Hello,

Because I dont have much experience with photoreal scenery I just want to ask you guys in the FS community what I should expect as "golden standard" for a professionel/Commercial photoreal scenery. My concern is about the airports in a newly purchased scenery.

I have observed this problem:

The photoreal runways is mixed with the default runways from P3Dv3. Sometimes the alignment is wrong because Lockhead Martins afcad values might be  wrong. This could have been handled by the Company by delivering correct afcad values with the scenery. And when it comes to the problem with mix of photoreal and default p3d runways, then I think that the visual part of the photoreal runway should have been "painted out" somehow. Also even though the alignment is ok, because the default runway will allmost never cover the photreal runway completely. 

So is it not fair to adress this problem to the Company? I do not want to offend anybody, so your opinion about this will be very much appreciated!

Best Regards, Lars

PS: Later I will be more specific what kind of scenery I am talking about, showing some screenshots etc

 

1 hour ago, larshgf said:

with mix of photoreal and default p3d runways, then I think that the visual part of the photoreal runway should have been "painted out" somehow

A lot of sceneries have web captured pictures as ground picture. But in the condition of use of Google, it is clearly specified that none retouchs may be done on the captured shots... One of reasons 

"So is it not fair to address this problem to the Company?"

Are you willing to pay double or triple the price for photoreal scenery as that is what would happen for the time and effort to correct each and every airport in a photoreal area.  There's over 24,000 airports!  Personally I would think it is the platform's (P3D, FSW, etc.), responsibility to make adjustments to basic airports to keep up to date.

I think you have to ask yourself what is your "Gold Standard" for photoreal scenery, not ours, as each simmer may have a different answer.  For years just getting a good large area of PR was good enough.  But that is slowly changing as you see many add-ons adding water, trees, 3D buildings and lights being placed on top. Good enough for many people but not all.

For me, I work on photoreal scenery every day and my answer is to let 3rd-party airport developers make the corrections for airports.  Unless, the goal of the PR is smaller and made to include correctly aligned airports. 

Good luck on finding that elusive "gold standard" 

The scenery I am talking about is the first half (Vol1) of a country that will be covered by two volumes. This country have ALL TOGETHER 53 airports. Out of these many have correct afcad's. So this would not have been a heavy job for them to do in order to make their costumers have this immersive experirience as the photoreal scenery is (and thereby create satisfied customers and more sale).

But you are absolutely right: P3D, FSW etc ought to fix the afcad's themselves all over the world. Ideally it should not be a job for the photoreal designer.

Now I do the work myself with help from a lot of fine people from the FS fora. I think MY dream of a good scenery might not be so elusive as "the golden standard". And in fact it is a very fun and educational job to move these airports!! It has sharpened my taste for more, and I wish I would be able to redo some of my favorite airports. But that is quite another step to go - or maybe better - a heavy climb up the learning curve. 

BR, Lars

  

The Gold Standard for me would be something like Orbx Palm Springs... but it takes a lot of careful graphics editing to make the airstrip blend into the surrounding photoreal terrain.

Another milestone might be the upcoming Orbx Netherlands scenery.. wait and see..