.....I can go to the loo and make a cup of tea.

 

You make tea in the loo? :blink:

but holger was not with the team from day one.. by the time he joined it was too late to make about turn maybe.. and well if I take john's stand on things, I am pretty sure it could have been a case of "I say so", we know the rest..!

I'll say this one more time and then I am out of this thread for good as this very subject has been discussed to exhaustion before years ago by far smarter people than I.

 

A long time before Earth Simulations became their own developer the guy behind the venture had already done what Orbx was doing (with another company) well before they even started out in scenery design and he stuck to the SDK and appended to the core scenery files! His scenery worked fine with everyone else's. Yes ES don't make Landclass scenery but the basics of sticking new never before seen Autogen and trees on top of textures is the same for Photo Scenery, except its on a much larger scale because no ground image sheet is ever used twice.

 

The same index files are involved with both scenery types and must be added to so that new types of autogen and vegetation can appear in the sim on top of those ground textures. There is nothing arcane about appending to the description files, it just involves some thought and good housekeeping. All the details are in the SDK docs but Orbx chose to say stuff it to the SDK and to every other developer out there and completely replaced even the default files, so in the process of added their own custom Autogen and trees they broke every other scenery out there that relied on appended core scenery files or even the default description files.

 

SO IT IS POSSIBLE, ES has done it with numerous projects like the Channel Isles and Shawbury Fields and it's written in black and white (and yellow) in the SDK documentation, lol.

Thank you Andy for having the patience to explain the mysteries behind the veil!

 

Kind regards,

You make tea in the loo? :blink:

 

Haha, got me in stitches, stop it Ron :lol:

SteveW, on 22 November 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

 

.....I can go to the loo and make a cup of tea.

Posted Today, 09:00 PM

 

 

 

Ron Attwood, on 22 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

 

You make tea in the loo? :blink:

 

 

 

...you don't have a kettle in the loo Ron? ...... How uncivilized. :lol:

 

We're Brits - there's no place unsuitable for tea! :smile:

Just don't go to Africa with FTX-EU enabled...

 

Glad i saw this at a friend's before purchasing it. Meh. It's ridiculous having to enable and disable scenery while flying... They surely can do better than that....

 

 

Not sure what set up your friend has going there as I have no issue whatsoever (see screenies below) - where was that shot taken??

 

 

 

 

These shots were taken with FTX Eng still enabled whilst over Libya (just outside Tripoli) with GEX AFME textures - all looks fine to me with no switching necessary!!

 

Regards

 

Steve

 

EDIT.......Forget the above....just done some more flying in Africa, and noticed the blue/cyan autogen issue (real trippy man!!!), and some texture issues myself now - not quite as drastic as Nuno's screenshot but still there nevertheless.

 

Bugger!

...you don't have a kettle in the loo Ron? ...... How uncivilized. :lol:

 

 

You may not have heard of these up north, but we, down south, soft as we might be, have what we know as a 'Kitchen' Great for making tea in.

 

The switching problem shows that Orbx is focusing on GA. That's also why they only release smaller airports nowadays and no big ones anymore. There aren't many GA flyers that would want to fly from one region to another...

 

I suspect the reason they focus on GA is because it takes a fraction of the time to create say a Goodwood size airport than it does a Gatwick or Stansted and you can sell it at maybe a little over half the price. Seems clear that Brisbane and Melbourne weren't great money spinners...

 

 

View PostJ van E, on 22 November 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

 

 

The switching problem shows that Orbx is focusing on GA. That's also why they only release smaller airports nowadays and no big ones anymore. There aren't many GA flyers that would want to fly from one region to another...

 

I suspect the reason they focus on GA is because it takes a fraction of the time to create say a Goodwood size airport than it does a Gatwick or Stansted and you can sell it at maybe a little over half the price. Seems clear that Brisbane and Melbourne weren't great money spinners...

 

 

Coming from a heavy flyer I do like the big airports and aside from the terrible FPS I did like the ORBX International airports produced. However I do agree that it is more GA focused now with the scenery but that can't justify for the problems they're scenery is causing and to sweep it under the carpet and pretend no one ever saw this thread because 'ORBX is much bigger than AVSIM'.

Never flown over Africa. Looking at those shots above must say I have no inclination too, either. Bit like AU used to be before VOZ days in fs9.

You make tea in the loo? :blink:

 

Better watch out for the steam...

 

H

...and maybe get a chocolate biscuit from the pantry :excl: I've been flying around for hours, hardly ever over 1000ft, the scenery is so much better than stock, it's worth it even if it does contribute to world unrest.

...and maybe get a chocolate biscuit from the pantry :excl: I've been flying around for hours, hardly ever over 1000ft, the scenery is so much better than stock, it's worth it even if it does contribute to world unrest.

 

Any aspect of Flight Sim in general it appears, contributes to world unrest Steve! :lol: ..... We're a funny old bunch.....

 

Flight Simmer 1: "Flight Sim isn't a matter of life and death you know..."

 

Flight Simmer 2: "Of course not..... it's far more important than that!"

 

:lol:

Just discovered my "temp" forum ban from ORBX for daring to question the quality of FTX ENG is a whole year. Yes folks, the boss of the company really is that childish.

 

I wonder what the consumer rights law on this is. Essentially I'm being denied the regular avenue to technical support for a product I have paid for. Perhaps I should seek a refund if the company is not willing to offer future support to my purchase.