Even though this FTX Global will make things look much "prettier" on the ground, it's still not actually what I'd see there if I were flying over that spot on the planet.

 

That's the issue, why I didn't purchase that package so far.

I have a 7" Galaxy Tab 2 running FSMovMap on my desk. Using the "old" FTX SP4 Australia packages, I often wondered, what I see in FSX and what the reality is on GoogleMaps. I also prefer photoreal packages like the free NL2000 pakage of photoreal scenery for the entire country of the Netherlands. Germany VFR from Aerosoft aso.

 

So, if I only see some more trees and colors but nothing that compares to the reality, I don't think I'm going to spend that much money.

When there will be some sreenshots of FTX Global including the announced European LC package, I might come to a different conclusion.

I'll wait and see :-)

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Ralf

 

 

***Disclaimer I am so not trying to start a war between photo real and not. Nor am I trying to push photo real on anyone. Nor am I saying photo real IS the best for EVERYONE. This is just for me and in my eyes. And, that may be like you are saying, the biggest reason why this is not for me.

 

For me it's not a question of photoscenery or Orbx regions vs FTXG as I don't think the product was ever intended to compete directly with either of these more detailed solutions.  From the get-go I've expected the biggest problem Orbx would face is in setting expectations and defining what the product ISN'T more than what it is.  I'll take an Orbx region over anything, and high quality photo next, but I can't afford (either in raw dollars or in disk space and performance) to fill the whole world with these and they're not available everywhere anyway.  That's where a product like FTXG comes in.

 

The key part of the FTXG name is "global".  Up to now, the combination of UTX/GEX has filled the role of taking care of "everywhere else" for me, so the question now is if FTXG makes a better choice than GEX (or, of course, default textures).  Looks to me like it does in most places I care about.  I can't imagine I won't eventually buy it, but am still cautiously waiting to see a few teething problems get ironed out.

 

Scott

 

That's the issue, why I didn't purchase that package so far.

I have a 7" Galaxy Tab 2 running FSMovMap on my desk. Using the "old" FTX SP4 Australia packages, I often wondered, what I see in FSX and what the reality is on GoogleMaps. I also prefer photoreal packages like the free NL2000 pakage of photoreal scenery for the entire country of the Netherlands. Germany VFR from Aerosoft aso.

 

So, if I only see some more trees and colors but nothing that compares to the reality, I don't think I'm going to spend that much money.

When there will be some sreenshots of FTX Global including the announced European LC package, I might come to a different conclusion.

I'll wait and see :-)

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Ralf

I think this is exactly where I'm sitting right now.  Maybe when their OpenLC comes out, then I will give it a try.  But, for now, this is doing just like you said, using different colors, different trees/autogen but still not placing it where you'd actually see it in real life.

 

 

For me it's not a question of photoscenery or Orbx regions vs FTXG as I don't think the product was ever intended to compete directly with either of these more detailed solutions. From the get-go I've expected the biggest problem Orbx would face is in setting expectations and defining what the product ISN'T more than what it is. I'll take an Orbx region over anything, and high quality photo next, but I can't afford (either in raw dollars or in disk space and performance) to fill the whole world with these and they're not available everywhere anyway. That's where a product like FTXG comes in.

 

Very true.  And, that's what I'd get it for.  The places in between my photo real areas.  But, even still with that in mind, I haven't seen any pics or vids that have totally blown away even my UTX Europe only textures.  They are just different.  A different/darker shade of green or more green however you want to define it.  Their trees look a little better and even the buildings I guess.  But, for those few seconds that I'm low enough to notice that, it's so hard to justify the $90 price tag.  I'd really like to be able to give it a try - install it and if it doesn't blow me away, return it for a full refund.  And, also in that process, know that an uninstall will not wreck my FSX installation.

 

 

but still not placing it where you'd actually see it in real life

 

And that will never be the case, even if you throw 100 OpenLC addons into the simulator. It is and will always be a land class add-on and hence always NOT comparable with photoreal. Landclass and photoreal are two completely different solutions in every possible regard.

 

 

 

They are just different.  A different/darker shade of green or more green however you want to define it.  Their trees look a little better and even the buildings I guess.  But, for those few seconds that I'm low enough to notice that, it's so hard to justify the $90 price tag.

 

It's indeed 'just' different. But I like the fuller colors and the more lush greens. And the trees look a lot better also because there are more kinds of them so everything looks more varied. But I usually fly very low and slow so I am seeing all of that all the time! If you indeed only see it during take off and landing and fly high and dry all the time (and have a preference for photoreal), yes, then I also wouldn't spend 90 bucks on it, at least not without giving it some good thought (which you are doing  ^_^ ).

 

 

***Disclaimer I am so not trying to start a war between photo real and not. Nor am I trying to push photo real on anyone. Nor am I saying photo real IS the best for EVERYONE. This is just for me and in my eyes. And, that may be like you are saying, the biggest reason why this is not for me.

 

Good Heavens!!  A reasonable man!!  One who says "this is right for only me and may be not what you are looking for" instead of saying (like many) "I know everything and anything else is just wrong".   I am a scenery buff too.  I use MSE for those states over which I regularly fly (I usually fly small twins or single engine Cessnas) about 5000 ft or less agl.  For the rest I use Orbx products so I am assured of nice scenery anywhere I choose to fly.  The best of both worlds (IMHO only)

 

 

And that will never be the case, even if you throw 100 OpenLC addons into the simulator. It is and will always be a land class add-on and hence always NOT comparable with photoreal. Landclass and photoreal are two completely different solutions in every possible regard.

 

Oh, yeah, right.  Very true.  I was mixing this up with another OSM type product.  But, it is still just land class.  So, things will be closer to what they are in real life, but still not totally accurate.  :rolleyes:

Guten Tag.

 

Could any owner of FTX Global please be so kind to post a screenshot here of these 2 airports: SLLJ and AYMR.

 

Here the FSX standard screenshots. Maybe from a similar point of view. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Danke!

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Ralf

Could any owner of FTX Global please be so kind to post a screenshot here of these 2 airports: SLLJ and AYMR.

 

Can't take screenshots right now but if you are wondering if FTXG solves those mesh errors: it doesn't. 

I think is to see the impact of the add-on on the scenery, I will like to see also SLSU and SLLP, can someone post those?

 

 

Guten Tag.

 

Could any owner of FTX Global please be so kind to post a screenshot here of these 2 airports: SLLJ and AYMR.

 

 

These are of SLLJ and AYMR with my FTX Global installed.

 

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b633/rlkjmt73/FSX%20Pictures/SLLJ_zps47d76825.jpg

 

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b633/rlkjmt73/FSX%20Pictures/AYMR_zps8d671ef2.jpg

 

Rod

Hm, you almost make me buy Alaska... ^_^

 

It's their best region.

 

Flying into Juneau is just ridiculous.

These are of SLLJ and AYMR with my FTX Global installed.

 

Thank You!!!

Ralf

FTX Global looks amazing.  I am glad I bought it but I don't know how everyone above says there is NO FPS loss.     There certainly was for me.   A massive loss due to Autogen.    I had to slide my Autogen down to Sparse to combat the FPS loss.     Now that being said, even on Sparse Autogen this add-on is mad levels of insanely beautiful.    The manual says to start at Normal which I did but I did not like the 20 FPS loss it gave me so I had to go with Sparse.    The manual says my rig should be able to handle Extremely Dense but alas, I cannot have that on while running PMDG 737 NGX at the same time.    To much damage to the FPS.    Nice for screenshots though!     If anyone can tell me their secret of how they installed this with 'NO FPS LOSS' I am all ears.

When I ran FSXG for the first time, I had a dump in FPS of almost 50 percent!  I then moved all my Land Class in my Scenic Library to the number (level position) 1, then 2,3,4,5 until all the UTX and other custom landclass were above anything 'Orbx'. I then rebooted, defragged, and ran FSX again.  I came back to my 30 fps, and have not looked back since....

 

Mitch

So many people who say this is a must have have less than 50 career posts...a little suspicious to me. Just saying.  Like on yelp, I tend to value more the opinions of people who have many posts over many months or years. 

How 'bout over 2,000 posts since '03

 

This IS, or what FS(11) might have looked like....but you can now have it working with no FPS penalty,.... NOW!

 

Worth it?  You bet it is worth it.....

OK, I bought it yesterday and after a few flights I can say it was definitely worth it. Scenery at many locations is not just so much better looking. Bigger cities look much denser with buildings and roads. Now you can actually distinguish a lot more villages and towns instead of just big cities and countryside with a few houses like in GEX.  Night lighting is very impressive as well.

 

As promised by ORBX, there was zero FPS loss, even at night. However, don't enable Road vector lights in FTX Central or otherwise you WILL notice a very significant framerate decrease.

I have Road Vector lights enabled in Central, and still have my pre-enabled numbers.  Each system will vary....

When I ran FSXG for the first time, I had a dump in FPS of almost 50 percent!  I then moved all my Land Class in my Scenic Library to the number (level position) 1, then 2,3,4,5 until all the UTX and other custom landclass were above anything 'Orbx'. I then rebooted, defragged, and ran FSX again.  I came back to my 30 fps, and have not looked back since....

 

Mitch

How 'bout over 2,000 posts since '03

 

This IS, or what FS(11) might have looked like....but you can now have it working with no FPS penalty,.... NOW!

 

Worth it?  You bet it is worth it.....

I have Road Vector lights enabled in Central, and still have my pre-enabled numbers.  Each system will vary....

I don't think so, not in case of high-end systems like ours.

 

I think it rather depends where you're flying. I did my testing at KLAX, taking off from runway 07L flying right over dense neighbourhoods. Road vector lights enabled gave me 20% loss in performance.

 

I'd try again, this time using the same scenario as mine.

I don't think so, not in case of high-end systems like ours.

 

I think it rather depends where you're flying. I did my testing at KLAX, taking off from runway 07L flying right over dense neighbourhoods. Road vector lights enabled gave me 20% loss in performance.

 

I'd try again, this time using the same scenario as mine.

I'll do so, and report back to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Edit report as promised...

 

Apples to apples, no alterations to how I have FSX set up for this test pre and post reading your request of me.

 

The flight set up STRICTLY as you laid out;

 

With Road Light Vector on, 

 

Daylight/ 16 FPS facing onto runway at threshold, prior to movement down the runway

At lift off and climbing out over neighborhoods, 16/18,24,28,30 as altitude gains

 

Same scenario, at Night, 16,18,27,30 FPS as altitude gains, in essence, no change either in Day, or Night.  Orbx is correct (on my system) no system and or FPS taxation

----------------------------------------------

 

With Road Vector turned off in FSX Central software mask.

 

Apples to apples;

 

Daylight operation;

 

Facing runway, on the threshold, prior to roll, and then roll, on out to lift off:   16/18,24,28,30 as altitude gains

 

Night time operation: 16,18,27,30, and stays at 30 at 3,500 feet or greater as I circle and fly over L.A.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In all cases, I experience only ONE FPS decrease (or increase), and briefly, as I lifted off, and climbed out with viewing out the cockpit, out of a passenger seat, and finally SPOT...continuity with all in all.  So, as I stated, each user's system and the power of that system to render with varied components, will differ.  I do not suffer FPS loss whether (1 FPS is nothing to even mention, but it was in fact the only difference up, or down) Road Light Vector is in the on, or off position before a FSX usage.  I also noted that I do not gain anything over the other, so this suggests to myself, that my system is working for me at the max to render, whether running in the AM, or PM is chosen.  That is a good side note of this test for myself.

 

So, there you have it, I can claim that there is no difference to my system, with Vector Road Lights enabled or not,.over departing KLAX at night, or in the day.

 

Cheers,