Whilst we impatiently wait for any news.

[Kaboki 437]

Well I'm surprised nobody has commented on this from the man himself!

In response to request for info or screenshots on the UK on the OFFICIAL ORBX Forum.

 

I have to say I'm intrigued by the "Joint Announcement".

 

The Earth Simulations Alderney I have is about as close to a mix of ORBX and Photoreal as you can get. If that's what they've done for the Mainland it should be impressive?

 

I do have concerns that with so many "recognisable" architectural features packed so densely into such a small geographic area that they are that close to release. Too much generic autogen could really spoil it? Against that it has to run in the Sim and not slow things down too much?

 

Pure conjecture till we see some shots and a video.

 

Geoff

 

Here's one of Earth Simulations Alderney

 

 

For those of you who haven't seen any of Earth Simulations stuff before this project is the closest thing to ORBX. Read the blurb and check out the screengrabs.

http://earthsimulati...ury-fields.html

 

I was nagging a bit about the ES compitability with orbx at the Orbx forum.

 

And I think John Venema(Orbx CEO) got a bit tired of it and stated this:

"Darren has written a simple tool called ESMerge which we'll be using to allow both FTX England and ES sceneries to be active concurrently, so there won't be an issue."

 

But he also said that this is only for the ES standalone products like "Channel Islands" and "Isles of Scilly"

 

qoute from John:

 

"FTX is not compatible with Horizon VFR photoreal at all within a region, just in the same way as it's not compatible with GEX or UTX or MegaScenery Earth etc. To clarify, any FTX region in the UK (say, England) will be displayed over the top of any photoreal product you already have installed. However until we release Wales, Scotland etc, you could in theory have FTX England installed and when you cross the boundary to Scotland you could continue to use Horizon's photoreal product.

 

ES sceneries are stand-alone photoreal + autogen islands in the English Channel and as such you can run them concurrently with FTX England as long as you place them higher in the scenery library priority within FSX, although I believe that Holger set the boundary of the England region to not include the channel islands so you may not need to fiddle with the scenery library at all. We will be testing this over the coming weeks and the user guide will include full instructions about how to make ES co-exist."

 

 

With respect the more important issue just raised over there but not fully answered in some respects is how the FTX UK stuff will co-exist with pre existing European sceneries of ALL types.

 

FTX are reportedly working with ES to ensure compatability but there's still some testing reportedly in progress with other pre existing sceneries. Even us GA Low 'n Slow types will want to head across the Channel, North Sea or Irish Sea, just as our real world GA pilots do. Until FTX covers that we'll need compatability?

 

Trouble is that each question raised seems a bit like walking on egg-shells? One of my threads already locked because someone brought up the UK photoreal stuff. It's their forum but obviously customers have invested in other publishers products and want to know about compatability and conflicts.

 

The trouble with forums is that info gets lost in many threads. IMHO they need to "Pin" a topic about compatability so that folk can see what they're testing abd add any that they have concerns about. Hardly dare suggest it after my thread got locked though. :unsure: :huh:

 

Geoff.

 

I think it's a warm welcome that Orbx doing UK because there isn't any good landclass alternative. And by compitabilety with Horozon why should they, what they do Its a complete different type of scenery and I can't see how those too could coexist, should orbx just place autogen trees and houses on top of that photo scenery? I personally don't like the uk photosceney because i dont think it look good while flying 100 feet of the ground. And for those who like Horizon photoreal why dont stick with it why do you need Orbx?

 

But what ES have done to the channel island is superb, look good even 100 feet of the ground and have autogen and trees, so I see why they have included compitabilty with it. No need to reinventing the wheel as John Venema said.

 

 

[lateagain 45]

Well unless I totally miss the point what is needed is for FTX to ensure that when you fly out of their scenery coverage ANY other scenery you have installed is seamlessly available. Not just UK specific competitors. I'm not sure what

"as it's not compatible with GEX or UTX or MegaScenery Earth etc"

....means if in the next sentence he says...

"However until we release Wales, Scotland etc, you could in theory have FTX England installed and when you cross the boundary to Scotland you could continue to use Horizon's photoreal product."

....so why would that not be true of the previously mentioned sceneries? When you fly out of the NA ORBX sceneries there's a seamless transition to whatever you have installed for FSX or the US generally isn't there?

 

Rather thah clarify the issue this seems to confuse the issue to me ...but maybe that's me being thick! Surely it's about priorities in the scenery heirarchy whatever you have installed? Mind you there is of course the issue of the FTX "Region selection tool" and I'm assuming this will start showing a UK ...and later Europe Region alongside Oceania and North America?

 

I'm sure they will work to achieve this but a simple thread where folk can "heads up" any add-on they have already would surely help FTX's developers. It would also reassure potential buyers? Just seems to me that consultation at this stage of development will save grief and patching closer to, or after release?

 

Still we'll see soon enough I guess.

 

Geoff

[Kaboki 437]

IMHO they need to "Pin" a topic about compatability so that folk can see what they're testing abd add any that they have concerns about. Hardly dare suggest it after my thread got locked though. :unsure: :huh:

 

Geoff.

 

 

They also have a forum section dedicated about compatability so I don't see the problem. I think they are very fair when it comes to asking about compability but UK hasn't been realised yet so I see why quiestins being raised about compability can be hard to answer and when threads getting out of hand, and people start to promote other companys products I fully understand their decision to lock it.

[lateagain 45]

They also have a forum section dedicated about compatability so I don't see the problem

Fair comment, but that is "Reactive" as opposed to "Proactive"?

 

Geoff

 

PS I studied design at College and we were always taught to exhaustively research whether our design solutions addressed ALL aspects of the brief/problem. This was stage ONE before you strated creating anything. 44 years later it's pretty obvious to me that some "designers" of just about anything never grasped that lesson! B)

[Kaboki 437]

Well unless I totally miss the point what is needed is for FTX to ensure that when you fly out of their scenery coverage ANY other scenery you have installed is seamlessly available. Not just UK specific competitors. I'm not sure what

 

"as it's not compatible with GEX or UTX or MegaScenery Earth etc"

 

....means if in the next sentence he says...

 

"However until we release Wales, Scotland etc, you could in theory have FTX England installed and when you cross the boundary to Scotland you could continue to use Horizon's photoreal product."

 

....so why would that not be true of the previously mentioned sceneries? When you fly out of the NA ORBX sceneries there's a seamless transition to whatever you have installed for FSX or the US generally isn't there?

 

 

When you have Orbx activated in FTX Central it will always put itself on the top of the scenery you have in the same coverage area, but I think when you fly out of the bounderies of their coverage you will see whatever else you have installed.

I.E if you have UTX in America you will only see the UTX scenery when you fly out of the FTX regions, whitout switching FTX Central, atleast what I have heard by people who has those scenerys and they can coexist whithout problems, but you won't see UTX scenery when inside the FTX region. I think Its what he means buy saying those things.

But I'm not 100% sure about this, maybe start a thread in their FTX compitabily forum?

 

 

Here is an example quoted from Holger Sandman:

 

"Orbx's FTX North American series (PNW, PFJ, NRM) overlaps parts of UTX USA and UTX Canada making the UTX components redundant. However, FTX is coded so that local exclude files will suppress the display of UTX features within the coverage area while leaving UTX completely undisturbed outside the FTX coverage areas. In short FTX and UTX are fully compatible out of the box ..."

 

 

[lateagain 45]

When you have Orbx activated in FTX Central it will always put itself on the top of the scenery you have in the same coverage area, but I think when you fly out of the bounderies of their coverage you will see whatever else you have installed.

I.E if you have UTX in America you will only see the UTX scenery when you fly out of the FTX regions, whitout switching FTX Central, atleast what I have heard by people who has those scenerys and they can coexist whithout problems, but you won't see UTX scenery when inside the FTX region. I think Its what he means buy saying those things.

But I'm not 100% sure about this, maybe start a thread in their FTX compitabily forum?

 

 

Here is an example quoted from Holger Sandman:

 

"Orbx's FTX North American series (PNW, PFJ, NRM) overlaps parts of UTX USA and UTX Canada making the UTX components redundant. However, FTX is coded so that local exclude files will suppress the display of UTX features within the coverage area while leaving UTX completely undisturbed outside the FTX coverage areas. In short FTX and UTX are fully compatible out of the box ..."

 

 

Well that's how I always understood it. However the quote I posted from the Official forum seems to throw doubt on that as it stands? It may be missing something or maybe I/we are?

 

It's not in my nature but I'll leave it to others to clarify there. I've already been banned once for what many here consider reasonable comment and beside which I think your helpful quote and screenshot are correct.

 

I think some of the questions asked on the official forum could have been clearer ......as well as the answers, and it doesn't help when folk ask questions two posts under the answer!!!!! I can understand the respondants frustration at that :lol: ?

 

Geoff

[Kaboki 437]

Well we have to wait and see when Orbx UK comes out and see if people are having issues I guess

 

Didn't mean to start a hot discussion with you and I don't really know so much about the banning people have expirienced at the Orbx forum I just felt your critique whas a bit unfair. Havent seen many other scenery developers trying too hard being compitable with Orbx(Turning things around abit).

But I feel pretty welcomed there and haven't been banned yet and feel It's a great communety and enviroment to participate in, and think they are very helpful when people have problems. They even put up with my nagging and impatiance for not releasing scenery fast enough :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

[Ron Attwood 3,464]

Well we have to wait and see when Orbx UK comes out and see if people are having issues I guess

 

Didn't mean to start a hot discussion with you and I don't really know so much about the banning people have expirienced at the Orbx forum I just felt your critique whas a bit unfair. Havent seen many other scenery developers trying too hard being compitable with Orbx(Turning things around abit).

But I feel pretty welcomed there and haven't been banned yet and feel It's a great communety and enviroment to participate in, and think they are very helpful when people have problems. They even put up with my nagging and impatiance for not releasing scenery fast enough :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

 

I wanted to make this post right away but I desisted. How are you feeling about Orbx now chief? :lol:

[commodor 4]

I wanted to make this post right away but I desisted. How are you feeling about Orbx now chief? :lol:

 

do you want to make problem ? ...

 

it feel like this is the entire point of this forum... make problems... not many good discussion and critique

[Ron Attwood 3,464]

I'm not making the problem, he's doing fine on his own. Do you actually know what I'm referring to?

[Kaboki 437]

Have no problem with Orbx, I sqeured up my dispute with John and he even promised that Bill would look into the issue with the 3D grass B)

I understand really well why he reacted and after awhile he understood my frustration too when he looked deeper into my concerns and perspective.

If you have an issue with me just say what your problem is right away and don't insuate things! :diablo:

I hijack anyones thread anyday when I feel like I need to to get attention....

[Ron Attwood 3,464]

:lol: Yeah, you put him in his place. Carry on the way you are, you're doing just fine. :smile:

[Kaboki 437]

do you want to make problem ? ...

 

it feel like this is the entire point of this forum... make problems... not many good discussion and critique

 

I feel this forum section need more constructive things too not just for people pouting about how they are threated at the Orbx forum..

 

:lol: Yeah, you put him in his place. Carry on the way you are, you're doing just fine. :smile:

 

Yeah still there and will be in the future too :lol:

I have the ability to see my own mistakes, and perfectly understand when putting up negative things in a release announcment thread can be bad for business. Perfectly understandable that John reacted that way. But I got what I wanted, he admitted that the new 3D grass for S45 was new tech and wasn't fully optimized and that Bill would go over it in the Service pack because I made them aware of it. So yeah, Im happy

[lateagain 45]

OK enough squabbling guys. Kaboki you have obviously misunderstood some fundemental and perhaps too subtle points in my post.

 

Your post and the illustration from Holger demonstrate what I always understood to be the case.

 

I'm not criticising anything other than the fact that the quote from the official forum actually contradicts that. Logically that means that either the previously demonstrated compatability does not exist with this latest add-on (unlikely) or that the quote is a mistake? or misunderstanding?

 

This forum exists because folk were having their points and discussions deleted on the official forum and a good few were banned from that forum.

 

This is history and fact. Some still do not have access to the official forum apparently so that is why discussion takes place here. Just because some folk don't find the discussion here useful does not mean that no one finds it useful.

 

I started the thread to prompt discussion about pros and cons of the existing UK sceneries and what we know ORBX has done in other regions. A similar thread on the official forum was locked. At this stage of the development compatability with pre existing sceneries for adjoining sceneries is of interest to those who own them so perhaps we can steer the thread in that direction?

 

Geoff

[Kaboki 437]

Sorry Geoff, about the pouting I wasn't reffering to you specifically or our latest discussion but I read many post in this forum section, and many off them comes out like pouting.

And It sometimes feel like this Forum section is dedicated just for that.

I can see that the latest from JV about compitability could be confusing. But too me It was pretty clear, and I didn't misunderstand it, I expect the compitabilty to be just like I has in the past nothing more nothing less. And by going into their Compitability forum many of my quiestions could be answered there.

 

I even posted and insinuated at the Orbx forum that if not Orbx UK would be compitable with ES "Channel Islands" and "Isles Of Scilly" I would buy Horizon photoscenery instead of the upcoming Orbx UK(To trigger a response). And after awhile John came with a statement that It will be compitable and that Darren had written a program called ESmerge that would ensure that.

Even made a little "commercial" and linked to avsim off my own screenshots of this scenery praising and encouraging other users to get it and didn't get banned or warned for that. Almost even expected that to happen considering what I have read here and I would have understand if I did, but I like to live dangerously . But all in all I think they have put up with much from me especially considering todays events I had on the forum :lol: (You can't find all the posts i made because it got hidden from the Release announcment thread for S45, but I can tell you some of my comments where pretty rough)

 

After all they run a bizniss and I can understand they don't want to much attention to other competing scenerys and their forum Is after all dedicated to Orbx and support for their products.

Even If I someday get banned I will never stop praising Orbx products or the company as I like booth and can understand their agenda ^_^

 

 

 

And last to Ron Attwood no offence mate, but I just reacted maybe unfair when you got cranky at me for posting in your thread and I made a remark that what you where expiriencing really wasn't a problem, trying to get Bill to responsd to far bigger issues(Still don't see why you had to start a support thread for something that already had been announced, read trough posts in the forum before acting, me and another user had already raised concerns about the Photoreal stuff the day before it got released and Bill responded to it pretty quickly explaing why it was left out)

 

Cheers