![]() In the second quote you mention ease of switching back and forth.is that just mean your preference in say an area very FPS heavy, like a large city and one is operating an older system that struggles with the autogen 3D objects? I didn't want to misunderstand that it's an option for one or the other, just that there can be that option if needed, during the occasional slide shows with FPS on an older system. That's what I would like, however, having used photo scenery before, I did not like the very 2 dimensional appearance when flying down low. It has a lot to do with the particular area, and personal preferences.Apologies for multi-quoting you, but I just wanted to clarify.in the upper quote you state they are compatible and blend well together, so I can have both 3D objects and photo real scenery. In other areas, pure Orbx might be better. In areas where my computer struggles (Long Beach), I prefer the Orbx/photoscenery combination. It's very easy to switch back and forth between the photoscenery and Orbx on-the-fly by going to the FSX scenery library and turning the photoscenery on or off. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |