I think you are wrong. Just as you can use higher res. textures for clouds and aircraft, you could use higher res. textures for autogen. It will cost performance though as the file size will be higher, which in turn leads to OOM problems etc...

 

Actually, for land class purposes FSX is only able to utilize 1024x1024 textures and display at a maximum of 1m resolution. Prepar3D has implemented the ability to use 4096 textures, which from reading their forum they have implemented around the Norfolk, Va area as a demonstration.

 

FSX will use higher resolution textures, but that is put in via other means than land class tiles.

Now, listen up folks;

If we have replacement textures for the stock ones, AND they look ORBX quality, sharper, more HIRES, then we will all be happy ?

I sure would be!.

 

I wouldn't be so sure, it will look different and in the style of ORBX, whether their textures better represent what YOUR part of the world looks like is more down to luck than anything else, exactly the same situation you would have with GEX or some other imaginary product using the default landclass techniques.

 

The pool of default landclass scenery textures is just far too small/limited to fairly represent the whole world. That is the reason why OBX chose to design their regional products like they did, it's just a shame they chose to replace default description files rather than append to them, there would be no need for FTX central if they had done what the FSX SDK recommends, there would be no conflicts with other landclass scenery products either..

it's just a shame they chose to replace default description files rather than append to them, there would be no need for FTX central if they had done what the FSX SDK recommends, there would be no conflicts with other landclass scenery products either..

 

Agreed..

 

Some don't play well with others, that is why compatibility is out of the question for them, as I said before there is more than one way to skin a cat, you all wait and see....

Whilst I think $200 is a reasonable price for what they're selling, it blows my mind that it will be incompatible with OrbX payware airports. I can't think of any reason for that whatsoever, beyond forcing you to buy the full regions separately. Yes they may have a different mesh and elevation data but why that couldn't be implemented in a basic form to at least allow compatibility I really don't know.

Agreed..

 

Some don't play well with others, that is why compatibility is out of the question for them, as I said before there is more than one way to skin a cat, you all wait and see....

 

+1

 

It has been categorically proven that Orbx could implement their FTX regions using an append approach, which would require absolutely no such hassle, incompatibilities, usability constraints etc, as with the "FTX Central/Mode Switch" approach.

 

Until Orbx decide to invest in re-configuring their product range in the FSX-SDK recommened way of appending rather than replacing files, there are just too many issues when flying between areas, or with swapping back and forward.

 

If you put a "Global wide" product into the mix, along with all of the other 'switchable regions' ...... well I am getting a headache just thinking about how screwed up things could get!

 

Come on Orbx - instead of just railroading out new revenue streams, you need to fix your current approach to the configuration of your areas within FSX.

 

Kill off "FTX Central" and just make your products installable/uninstallable, without all the region switching.

 

 

Actually, for land class purposes FSX is only able to utilize 1024x1024 textures and display at a maximum of 1m resolution. Prepar3D has implemented the ability to use 4096 textures, which from reading their forum they have implemented around the Norfolk, Va area as a demonstration.

 

FSX will use higher resolution textures, but that is put in via other means than land class tiles.

 

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

Some don't play well with others, that is why compatibility is out of the question for them, as I said before there is more than one way to skin a cat, you all wait and see....

 

The nature of the FS community and most of the human race, so you are just stating the obvious.

The nature of the FS community and most of the human race, so you are just stating the obvious.

 

LOL, I choosed to not be the cat.

 

My name is Alain and I am a Orbx's recovering addict... :Party:

Kill off "FTX Central" and just make your products installable/uninstallable, without all the region switching.

 

Not what you want to hear, but one step in the right direction:

We are also looking to simplify FTX region switching so that only the autogen trees and building textures are swapped in/out by FTX Central but all our regions can remain active concurrently. This would allow continual flights between the USA and UK for instance, with only trees and buildings being affected.

 

I don't like the FTX Central much either. I have a few too many ORBX sceneries after their last ever sale, but haven't bothered installing most of them. Just too much work installing everything one by one, and making sure you have all the patches/updates etc.

Just to be clear, since my understanding of how this works is fairly shallow; if Orbx used the "append" method, would they have the same texture freedom/variety for various regions as they have now?

Not what you want to hear, but one step in the right direction:

We are also looking to simplify FTX region switching so that only the autogen trees and building textures are swapped in/out by FTX Central but all our regions can remain active concurrently. This would allow continual flights between the USA and UK for instance, with only trees and buildings being affected.

 

That sounds good, but they are not going far enough there.

 

I have a few too many ORBX sceneries after their last ever sale, but haven't bothered installing most of them. Just too much work installing everything one by one, and making sure you have all the patches/updates etc.

 

Exactly the same here! :smile:

 

I think the whole Orbx world (small 'w', not large), is a very messy, scattered one in terms of the switching but also poor communication in terms of which airports are in which area etc*, and as you touched upon, the patches.

 

It is visually beautiful - no arguments there - but FTX can be a real hassle, when you're short of time in this hobby.

 

 

* Please no-one say "KMZ" file to me, I don't want to mess about with KMZ files, I just want Orbx to say "this airport is in the FTX CRM region" for example, on all of their airport product pages. :smile:

 

 

LOL, I choosed to not be the cat.

 

My name is Alain and I am a Orbx's recovering addict... :Party:

 

Recoveting myself, as you can see from my answer above. No ORBX scenety installed anymore...

I don't like the FTX Central much either. I have a few too many ORBX sceneries after their last ever sale, but haven't bothered installing most of them. Just too much work installing everything one by one, and making sure you have all the patches/updates etc.

 

Same here, I have a lot of their scenery and not one is installed.

Just to be clear, since my understanding of how this works is fairly shallow; if Orbx used the "append" method, would they have the same texture freedom/variety for various regions as they have now?

 

Appending would not limit them in any way at all, it would look exactly the same as it would with FTX Central, this is why every other effected scenery designer gets mad at them for doing it, it's not necessary.

Read this -- no more OOM issues

 

http://#####...mory-helperfix/

 

Yea I gave that a go but I'll have a look at it again tonight. I think the issue is just that I keep pushing things too far with it. Thanks for the info though.

+1

 

It has been categorically proven that Orbx could implement their FTX regions using an append approach, which would require absolutely no such hassle, incompatibilities, usability constraints etc, as with the "FTX Central/Mode Switch" approach.

 

Until Orbx decide to invest in re-configuring their product range in the FSX-SDK recommened way of appending rather than replacing files, there are just too many issues when flying between areas, or with swapping back and forward.

 

If you put a "Global wide" product into the mix, along with all of the other 'switchable regions' ...... well I am getting a headache just thinking about how screwed up things could get!

 

Come on Orbx - instead of just railroading out new revenue streams, you need to fix your current approach to the configuration of your areas within FSX.

 

Kill off "FTX Central" and just make your products installable/uninstallable, without all the region switching.

 

I just don't get why they don't fix their approach now once and for all instead of later. They should have sussed this a lot sooner. Anyone in software development could tell you that the longer you leave a flawed method in a project the more costly (in both time and money) it becomes to fix later on.

 

I'm not saying anything new though. Just amazed at the way they cling so stubbornly to a methodology that is explicitly recommended against in the SDK.