Sign in to follow this  
Guest Water Mango

I can't believe this stuff is still coming out for FS9

Recommended Posts

4 months into FSX and we're still seeing this kind of stuff for FS9. http://www.bush-pilots.net/viewtopic.php?t=1350Free add-on's like this (and KBOS V2.1) make it easier to stay put with FS9 for awhile longer (maybe until FS11 depending on the various FSX patches). Who says GA is dead in FS9 now that FSX is on the market (and the performance is outstanding as well)??? ;-)I know I'm not saying anything new but this new add-on is outstanding, the wonderful dusk/dawn shots with full ground lighting makes me wonder how FSX will look if that bug ever get's fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Very nice scenery, perhaps you should post this in the FS9 forum as the only thing this post has to do with FSX is your very vocal discontent with it, thanks for contributing.Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Four months into FS2004 we were still seeing major releases for FS2002 - nothing new.2. FSX has made some big changes which mean George would have to throw out almost the entire KBOS scenery, his updates and who knows how many months of work - start over from almost scratch.And FSX still has some unsolved issues with ground textures and the curving earth which prevent this type of scenery from being produced. Issues which may not be solved until FS11 hits the streets.IMHO FSX is a great leap forward, in someways a bigger leap than FS2004 was, which was huge.Scenery like this will be the hardest and most difficult thing to bring forward. The question is will FSX ever be able to support scenery like George's KBOS???These are not bugs, but items purposely left out of the final product because the development solution could not be found. The threads are on this forum if you want full details.Will they be 'fixed'? I don't know. They won't stop me from flying and enjoying FSX, but I'm certainly not going to complain about a great product for an older version of FS.There have been some amazing releases for FS98 in the past few months - I guess people are still buying it, and devloping for it, along with FS2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Very vocal" is, IMHO, a gross understatement. Congratulations, Chris. You ought to write some sort of auto-FSX-hating-posting bot. It'd save you a few hours a week (though it may take a few months to pay off, what with the time to program it and all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is why are we even still bothering with this stuff? Move on, to FSX if you can, or want to, or don't. Thousands of people probably still run FS2002. Let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to realize who is the artist that creates this caliber of scenery, Holger Sandmann! He's been doing this for years, and just keeps getting better and better. Not all of his work is freeware, take a look at Misty Fjords, Tongass Fjords, and Vancouver+. Once they get the wrinkles ironed out of FSX, I'm sure he will make it available. Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like -M.Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that so-called "professional scenery designers" claim that they can't reproduce the same "quality of work" in FSX that they can in FS9...Here's a perfect example showing that it CAN be done, using nothing more than the techniques allowed by the FSX SDK:"After Orlando scenery, here my new airport for FSX, thanks to the new SDK, now, are implemented all the FSX characteristics. Thanks to ACES Team!Alessandro Cucinotta"http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/94/cid0...b4329cb0vt0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I can't believe that so-called "professional scenery>designers" claim that they can't reproduce the same "quality>of work" in FSX that they can in FS9...>>Here's a perfect example showing that it CAN be done,>using nothing more than the techniques allowed by the FSX>SDK:>Hello Bill,That's interesting, because what I see on this image is a thinly disguised default taxiway and apron, with a phototexture underlayer for good measure. It might look high-res from this height, but trust me, on ground level, a single layer 0.5 m/pixel image is nothing to write home about...That said, we (the scenery designers) aren't staying idle either. FSX proves to be a though nut to crack, but we're all hammering at it.Best,St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"a thinly disguised default taxiway and apron, with a phototexture underlayer for good measure."Thankyou for making it clear to everyone! :-hah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think fsx is a disgrace, they spent time on silly things they didnt need. Why not fix the basic errors in their logic and code things like hot starts, some real turboprop logic and some other things that are actually important, with all the time they had its pretty pathetic what they have done with fsx. And with the addons created by the real programming genius's (our wonderful 3rd pary developers) alot of the time I cant even tell if its an fsx or fs9 shot, the way I can tell is by looking for the absence of the fps eating autogen that most users disabled by setting the slider all the way left, then I know its fsx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laid down some 0.3m photos, thinking that would be the ticket, but I was very disappointed. Maybe my source data wasn't up to scratch, but I would like to see an example of photo tiles in FSX at any resolution that can match what was done in FS9 with ground scenery objects.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I still think fsx is a disgrace, they spent time on silly>things they didnt need. Why not fix the basic errors in their>logic and code things like hot starts, some real turboprop>logic and some other things that are actually important, with>all the time they had its pretty pathetic what they have done>with fsx. And with the addons created by the real programming>genius's (our wonderful 3rd pary developers) alot of the time>I cant even tell if its an fsx or fs9 shot, the way I can tell>is by looking for the absence of the fps eating autogen that>most users disabled by setting the slider all the way left,>then I know its fsx.Personally, I have more of an interest in topography elevations, as well as city/mountain scapes than turboprop hot starts, but that's my own preference. And this is where I'm at, at the moment....I absolutely "love" my FS9 airport scenery such as FlightScenery's Portland! It looks fantastic! The detail is as good as it gets, and it does look better than the Cloud 9 FSX offering, IMO. But once away from the airport, and a couple of thousand feet above ground level, then I'd much rather be running my FSX, for everyday rural, mountain, and city areas. Unless I'm running specific scenery areas, FSX just looks all around bettter, due to the higher resolution testures; at least "most" of the time. It's much sharper looking underneath the aircraft, as well as in the distance. FS9, even with addons such as GE Pro, just doesn't compare in looks, when flying over default cities, and many mountain areas. And yes, I do have a tendency to disable auto-gen in FSX. Auto-gen looks kind of stupid when it overlays high res. photo-real textures. Those cartoony houses stupid in FS9 too, when you really look at them, but they help to hide the muddier ground textures. So that's it! I'm a fan of FSX and like a lot of what it has to offer; and I'll be buying the new Phoenix scenery for FSX the day it comes out. As it is now, I believe that FSX is going to remain short on fps headroom for some addons. And for that reason, I'm still downloading new and old, FS9 freeware & payware addons. What I get for FSX will just depend on what and where, and how they effect frame rates. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Imagine if FS9 allowed for super high res textures like FSX...man that would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Just imagine what would happen if that were true and we had three or four more teams with the calibre of Flight Scenery ;-) and FlyTampa . . . (assuming the earth would still be flat, of course). :-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>That's interesting, because what I see on this image is a>thinly disguised default taxiway and apron, with a>phototexture underlayer for good measure. It might look>high-res from this height, but trust me, on ground level, a>single layer 0.5 m/pixel image is nothing to write home>about...>>That said, we (the scenery designers) aren't staying idle>either. FSX proves to be a though nut to crack, but we're all>hammering at it."...thinly disguised default taxiway and apron," Interesting indeed, since there isn't a lick of default scenery or phototexture underlayer in that image. Cloud 9 is every bit as "professional" as anyone else in the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this