Wee all how hundreds of addons...

This is the same summer image with a little help from PSP7.

It would probably help if you didn't use the default 747 in your screenshot, as it is modeled extremely poorly.

olderndirt wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 9:10pm:

Precisely. Your shots include graphics intensive scenery which requires a lot of compression to meet the forum limit. Try a few shots in different locations to compare the amount of compression you need. Perhaps try zooming out a little. Some colours are more graphics intensive than others. Shots of the aircraft against the sky are generally the least intensive.

Quote:

I can't advise on your FS9 settings as this will depend on your system. Does FS9 look better on your monitor or do your shots show what you see? Compression affects all images whether they're FS screenshots or photos. The more compression the worse the image quality.

The forum rules are the same for everyone. Check out the various forums in the graphics gallery to see what can be done within the limits. Some of the entries in the screenshots comps are quite stunning. They are all in JPEG (.jpg) format so that's not the problem.

PS. Sir Puma wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

I can't see the difference between the image you posted & the "Hi Res" version. The file size is exactly the same.

In a word - Atmosphere

Add some - Add some Cloud layers,Try different times of day, reduce the visibility settings.

All these will add to a screenshot without a single addon in site.

Treat a screenshot as you would if you were taking a photograph.

Hagar wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 4:54am:


The difference in those two images is that one is larger so you can actually read all the settings. Hardware isn't an issue. I'm running with a Intel Core 2 Quad 2.5GHz Q9300, 2GB RAM, NVIDIA 9800GTX 512MB PCI-E x16 and I run at a resolution of 1280x1024. I'm able to use the SRTM terrain and full on system settings and it never even pauses when crossing map grids.

As far as the screen appearance, the unedited screen shot is a bit darker than the game.

I've looked through the various pages of screen shots and I'm blown away at the quality of the images. I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong to get something like those out of the basic image. Seeing the crappy cartoon like image I get makes me wonder what I'm doing wrong. I know the quality of the model has a lot to do with it so I probably won't ever get those awesome screen shots as I can't afford the cool pay ware aircraft.

I download all my aircraft from the free files and I get ones that I find fun to fly. I've toyed a bit with doing my own paint jobs, but sometimes that just looks worse.

Sir Puma wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 10:59pm:


Excuse me? I think I can put up a FS9 screenshot better than the average FSX user. It has nothing to do with using FS9 or FSX (besides some water effects), it's all in the tweaking and the use of the right add-ons.

Carlo (hardcore FS9 user)

If with 'FSX textures' you mean an add-on named Howards' Mix beware of it. It could cause more problems than you ask for. Read the read-me very well before installation.

Great add-ons:

FS9 Bible

Just some scenery

Carlo

There's lots of thing involved in making passable screenshots, but it all starts imho with the right addons.
The right clouds, the right scenery and the right aircraft.
In your shots, I see mainly default stuff, try to avoid that.
Even if you limit yourself to freeware, there is some good stuff out there. Try here for scenery for example. I was quite happy with FS Skyworld for the clouds in the old FS9 days. Nice aircraft can be found all over.
But don't be afraid to try some payware every now and then, it usually (but not always) looks better.
Then it comes to taking the shot. Sometimes you can take shots while happily flying along, but quite often, I try to set up a certain shot. I have a picture in my mind and try to recreate that. Above all, do not be afraid to experiment, with angles, lighting, weather, time of day, etc.
One final thing: try cropping the image occasionally, by cutting off the non-interesting parts.
Take your 747 shot, I would have cut a bit of the runway, and possibly the sky too, ending up with this:


Good luck,

Jan Kees

I found that if you reduce your visibility to about 30 miles and have thick cloud cover it looks far more real. Or maybe it was just me. . . . . .
without clouds

with clouds and reduced vis

DowninFlames wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 10:43am:
The PSE standard is 72 and they recommend increasing in multiples of that.  For a 900 pixel wide screenshot, I use 576 - hasn't hurt  .