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

>>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.>>>Hello Bill,I was about to write that you surely haven't read what I wrote carefully, but I just realized you've quoted me twice. So here goes...Just to reassure yourself, get on the ground at that airport (if you don't please don't bother replying to this post), look at the tarmac and taxiway textures, look at the boundary of said textures with the grass (which is made of a single layer image, I didn't say default). There's a "dirt and grime" layer under that tarmac, but the main tarmac/taxiway textures are default. No problem with that.. just a fact.Sorry Bill, I have a lot of respect for your work and immense contribution here, but I fear you might be a bit out of your league as far as the technicalities and limitations of the FSX graphics engine for displaying scenery ground objects. I highly doubt you've been spending the last 6 months actively working on resolving these very issues for fsx sceneries. I have... It's my livelihood.Now as for your last sentence... I think it's great that Cloud9 is making FSX sdk compliant sceneries. They are making perfectly valid products, and nowhere have I implied that they aren't professionnal. They have chosen to go with the sdk, do as best as possible with the ground and move on. Great for them!Best,St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Sorry Bill, I have a lot of respect for your work and immense>contribution here, but I fear you might be a bit out of your>league as far as the technicalities and limitations of the FSX>graphics engine for displaying scenery ground objects. I>highly doubt you've been spending the last 6 months actively>working on resolving these very issues for fsx sceneries. I>have... It's my livelihood.OK, that's a fair enough statement. I am indeed not well-versed in scenery design, although I do make it a habit to read what's posted in the ACES developer's newsgroup(s), the beta newsgroup(s), and the forums at http://fsdevelopers.com... ;)As far as what was used in the Bergen-Flesland scenery, I have only what Umberto and Alessandro themselves have written to go on, which states clearly that all the default scenery is overridden by their package.However, my main point is - that just as I've had to do with my own development work in a/c modeling and gauge programming - scenery developers will likewise have to inevitably embrace and accept the new "paradigm" and go on to develop new tricks, or remain stuck as a "one trick pony..." :-beerchug Like yourself, my work in modeling and programming is my only source of income, so of course my major attention has been in those areas for the most part. My only regret at this juncture is that I "wasted" nearly six months trying to adapt my "tried-and-true bag of tricks" to the new paradigm. Having gotten past that however, I'm beginning to LIKE the new methods I've been able to work out... :-bigangel In any case though, I mean absolutely no disrespect for anyone by my comments and observations. I have the utmost respect for all developers's efforts whether payware or freeware!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,I don't want add much to the rant, there are Demos of these sceneries.But as far as "new tricks" go, I can't stay quite on that one. Both MCO as well as Bergen contain the grass rendering technique introduced in Vauchez's own PDX scenery. Of course this type of technique and textures isn't patented and copying/imitating "the best" is part how designers improve, but when I hear "new tricks" without proper credit given (= Vauchez) I reach my boiling point.And again about airport ground design methods. There is a certain way how this should be done which is in 3DSMax (or other 3d Prog) and with layers or multitextures. This isn't MSFS related or antique or 1 of many methods, this THE method how it should be done. Even the Aces folks agree on that, they just couldn't implement it in FSX ("yet" I hope).martinflytampa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add for the record.Bill: I am aware you mentioned "tricks" in a general way, you just pressed my nuke-button mentioning it together with that screenshot.I can fully understand your (and many others' people) view that some scenery designers appear stuck because they cannot apply their old magic anymore and need to learn something new.Let me assure you, this FSX ground stuff is not comparable to: Before I programmed in VB and now I am "######" because I have to do it in C++ which I don't know and have to learn.Not the case. This high detail / high resolution custom ground stuff is completely missing in the new SDK. I hope Aces can integrate some method in future that will allow us to achieve the same or better results people got used to in FS9 addon airports.martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Not the case. This high detail / high resolution custom ground>stuff is completely missing in the new SDK. I hope Aces can>integrate some method in future that will allow us to achieve>the same or better results people got used to in FS9 addon>airports.Martin, I see that issue as no different than the one where ACES has removed the possibility of using emissive textures for VC gauge backlighting. It has taken me many months of fulltime effort to perfect a completely new method using what is available. It's significantly more work - nearly 2.5 times as much! - but the end result is actually better than the previous method.Likewise with quite a number of other things that no longer work as expected. Some functionality has been lost, but a lot more "new stuff" has been added, and simply awaits full exploitation.The net result of all these changes though means that true FSX compliant a/c models are not transportable back to FS9. This means parallel development of the same product to serve both markets.And yes, I meant the term "trick" in the general sense; as in "advanced appliction of knowledge resulting in superior results."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,The thing with the ground detail is that the task is rather simple.All you need is that a custom shape/polygon lays on the ground showing your custom UV mapped texture. Because this is such a basic thing, there are not that many different ways to achieve it. You can turn off the light using the switch or a hammer, but there is no point in going to university to figure out a new method to get the lights out.VC and Gauge programming is way more complex then scenery design and this extra complexity also accounts for creative solutions. The task how to put a custom texture on a ground-polygon isn't something we can be very creative about. It either works or it doesn't.To our knowledge this custom texture on a custom shape ground-polygon simply cannot be done with the FSX SDK at this point.1. ShapeData and Resample aren't UV-able and limited in texture resolution.2. XML airport data is generic, not UV-able and no custom textures.3. 3DSMAX FSX-SDK doesn't feature a ground-polygon method.Nothing else available and mixing 1,2,3 to a workable solution isn't possible.IMO this super-simple task is also not something developers should have to sweat months to figure out - perhaps some hidden checkbox or source code code-hack. It should be documented somewhere. If developer A figured out a hack good for them, thanks for sharing the method on FS-Developer (Not).

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