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
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