Is that like being a cross-dresser?

 

It costs £50 an hour for that in the UK with free refreshments afterwards

I have the utmost respect for anyone who can publicly admit they were passing judgment on something they hadn’t experienced. And admit they were wrong after gaining said experience. If there were more people like you in the world, it would definitely be a better place.

It costs £50 an hour for that in the UK with free refreshments afterwards

I am concerned that you know that.

Apology accepted :lol:

I am concerned that you know that.

lol, was gonna ask for the number...

 

ok guys, I'm almost at a loss now, one day I'm looking at ORBX ENG and loving what I see, then the next I'm hearing some of you bashing it into the ground...

Seems that while its not perfect, its better than the alternatives?

 

I'm going to combine it with all of UK2000's airports and all 3 VFR Airfields too... Seems ORBX have a decent reputation and are likely to fix stuff or else die of shame if they don't?

Actually the UK, especially in the South has far greater obstacles than the Rockies or the Alps. Unlike these natural barriers some of the UK's descend from the sky ....and they're invisble except to the ATC radar operators and the VFR pilot really "eyeballing" landmarks and VRPs to make sure he doesn't fall foul of a CAA summons :huh: . Sadly neither ORBX or FSX provide anything like the complexity of a real UK VFR chart so unless you want to fork out for one (or more to cover the entire island) you can just blunder around as if they didn't exist. Of course tube jockeys "assume" the priviledges of flying in controlled airspace but GA pilots need SVFR clearances (sort of covered in FSX ATC where they mark such areas) to venture there and over London you need to be in a twin. So ...to "simulate" a GA VFR flight in Southern England is far from easy as long detours around controlled airspace is the reality as well as specific minimum AND maximum altitudes in some areas.

 

Of course you have to "simulate" this for yourself and I don't think the CAA charts are available online as the FAA ones are? Correct me if I'm wrong?

 

The other thing that makes the UK a real challenge is REAL weather and the speed with which it changes. That ought to be do'able with all the weather add-ons out there. Of course built up areas and VFR minimums means that in reality there are occassions when the GA VFR pilot just gets to sit in the clubhouse and drink bad instant coffee. ALWAYS bad INSTANT coffee.

 

I would say it's better in wilder parts but then you find military exercise areas ....just in case one or other of the RAFs aircraft are actually servicable to fly :lol: ....but even so usually a no go area.

 

Geoff

I am concerned that you know that.

:LMAO:

then the next I'm hearing some of you bashing it into the ground...

Seems that while its not perfect, its better than the alternatives?

Well I can't say I've seen that. :huh: I have seen a lot of constructive criticism and some rather silly or OTT responses to that. It's not bad but it could and should be a lot better.

 

It's the best option yet. The UK is a challenging place to scenery as it has so many different types in very small geographic areas within what is already a pretty small area. What makes it challenging for landclass scenery is the sheer range of architecture from hundreds of years of architectural heritage and the random nature of UK development and cities. You only have to compare satelitte imagery of different areas in the ORBX regions (Oz NZ PNW and ENG) to see how different these are. Just take an objective look at the differences in the way buildings are laid out and the styles and colours of buildings in different European Cities. There are few areas in the UK with "Californian" size plots and usually the closer to a city centre you get the denser the building is. As a first pass this beats anything yet but a bit (lot?) more work on the landclass and autogen would make what's OK into something outstanding.

 

The rather silly comments that people are happy with other areas because they don't know them frankly don't stand up. We can safely assume that anyone enjoying FSX has reasonable eyesight and you can see for yourself how well various areas are covered just by looking at the real thing. I don't have to live in the PNW to know what it looks like. It's there on Google Earth, Virtual Earth, Street View etc.etc.

 

As I pointed out above much GA VFR aviation in the UK is carried out with a ceiling of 2500' (weather permitting) and it's from there on down it needs to excel?

 

My generation was taught in a regime where there were passes and failures, % marks, form position, "good effort"s, "poor effort"s, "Very little effort appears to have gone into this piece of work SEE ME." This awfully un PC world had no concept of everything being on a scale of a good effort, even when the work was blatantly below par. In fact we got thrashed for not making an effort. So you see the idea that anyone has "bashed this into the ground" is just daft to me.

 

BTW hope the talk of thrashing doesn't bring the tone down even further :lol:

 

I've used the analogy before. If a car manufacturer makes a model that has faults or fails to perform as advertised everyone is interested in the feedback. The manufacturer doesn't ridicule their critics. It sets to and improves the areas needing further attention. It gains respect, reassures customers and upholds the brands reputation.

 

Geoff

So you see the idea that anyone has "bashed this into the ground" is just daft to me.

Holy Crap Geoff, I was just using any expression to say people were not praising it well...

Christ mate, no need to dissect it word for word, it was the overall point I was aiming at..

 

I was hoping to use the ORBX ENG for VFR flying, as it certainly looks good enough to recognise places easily from the screenshots on their website..

Holy Crap Geoff, I was just using any expression to say people were not praising it well...

Christ mate, no need to dissect it word for word, it was the overall point I was aiming at..

I was hoping to use the ORBX ENG for VFR flying, as it certainly looks good enough to recognise places easily from the screenshots on their website..

:lol: Lets be clear here. No personal slight intended :huh: AND I'd recommend anyone to buy FTX ENG if they're into VFR flying or GA. Sorry if I come across as harsh but check out the official forum? <_<

 

I failed to notice that we're in the FSX forum as most posts on this are in the unofficial ORBX forum. My comments were aimed at the detractors of the critics there. <_< FTX has done better, and hopefully will improve FTX ENG, but there are one or two skimped areas that really spoil it for me personally.

 

I'm not into tubes myself and when I see the excellent screengrabs the tube jockeys post here I often note that the photoreal sceneries look pretty good from 5000'. Of course as we all know that illusion turns into a blurred disappointment on finals with the excellent airports available sticking out like oasis in a deserted landscape. FTX corrects that and is pretty convincing in most areas. The initial ENG has some areas that need a lot of work ....BUT it IS the entirety of ENGLAND done better than anyone else has managed. IMO they would have done better doing smaller areas with more attention to local detail. Sure it would cost more but everyone else has chosen a division by latitude. Even the CAA for it's VFR charts!

 

Geoff

 

BTW I have ALL the FTX landclass and quite a few PNW airfields so my comments are those of a customer ....not a troll

I just saw that this was out. I have never used ORBx scenery before - how hard does it hit the FPS?

 

Sorry also, am I able to install this over the top of my UTX/GEX installation?

Lets be clear here. No personal slight intended AND I'd recommend anyone to buy FTX ENG if they're into VFR flying or GA. Sorry if I come across as harsh but check out the official forum?

Fair enough mate :drinks:

I just saw that this was out. I have never used ORBx scenery before - how hard does it hit the FPS?

Can't say I've ever had an issue with the FTX landclass scenery as far as FPS. Some denser autogen regions obviously take a hit but nothing dramatic for me (with a new'ish but far from overclocked machine)

 

Sorry also, am I able to install this over the top of my UTX/GEX installation?

Works for me and flying across the "border" of FTX ENG into UTX/GEX Wales is seamless. Just different ^_^ .

 

Despite my criticism the FTX scenery is the best out there for GA Low n Slow virtual pilots like me. The PNW and Rockies regions have had a few patches and makeovers and have by far the most add-on airfields and that's the best yet in terms of coverage.

 

Having said that the UK2000 airfields work well with the FTX ENG scenery so the two in combination gives one of the best coverages of any VFR area yet?

 

Geoff

Can't say I've ever had an issue with the FTX landclass scenery as far as FPS. Some denser autogen regions obviously take a hit but nothing dramatic for me (with a new'ish but far from overclocked machine)

 

 

Works for me and flying across the "border" of FTX ENG into UTX/GEX Wales is seamless. Just different ^_^ .

 

Despite my criticism the FTX scenery is the best out there for GA Low n Slow virtual pilots like me. The PNW and Rockies regions have had a few patches and makeovers and have by far the most add-on airfields and that's the best yet in terms of coverage.

 

Having said that the UK2000 airfields work well with the FTX ENG scenery so the two in combination gives one of the best coverages of any VFR area yet?

 

Geoff

 

Thank you for your reply - I am reinstalling my entire simulator now due to a recent format. Is this the correct order?

 

FSX

FSX Accelerations

UTC

GTX

ORBX

REX

NGX

 

So many abbreviations...

Keep the Rex but let Opus drive the weather. Far, far better!