomplete until you've experienced that! Sorry - you're
> going to have to spend more money :)


Yeah, I know... In for a penny, in for a pound. But at least I'm happy
to know that the problem is solvable.

> Thanks for taking the time to post this review. I'm not arguing for
> one thing over another - but having gone so far you really need to
> see the FS option at it's best!


Of course. I knew when I bought it that I'd probably be spending more
down the line.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 03:42:21 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Stuart Mann wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you got around to trying it, Paul.

>
>So am I.
>
>>> 1. It's blurry!
>>>

>> There are extensive discussions about this on the forums as
>> visualflight.co.uk. Very specific settings are required to resolve it
>> - and different people find different things work - but your machine
>> spec looks fine apart from the graphics card memory.

>
>I'll no doubt need a new card then. Any recommendations?



I've recently replaced my graphics card (amongst other things :-( )
and found what I considered a good deal from PC World - yeah, often an
oxymoron, I know ;-)

They were selling (a week or so ago) a "PNY G-Force FX 5700 LE" at
half list price of 50ukp (instead of 100ukp).

I've no idea what the relative spec of the card is -v- the competition
(it was immediate need that had me buy it) but it does give me
excellent performance in <cough> games, well game singular, I'm not
much into them tbh... always end up fragged ;-)

HTH




SteveO
--
NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
 
Paul,

As getting the best from FS9 is getting OT even for this wide-ranging
newsgroup, I'll email you later today with some summaries I've saved of the
various tweaking discussions to which I've referred, and some follow up on
the bits and pieces. Is the email address at the top of your posts valid and
monitored? (My classicfm address isn't monitored).

Stuart
 
Stuart Mann wrote:

> As getting the best from FS9 is getting OT even for this wide-ranging
> newsgroup, I'll email you later today with some summaries I've saved
> of the various tweaking discussions to which I've referred, and some
> follow up on the bits and pieces.


Thanks.

> Is the email address at the top of
> your posts valid and monitored?


Yep.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
>
> I've just bought Flight Simulator 2004 with the Wales VFR Photographic
> Scenery add-on from Just Flight (www.justflight.com) At least one
> person here has shown an interest in this as an alternative to the 3D
> Photo Mapping


<snip>

Now there's a coincidence!

I've just ordered FlightSim 2004 and the VFR Northern from Amazon but no
delivery until after Christmas. (FS £10 cheaper than Justflight but VFR £5
dearer so I'm £5 up on the deal and free p&p)

I've ordered these on the back of a new computer system and wanted something
other than Photoshop to stretch it with.

Not played a flight sim before where I didn't have the option of shooting
off a few Hellfire missiles now and then so looking forward to this.

The new system is an AMD 64 with 1gig memory and a 19" flat screen monitor
which is absolutely brilliant. There's a fast graphics card in there too.

I've put JustFlight in my fav's for a browse later. Thanks Paul.


--
Dave Newton

Lake District Walk&Image site
http://www.daves-lakeland-mountains.co.uk
 
David Newton wrote:

> I've just ordered FlightSim 2004 and the VFR Northern


Cool. That's the one I want next, the northern area looks the next most
interesting after Wales (and since I never get up to the ELD in real
life this will be the next best thing). The Central area is desirable
too, since it's right on the edge of Wales (I've already flown over the
border a few times) and I used to live in Southampton so I'd like to get
that. Then there's East. I suppose I'd have to complete the set...

> The new system is an AMD 64 with 1gig memory and a 19" flat screen
> monitor which is absolutely brilliant. There's a fast graphics card
> in there too.


Sounds excellent.

> I've put JustFlight in my fav's for a browse later. Thanks Paul.


Don't forget, you also need to get the VFR Terrain add-on if you want
the hills to come out the right shape.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
>
>I've just bought Flight Simulator 2004 with the Wales VFR Photographic
>Scenery add-on from Just Flight (www.justflight.com)


So that's where you've been!

> Bottom line is that you need a
>very powerful computer to see it at it's best. Mine is certainly not
>top of the range, but it's not that bad. It's an Athlon 2000+ with 512
>meg of RAM and a 32 meg GeForce2 graphics card. I suspect the graphics
>card is the weak link. I think you'd need one of the very latest with
>loads of memory, like 128 meg. A bloody fast processer wouldn't go
>amiss either. My memory is probably okay though.
>

I now have a P4 3.4Ghz, plus 128k Ge-Force 6600, and 250H=Gb hard drive.
I only have FS2002, BTW.

I maxed all the graphics options, and it ran fine as regards smoothness
and detail, and I removed the frame limit and let it run up to whatever
it liked.

Unfortunately, both FS2002 and CFS1 tend to go into a loop and lock the
PC, sometimes quite soon after take-off, so I am wondering whether to
get 2004 or whether it will give me trouble?

Also, TOCA2 misbehaves in spite of the patch I applied, as does Mobil
Rally1, only CMR2 being ok. This is depressing, as there is
apparently no backwards compatibility with these admittedly old versions
of programs.
I haven't asked on the Sims/games newsgroups yet.

It just hit me that FS2004 might be an idea for Xmas present off
somebody, but I don't want to risk another which won't run on this PC.

Heard anything about similar problems, Paul?

You can email to spare the group if you wish, and at your leisure...

<Snip> Lots of lines used in attempt to get one month's postings into
one article. :)
--
Gordon Harris
 
<SteveO> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 03:42:21 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>


> >I'll no doubt need a new card then. Any recommendations?

>
>
> I've recently replaced my graphics card (amongst other things :-( )
> and found what I considered a good deal from PC World - yeah, often an
> oxymoron, I know ;-)
>
> They were selling (a week or so ago) a "PNY G-Force FX 5700 LE" at
> half list price of 50ukp (instead of 100ukp).
>

Sod it! I got mine for £70 down from £120 four months ago, mainly cos it
came with a free copy of Far Cry. What they don't tell you was that the card
won't let you run FC at full whack......
Never mind, it goes well with the new 80Gb hard drive. My last one was
running out of space cos of all the walking photos!

Nick
 
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:20:45 -0000, "Nick Pedley"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> They were selling (a week or so ago) a "PNY G-Force FX 5700 LE" at
>> half list price of 50ukp (instead of 100ukp).
>>

>Sod it! I got mine for £70 down from £120 four months ago, mainly cos it
>came with a free copy of Far Cry. What they don't tell you was that the card
>won't let you run FC at full whack......


Doesn't it? Must admit the thought of trying FC was a plus point... I
was even motivated enough to go back to PC World when it wouldn't
load. Then they gently explained that its diffficult to play DVDs in a
CDROM drive ;-) <doh!>

>Never mind, it goes well with the new 80Gb hard drive. My last one was
>running out of space cos of all the walking photos!


Give it to me, I have a knack with them... I'll fettle it for you in
no time!!
;-(





SteveO
--
NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk
 

> I've just ordered FlightSim 2004 and the VFR Northern from Amazon but no
> delivery until after Christmas. (FS £10 cheaper than Justflight but VFR £5
> dearer so I'm £5 up on the deal and free p&p)



Amazon lied! Both items were delivered this morning and are now installed.

How annoying are that couple who run you through the flight prep videos?

Anyway, with minimal tuition I set off on my maiden flight in my Cessna
aiming west for the coast. I hit Blackpool which is where I was aiming for
then turned north out over Morecambe Bay towards Black Combe which was
hulking on the horizon. Having skirted around that to the west I headed
inland and found Wasdale and Wastwater. The hills were just about
recognisable and I was able to pick out Middle Fell and Yewbarrow. Great
Gable was less clear but the scar of a path to Styhead was very obvious. The
Scafells were just a mass and I skirted over the top of them with just about
50' clearance. There was no one at the summit on the Pike which must be a
first.

Not bad for a first flight. I never had any intention of landing anywhere,
it was just a look around.

Terrain is next on the list to get.


--
Dave Newton

Lake District Walk&Image site
http://www.daves-lakeland-mountains.co.uk
 
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:02:11 GMT, "David Newton"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Not bad for a first flight. I never had any intention of landing anywhere,




It's Belmarsh for you, Dave!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 

>> Not bad for a first flight. I never had any intention of landing
>> anywhere, it was just a look around.
>>

>
> You're still up there then? :eek:)


Yep, just had a fly-past under Skiddaw and Blencathra, then down the
Thirlmere valley beneath Helvellyn where there are some horrendous cliffs on
the west side of the water. No idea where they came from! I then tried to
crash land into what I think was probably Ambleside but the damn thing won't
let you crash - you just bounce around a bit.


--
Dave Newton

Lake District Walk&Image site
http://www.daves-lakeland-mountains.co.uk
 
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:02:11 GMT, "David Newton"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[...]
>Anyway, with minimal tuition I set off on my maiden flight in my Cessna
>aiming west for the coast. I hit Blackpool which is where I was aiming for
>then turned north out over Morecambe Bay towards Black Combe which was
>hulking on the horizon. Having skirted around that to the west I headed
>inland and found Wasdale and Wastwater. The hills were just about
>recognisable and I was able to pick out Middle Fell and Yewbarrow. Great
>Gable was less clear but the scar of a path to Styhead was very obvious. The
>Scafells were just a mass and I skirted over the top of them with just about
>50' clearance. There was no one at the summit on the Pike which must be a
>first.


Exciting!! Did you see my tent just above the Corridor Route?



Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ Email: pee AT [what's missing?] STOP co STOP uk
 
David Newton wrote:

> How annoying are that couple who run you through the flight prep
> videos?


Tell me about it! All the tutorials are utterly cringeworthy.

> Anyway, with minimal tuition I set off on my maiden flight in my
> Cessna aiming west for the coast.


Your first virtual TR then?

> I hit Blackpool which is where I
> was aiming for then turned north out over Morecambe Bay towards Black
> Combe which was hulking on the horizon. Having skirted around that to
> the west I headed inland and found Wasdale and Wastwater. The hills
> were just about recognisable and I was able to pick out Middle Fell
> and Yewbarrow. Great Gable was less clear but the scar of a path to
> Styhead was very obvious. The Scafells were just a mass and I skirted
> over the top of them with just about 50' clearance. There was no one
> at the summit on the Pike which must be a first.
>
> Not bad for a first flight. I never had any intention of landing
> anywhere, it was just a look around.


I make a point of landing at the end of every flight. Practice makes
perfect, and it's the hardest bit so you need to practice it a lot. Of
course, it helps to know the correct way to land. Hint: Don't dive in
on full throttle like a Stuka!

> Terrain is next on the list to get.


Make sure it's the VFR Terrain, not the FS Terrain.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
David Newton wrote:

> Yep, just had a fly-past under Skiddaw and Blencathra, then down the
> Thirlmere valley beneath Helvellyn where there are some horrendous
> cliffs on the west side of the water. No idea where they came from!


That's one of the terrain problems I mentioned.

> I
> then tried to crash land into what I think was probably Ambleside but
> the damn thing won't let you crash - you just bounce around a bit.


You *can* crash, just alter the realism settings. Best to leave
everything on easy for now though!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
 
Rooney <[email protected]> writes
>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:02:11 GMT, "David Newton"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Not bad for a first flight. I never had any intention of landing anywhere,

>
>It's Belmarsh for you, Dave!
>

ROTFL!
Creased me....
--
Gordon Harris