Going for greater reality in all aspects no matter how small is never a negative ,unless one is committed to never moving forward.

 

I agree. But when a company is spending thousands of dollars on a commercial license, and that "greater reality" comes at a significant cost without adding significant benefit, I think many businesses would happily settle for whatever "good enough" scenery is included in the base package (to that end, FSX's default scenery is quite serviceable, and this is assuming that Lockheed Martin doesn't improve it in some way).

 

Well, I suppose a local FBO with a computer based sim might be tickled to run a high detailed recreation of their area, assuming they happen to be at one of the few that OrbX has actually modeled.

I haven't seen any freeware for it that approaches the levels of quality reached in the heyday of FS2004. Good freeware is the spring board to payware.

 

I think you should have another look, there is some absolutely fantastic freeware scenery available

Well, I suppose a local FBO with a computer based sim might be tickled to run a high detailed recreation of their area, assuming they happen to be at one of the few that OrbX has actually modeled.

 

There are a boatload of scenarious you can come up with for enhanced scenery for commercial use. And moving forward, I expect specific requests from commerical clients might be entertained, particularly if the developer (Orbx or whoever) is allowed to leverage them back to a more general market as was done with the product I mentioned previously.

 

Honestly, I don't understand why some are so resistant to the idea of this.

 

Scott

It's obvious to me that things will progress forward in this area not stagnate because it's not needed.

 

We are talking about new opportunities here not legacy simulators that large companies have been purchasing for years with only basic scenery because thats how it was when it was made. Sure, there may not be any impetus from those suppliers to up their game if the competition is all the same but then lets see what happens when someone does up the game and make a more compelling argument.

 

Just because you have a complacent market does not mean that a more attractive option wont get looked at because we are used to the same old thing.

 

Who really believes that in 20/30 years we wont be trying to fly in some sort of VR world with very realistic landscapes and sceneries. We are always moving closer to it, its what we have always dreamed about and the progress wont stop.

Honestly, I don't understand why some are so resistant to the idea of this.

 

I'm personally not resistant to it. I'm just skeptical that commercial interests would necessarily be interested in it.

The Amiga! I loved my A500+. I spent hours playing F-16 combat pilot and F-19 steath fighter. Oh and Falcon. Happy memories of a misspent youth that got me the job I have today. Lol

F-19 Stealth fighter by microprose. I spent a lot of time with that, in fact I think I might still have it somewhere. Memories

This thread has seen more tangents than a remedial calculus class.

 

(Just sayin')

 

This thread has seen more tangents than a remedial high school geometry class.

 

(Just sayin')

 

And I'm just agee'n' :lol: .

 

Scott

And what, may I ask, is wrong with Fruit of the Loom???

Clearly you know nothing of undergarments...... if you had knowledge of these things you would know that the fruit of the loom flight model isn't even supported by Microsoft anymore and that's why Nike is better.. :wacko:

Didn't Lockheed Martin buy the Fruit of The Loom flight model?

To put this thread back on track, a bit.....

 

From the FSX forum, yesterday----- Having to do with the Orbx situation

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

If you don't have Orbx login...

 

"And the good news - there are several former ACES devs busy with fixing and improving FSX (ESP) core code (including DX10/DX11 compatibility). They have now a contract at Lockheed Martin."

Holy resurrected tangent, Batman!

To put this thread back on track, a bit.....

 

From the FSX forum, yesterday----- Having to do with the Orbx situation

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

If you don't have Orbx login...

 

"And the good news - there are several former ACES devs busy with fixing and improving FSX (ESP) core code (including DX10/DX11 compatibility). They have now a contract at Lockheed Martin."

 

And this is putting it back on track?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

And the good news - there are several former ACES devs busy with fixing and improving FSX (ESP) core code (including DX10/DX11 compatibility). They have now a contract at Lockheed Martin.

 

Interesting, also I noticed a comment yesterday where John Venema mentioned that their FTX Global product will also run in P3D 2.0. He obviously knows much more about P3D 2.0 than any of us do, and considering he's sticking to the platform, he must be confident about it.

Orbx is a large company in the market and you bet they have some good connections. They knew what was going on with MS Flight and probably know a lot about P3D 2.0.

 

By the way: I agree with the guy that stated that it might contain so much new code that it could be considered a new piece of software and be sold without restrictions. Or they plan a deal with MS to buy full rights. Heck, MS doesn't even sell FSX any more.

 

On the other hand: What I get from P3D forums is that it's still a long way to go until P3D 2.0 and nobody knows what XP10 will be in 2 years from now.

 

Flo