My experience so far

I have been having a great time banging around with Geoconvert. It is a trial and error process. I have been experimenting with resolution levels and the like. I think one problem many people might be having is trying to always use high resolution. I found that a setting of two or even three on FSEarthTiles makes very good fly over scenery. If you are using the Geoconvert helper tool you can then set it for something like levels 9, 11, and 12 and create great scenery without crashing Geoconvert or using up all of your drive space with the finished product. It also allows you to make large areas, which minimizes the low-res strip issue. I did the entire area between Innsbruck and Vienna in one run, and it came out great.

Of course in an area that large there are areas of the scenery that were taken at different times of year so they don't color match, but that is another issue.

My advice to anyone who is sitting on the fence is to go ahead and try it. It looks much harder than it really is, especially with the video tutorial that we now have.

Here is an example of the good and the bad! This is over the mountains between Vienna and Innsbruck. You can see how well the low-res works, and also see the various different colors of areas photographed at different times.

The screen shot had to be reduced to 640x410 to upload. It is much sharper in real life.

Quote from frui

Thanks for the suggestion, but 1m/level 14 is really minimal for take off and landing. In the era of the old dated FSX, I was using 0.5m for large area converted with FSET. I really wouldn't go back and down much from that. FS2 deserves better resolution, and it sure has the potential. It just need GeoConvert to be as bug free as FSET and Orho4XP

I do the airports in 14 lol. I do the airports and the area nearby in higher res, otherwise the runways aren't sharp enough.