LOL, XPX only.

 

http://simheaven.com/  "The Netherlands"

 

What I like best about it is that we don't see any roads cutting buildings and tiles in half, (just my own liking).

 

I can't post the link of the article since it's from another sim news (don't want to break the Avsim's rules).

stunning shots!

stunning shots!

 

I really don't know what it is, but I don't like those shots... First of all the photoreal is of low quality, not only on these shots but also on other screenshots I've seen: seems a bit low res and the colors are wrong: are these taken straight from Google maps or something? And the buildings... maybe it's the color but whatever it is, it looks so er... 3D modelled and just not real. Artificial. I am not saying FSX shines in that department but XPX doesn't convince me at all. Some of the FTX Global screenshots I've seen look very convincing (not everything!) but none of those XPX shots give me the impression I am looking at the real deal. 

 

Still, it's nice to have options...  ^_^

I really don't know what it is, but I don't like those shots... First of all the photoreal is of low quality, not only on these shots but also on other screenshots I've seen: seems a bit low res and the colors are wrong: are these taken straight from Google maps or something? And the buildings... maybe it's the color but whatever it is, it looks so er... 3D modelled and just not real. Artificial. I am not saying FSX shines in that department but XPX doesn't convince me at all. Some of the FTX Global screenshots I've seen look very convincing (not everything!) but none of those XPX shots give me the impression I am looking at the real deal. 

 

Still, it's nice to have options...  ^_^

Those shots are not payware?

Those shots are not payware?

 

Don't know. But btw I clicked on the link in your post and I commented on the shots I saw there. I now see the actual posts Alain was talking about and they do look a lot better!

Those XP simHeaven OSM+photogens sure look good, I've tried them myself. Problem is, that it really is photogen, which sure looks good, but for small sized Netherlands, for example, total dowload size is way over 32GB. Good luck if you want to create yourself scenery for a bigger area, like for the whole continet without filling a couple of hard drives. Besides, there is now pretty much good photogen+OSM coverage for Europe only and other parts of the world lack both or at least photogens.

 

Autogen + textures is very efficient way of doing scenery that looks believable, but doesn't consume terabytes of diskspace on larger areas. Photogen is of course nice, especially when added with autogen, but the size, often variable quality even with commercial data and in many cases lack of night textures and seasons doesn't make PG that flexible option (seasons aren't a problem with XP as of yet, though).

 

It is good though, that there is effort improving XP scenery, because default, even compemented with some OSM and UrbanMaxx, is really horrible looking IMO, except at night.

I've read that so many times...

 

Funny you said that, is this thread not about improving FSX, when was FSX released again?

 

Is XPX evolving as fast as I (we) would like to see it evolve.....no...but it's evolving with some stuff you won't see in FSX, take the 64-bit as a example, FSX or XPX is not perfect and will never be.

 

Everything we see in FSX and is missing in XPX can be added to it, the other way around can't be done.

alainneedle1, on 17 Jul 2013 - 5:16 PM, said:

Everything we see in FSX and is missing in XPX can be added to it, the other way around can't be done.

This is pretty much true. The thing is that Austins team, though hard working and competent, is quite small and implementing bigger stuff takes time. Also like FSX/P3D, XP relies heavily on 3PD support which is still pretty small compared to MS offerings. For now at least, I'll also bet that the unfortunate law suit case takes away some attention from developing at least from Austin's part.

 

I'd like to see XP evolving as much as anyone. I bought the sim to show support for Laminar Research and to see where it is going. At this point it still nowhere near taking the place from P3D or FSX on my hard drive. Nonethless, I will keep my eye on where it is going and keep testing it every now and then.

32GB for Holland! LOL! Good luck with that How many petabytes of fridge sized disk farms will you need to cover the globe?

 

FTXG has an 8GB footprint, and that is 5 seasons, autogen, night lighting etc. If you replace the default FSX textures without backing up, it has less than a 2GB footprint.

 

So for 1/16th the size of a Holland photoreal, we cover the globe.

 

Then with openLC there may be another 12-16GB of unique new textures to feed into the custom landclass from OSM and other sources, for a worldwide custom LC simulator with unique textures, again for less than a photoreal Holland.

Everything we see in FSX and is missing in XPX can be added to it, the other way around can't be done.

"can be" doesn't mean "will be", or more importantly, "will be in the foreseeable future". The other way around, well, I think people in 2006 would be really surprised seeing what's possible now in FSX.  ^_^ 

 

On the other hand, something like FTX Global for X-plane? Why not. I think that idea already crossed John Venema's mind

 

But I also think that the discussion here drifted far away from the original topic.

Vindication for the PMDG method of release date disclosure.

So, I heard the new DX10 scenery autofix will be coming out soon (tried it out a few months ago but too many grey/blank texture planes so gave up) -- http://stevesfsxanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/dx10-scenery-fixer/

 

Will there be any issues with FTX global in DX10 mode? 

I much prefer photoscenery, and that is achievable for me because I am only interested in flying around the British Isles. When VFR Scotland Central (GenX Volume 7) is released at the end of this month, I will have complete photoscenery coverage. Nevertheless, as others have suggested, photoscenery is not perfect. There are a handful of rather bland areas in Scotland (although the 60cm resolution is superb), and there are quite a few areas in England and Wales that suffer from poor colour saturation and significantly lower resolution than other areas. It would be nice to have the problem areas "cleaned up", but that will probably take another lifetime to achieve :smile:

 

 

Will there be any issues with FTX global in DX10 mode?

 

Over at the ORBX site, JV said FTXGlobal will be DX10 compatible.

 

 

Cheers.

Vindication for the PMDG method of release date disclosure

 

 

Either way is OK with me, but I prefer ORBX's openness in their communication with their customer community during the development period.  They tell us what is happening as they proceed, with encourages feedback from the potential customers, giving ORBX useful information to tweak and improve design while it is still underway.  It is a proven software development process that a number of large and small companies use, and it gives customers more information on the product which can help their decision as to buy or not.

Photoreal in some areas just doesn't come close to looking properly.

 

In Canada it is usually based on Landsat 38 metre images instead of 1 to 2 metre images for the United States. So for my money, considering where I fly, Orbx FTX regional scenery is much better looking and includes a proper mesh that has been modified to work a lot better than any other mesh product.