Just Flight Revolution-X - this looks brilliant for UK Photo Scenery

[fscottee 10]

The GenX England and Wales scenery is advertised as 1.2m per pixel, with several cities at 60cm resolution in Version 3. The GenX Scotland scenery is 60cm resolution throughout.

 

 

Perhaps 60cm in some areas, but you can test the detail yourself by using your favorite map service.  Bing maps does a good job of most of Scotland down to 50cm/pixel.  Start up FSX and zoom in the overhead view to the same level as Bing Maps.  You'll see how much more detail is in the Bing Maps.

 

Perhaps their BGL compression is high, butt they wouldn't be the first to claim certain levels of detail.  MSE comes to mind in their claim that the scenery is 50cm throughout.  What they mean is, their source material is 50cm, but the final BGL comes out looking like 2 meters pixel for places like Washington State.

[fscottee 10]

deleted by me.

[fscottee 10]

Ok so just playing around with ORBX autogen versus Rev X autogen.   Obviously somebody is WRONG here in building accuracy.  I like the looks of the actual Orbx buildings, but their accuracy doesn't look correct when compared to Rev X.

 

Also, I thought I lost the ORBX 3d lights with Rev X active, but not the case as you can see in the Rev X night shot.

 

First shots are Rev X autogen with my custom photoscenery.

Second shots are ORBX Scotland, with their autogen and landclass scenery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TurboTomato 90]

RevX looks pretty good on your stuff I have to say!

[klamal 282]

 

 

Ok so just playing around with ORBX autogen versus Rev X autogen. Obviously somebody is WRONG here in building accuracy. I like the looks of the actual Orbx buildings, but their accuracy doesn't look correct when compared to Rev X.

 

I don't have experience with either product but I do know the technologies underneath each and I think Rev X is going to give you much more accurate placement of autogen than Orbx is.  Again, I say that "I think" here because I have never owned a Orbx region.  So, I don't know to what detail they get on those.  Is their autogen hand placed or placed by OSM?  I don't think so(at least not across the entire region anyway).  But, if the region is still all or mostly land class based, you probably aren't going to have accurate placement of things.

[fscottee 10]

I thought ORBX regions were based on OSM data, but then again RevX has some buildings sitting kinda crooked - don't think people build blocks like some shown in RevX.   

[klamal 282]

I thought ORBX regions were based on OSM data, but then again RevX has some buildings sitting kinda crooked - don't think people build blocks like some shown in RevX.   

 

I'm not sure, to be honest.  I didn't think so but again, I don't own any of their products.  Even still, I'm not sure what good OSM data would do if you are still a land classed base scenery.  You'd have some buildings in correct locations(the ones coming from OSM) but others would not be(the ones randomly generated).  Unless when you define autogen for a given area it overrides any generation of the randomly generated autogen?

[fscottee 10]

The Orbx openLC was supposed to be accurately placed buildings and land features. The regions are supposed to already have this implemented. I dunno, the more I think of it, I really don't know what their intentions are. When I see comparisons of Orbx versus default, it just looks like they rearranged the autogen in an equally confused manner.

 

So if we take the comparisons above, I would guess the RevX would have to be more accurately placed. Seeing how many of the autogen line up fairly well with the photoreal roadways and stuff...

[Novation 534]

I am just installing this, which is a slow process. I already have Treescapes in place, so this will overwrite it, but I am hoping areas where Treescapes has more trees that they will remain if the density of RX is less - we shall see. Treescapes although a great product, always looks slightly odd, with no buildings, so I am hopeful this will really improve the overall look of my GenX install, without degrading the photoreal experience; plus, it seems great value for money.

 

The screens an vids posted look good, though it would be nice to have Orbx quality Autogen models.

[fscottee 10]

I am just installing this, which is a slow process. I already have Treescapes in place, so this will overwrite it, but I am hoping areas where Treescapes has more trees that they will remain if the density of RX is less - we shall see. Treescapes although a great product, always looks slightly odd, with no buildings, so I am hopeful this will really improve the overall look of my GenX install, without degrading the photoreal experience; plus, it seems great value for money.

 

The screens an vids posted look good, though it would be nice to have Orbx quality Autogen models.

 

Couple things, you should be able to copy the agn files from treescapes into the textures folder of RevX... and that will allow all treescapes trees to be shown.

 

Also, the Orbx autogen, that is something I'm trying to figure out.  Orbx copies their autogen buildings somewhere.  If I can find them then perhaps use them as the default.  However, they may also use proprietary autogen that can't be read by P3D without Orbx.

[Novation 534]

Okay, big mistake installing over Treescapes :( which suppressed 99% of the buildings; it seems it does not overwrite it fully, so remove all traces first. I manually removed all agn files from each volumes 2.6m texture folder and installed into GenX Vol1 first, just to test it was now working correctly.

 

A quick flight from Exeter revealed lots of buildings and trees, though maybe not as many trees as Treescapes. The building and tree alignment seems reasonable, though you get some inappropriate industrial units in small villages here and there, and as its default agn the scale is off too, being rather big. Having said that, for complete UK mainland coverage for 25GBP its a pretty good package, adding interest to what can be rather flat looking photoscenery - though I know some won't agree, as they like to see each tree and building as an image, which this obviously covers.

 

Installation is very slow, due the the vast number of tiny files (over 100,000) but at least the installer found my GenX folders unlike Treescapes, which forced me to manually place the files. The package also allows you to add or remove areas separately from the GUI so if you add new scenery areas you don't have to run the installer again.

 

I would rate it a solid 7/10 technically - 10/10 value for money.

Couple things, you should be able to copy the agn files from treescapes into the textures folder of RevX... and that will allow all treescapes trees to be shown.

 

Also, the Orbx autogen, that is something I'm trying to figure out.  Orbx copies their autogen buildings somewhere.  If I can find them then perhaps use them as the default.  However, they may also use proprietary autogen that can't be read by P3D without Orbx.

 

You posted this just as I did my follow up... As I found above, for me Treescape files seem to conflict, removing most buildings sadly, so I won't mess with trying to add more agn to RevX esp. as it takes ages to add the files again, if it all goes wrong.

 

I am pretty sure trying to add Orbx agn would be breaking their EULA - nice as it would be.

 

 

A couple over London, which looks pretty good, without the fps hit of VFR London.

 

No quite Orbx, but not too shabby - looks more like UTX lighting in fact.

[fscottee 10]

Treescape shouldn't remove buildings.  If the Treescapes are .agn files, then they won't conflict.  They would simply add trees from the Treescape volume to the RevX trees and buildings.  The Treescape agn files MUST go into the same textures folder as the RevX texture folder. 

[Novation 534]

Which is what I thought, but almost no buildings showed having installed on top of Treescapes, which would amount to the same thing as adding the files, would it not?

 

Anyway I'm not going to risk it at the moment, as its taken a couple of hours to complete this, and I'm happy with the result.. whether there are less trees is uncertain anyway; some areas look thinner, but others are very dense.

 

Any recommendations for legit replacement tree agn?.. I used to have some by a a French guy, who's name alludes me right now.

 

 

 

Treescape shouldn't remove buildings.  If the Treescapes are .agn files, then they won't conflict.  They would simply add trees from the Treescape volume to the RevX trees and buildings.  The Treescape agn files MUST go into the same textures folder as the RevX texture folder. 

[philmurfin 73]

This was Just Flight's comments about mixing Treescapes, earlier in this topic.....

Hi,
In regards to whether or not Rev-X will work with Treescapes.
In the FSX system each 1km square in the world has a specific grid number which is used to identify it. This number is used to define the autogen ( .agn ) file that matches a particular location. This means that filenames are predetermined and there can only be one agn file for any given 1km square.
ES-Treescapes uses the same autogen system as RevolutionX so installing RX to an area will overwrite the existing ES-T files.
However for each grid square RX agn files will contain the data for the trees (as with ES-T) and also the buildings so in most cases the results will be preferable.
If you reinstall ES-Treescapes after installing RX you will find that most buildings  will disappear as the “trees plus buildings” files are overwritten by “trees only” files

Both products do a similar job using the same FSX systems and, unavoidably, using the same filenames. You should install one or the other but not both.

If you have any custom agn files (such as those from the VFRAddon project or ones you may have created yourself)  that you wish to retain then these should be backed up before adding the area with RX and restored afterwards.

[fscottee 10]

Ah well that answers that. I don't know enough about autogen then.

 

I notice that some areas do have less trees, especially in the cities. There are a few areas up in north scotland that just look fantastic with the minimal tree coverage. Sometimes too many trees just look ridiculous, like in Orbx in north scotland.