Here is how FTX Global really looks at night over a Swedish town with 80 000 inhabitants.

 

2013-9-7_0-14-24-99.jpg

 

 

And this is the same city with GEX and UTX.

 

2013-9-7_0-54-3-181.jpg

 

No FSX bloom, ENB series or no post processing what ever.

And the FTX Global night lighting is very far from realistic. Nice Christmas Tree, but still not realistic. That's why I prefer GEX and UTX Europe ;-)

 

Gex had nothing to do with those lights. That's UTX which I own as well. 

 

FTXG + UTX is AWESOME! 

 

Did you know that you can "turn off FTXG lights" and enable the UTX ones? They work great together and look amazing. I will shoot off a screenshot if I get a chance. Dawn, Dusk and then Night with FTXG and UTX. I wager that the 3d lights in FTXG will be appreciated by those that do not own UTX. At least then they will have 3D lights. If they have UTX? Fill your boots!

 

I also have GEX and I prefer (read again... prefer) FTXG. And if people prefer GEX that's great too!

 

But seriously. ORBX is all I use now so they can change whatever they want if it means making FSX NOT look like it's from 2006. Thanks ORBX. Your scenery is the best there is. Period.

 

Charles.

Thanks but Im not sure you actually answered my question.... I just want to know if a backup is created when installing FTXG, not whether 'everything is ok'. I have seen enough opinions on this to last a lifetime, and not everything posted is propaganda.

 

Yup it backs up your textures to a folder of your choosing (Like REX does) and when you run the uninstall it moves them back to where they belong and reverses their other voodoo.

 

C.

 

 

Yup it backs up your textures to a folder of your choosing (Like REX does) and when you run the uninstall it moves them back to where they belong and reverses their other voodoo.

 

Thanks, thats the answer I was looking for! Since they didnt provide an uninstaller initially I wasn't sure they did a backup.

 

 

I also have GEX and I prefer (read again... prefer) FTXG. And if people prefer GEX that's great too!

 

You are right, I think people forget that a preference doesn't infer superiority. I prefer GEX, but that does not mean that GEX is a superior product compared to FTXG. It just means that in the areas I fly, to my eyes GEX provides a more realistic appearance. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Pick the one that provides you with appearance that pleases your eyes in the area(s) you fly, regardless of what anyone else says.

Thanks but Im not sure you actually answered my question.... I just want to know if a backup is created when installing FTXG, not whether 'everything is ok'. I have seen enough opinions on this to last a lifetime, and not everything posted is propaganda.

 

The first word was answer, "yes" - i wanted to say with this - "yes, When you install FTXG,  it's create a backup of existing FSX settings so that if you do have a problem, you can revert"

 

I just added "everything is ok with FTXG" - i wanted to say that everything works perfect and i didn't have a single problem with FTXG

I agree.  which is why  I linked the post above.  The unfortunate part of all this, is that you and a few others believe that this addon in your words "renders a not so insignificant section of the base SDK moot"  It does not.  It extends it.  

 

I have no other way in which to describe things such as "what once was brown using FSX landclass calls is now green and can only be visually corrected by using new landclass calls."

 

To me, that's a change.  Something in the land classification list in the SDK that I might think of as "brown" is not brown in FTXG.  To me, that's like pressing the "root beer" button on a soda dispenser and getting "mountain dew" instead.   Now I might like the new offering more (however in the case of root beer vs. mountain dew, likely not) but it's not what I asked for.

 

I'm not saying that's wrong.  I would simply like to have a "changelist" at hand.

 

 

ORBX's region products are/were more disruptive to the fsx environment than Global is.  since it relied on a switcher, and people would forget to switch it back to default before installing another addon, and ending up with the gabled roof problem (I had that one too, so I'm guilty)  the EU regions had more aggressive lookup mods than others and caused all sorts of problems with textures displayed the world around when EU was still enabled.  Because Global integrates all the regions, and leaves all the default landclass intact,  it has none of these problems.  I haven't been watching their support forum like a hawk, but I do browse it occasionally, and I have yet to see any issues specifically caused by the changes to lclookup.

 

Agreed.

 

I bought into the AUS release and picked up the NA / NZ / EUR regions soon after they came out.  When I rebuilt my FSX recently, I could have gone without Orbx and saved myself the switcher headaches, which is why I studied what changes were made each time and made my own "switcher double careful redundant" utility.

 

I've read the FTXG architecture post and it all makes sense at the 10000 foot level it goes to.  I'm just the curious sort who'd like to know the details of the changes / extensions.  The MS/Aces SDK goes to a much more detailed level (let's say 2000 foot - "2000 foot") where I can identify separate items.  That gives me the comfort of knowing that while I won't ever build a decent scenery add-on, some other FSX nerd will be able to.

 

("Nerd" used there in a friendly, jocular tone.)

 

 

the part that is potentially problematic is the autogen descriptions.  and again, to my understanding it's NOT against the SDK to modify or extend those,  there are a few developers that have done it for years.  the problem is that anybody who does extend it, becomes a compatibility issue for anybody else who extends it.  there's no central file database for these changes that anybody can submit their stuff to.  JV is offering to host changes for everybody else to be compatible with ORBX,  but not all developers have either been contacted, or have agreed when they were.  if developers can come up with a better solution, they should do it, that would require for everybody to agree on something, and thus is unlikely to happen.  Even with this, we are talking about a handful of other addons,  not a whole bunch.

 

 

Yes.  Extending can be great and is fine.  Change might be great and might be fine.  I wish all developers who use these methods would publish their changes - and if they'd like others to build on their work, to publish their extensions.

 

To date (for me at least) it only becomes an issue when transversing areas.  I like to hop from ENG to FRA and back.  I have the latest FranceVFR and Orbx ENG packages and I have to make a choice when I do these flights of which set to enable.

 

One day I'll pause mid-channel, save the flight, switch sets and reload just to see how that works.  Later I'll likely cry as I reflect on my own FSX nerd-ishness.  :lol:

 

 

At some level everything that you do with your FSX installation is a tradeoff.  my being a DX10 guy means i get advantages, but I also have to deal with issues with that,  they will be less when the fixer tool is released, but there will still be things (tooltips, etc.) that still won't work after the fix.  To me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages so I deal with it and move on, same with Global.  I have yet to have a conflict (other than DX10 lights) with Global, but If I do, I very much doubt that I will ditch Global over an airport no matter how good it is.  Global to me just makes FSX that much better of an experience.  it would not be what it is, if it were just a texture pack, or "greener GEX"  This product transforms fsx for me, and it's because of those edits that it can.  If there are folks happy flying fsx that's cool.  I want to fly something BETTER than fsx.

 

Yep.  You're helping by "paving the way" in these areas for those of us who tread carefully.

 

Btw, I loathe default FSX, and have purchased each GEX region within days of being released (except AUS naturally LOL) and will pick up FTXG either after their Europe LC releases or when P3D 2.0 releases... whichever's first.  (My money's on the former.)

This thread seems to be going round in circles more times than a 12" vinyl.

 

Yes indeed it is, but what should we do, let the Orbx haters have a party here and just sit tight and shut up about it everytime they spread false propaganda and try to scare people into thinking Orbx screws up your system?

 

Offcourse the same arguments repeats itself, because there is nothing else to say about it. And when the propaganda repeats the anti propaganda have to defend those accusations with the same arguments because it's just the way it is...

 

And we might aswell keep it going in this thread, because if the mods close this one, you can bet there pops up another one tomorrow and were back were we started.

This is the only thread I've found where I might get a clarification for my issue. Just purchased and installed FTXG with no difficulties. My issue is this. Does FTXG generate enhanced autogen textures for buildings?? I've been playing around with this for a couple of days and have only been around the American Midwest. I'm still seeing the default FSX buildings. This surprises me since the various screen shots I've viewed show urban areas far different than what I'm experiencing. I thought I did sufficient research prior to purchasing and since GEX does provide building autogen enhancement I thought that's what FTXG does as well. Any thoughts??

Here is how FTX Global really looks at night over a Swedish town with 80 000 inhabitants.

 

2013-9-7_0-14-24-99.jpg

 

 

And this is the same city with GEX and UTX.

 

2013-9-7_0-54-3-181.jpg

 

No FSX bloom, ENB series or no post processing what ever.

And the FTX Global night lighting is very far from realistic. Nice Christmas Tree, but still not realistic. That's why I prefer GEX and UTX Europe ;-)

 

Ok here are some comparisons... FTXG+UTX (The lights are UTX not ORBX created), FTXG with Vector Lights and ORBX PNW. All the same shot.

 

 

Agreed.  I went over to a friends house here to try it out before I buy it and flying SSE out of SFO was just a total bummer.  Green everywhere, farm fields on the mountains (I know, it's the landclass problem) but the central valley here in CA is green for about 2 - 3 months out of the year before going back to golden brown everywhere.

 

Not bashing ORBx, I really want to get onboard and support the guys, but most of my flights are into and out of CA and I'm not ready to part with my money until something is resolved on that end.

You haven't seen Southern California since the patch...I flew from KSAN to KOAK, and all was pastel brown to grey/white as you mostly see along the coast and San Andrea's.  Sporadic scrub and green where you'd usually find it, along that flight patch.

 

It looked great. If the patch did NOT address California in any way, then my monitor color rasters are set up differently to yours.  I had no 'green pall' that the Sonoran Desert in Arizona had before the patch to v1.10.  I did with FSXG 1.0.  The patch definitely adressed that issue.

You haven't seen Southern California since the patch...I flew from KSAN to KOAK, and all was pastel brown to grey/white as you mostly see along the coast and San Andrea's.  Sporadic scrub and green where you'd usually find it, along that flight patch.

 

 

Southern California, Nevada and Arizona look perfect to me after 1.10 patch,

 

Thanks, ORBX.

Dirk.

 

 

Ok here are some comparisons... FTXG+UTX (The lights are UTX not ORBX created), FTXG with Vector Lights and ORBX PNW. All the same shot.

 

There you go, nice shots and thanks for posting.

 

Though it looks like this does not iclude the new FTXG patch, is that correct?

Thanks for posting the comparison shots cvearl.  I think both the UTX and vector lights look good, but can't really say one looks better than the other. If you do a google search on city lights from an airplane I would say the UTX version looks more like the images you see. I don't have FTXG, but I've read that vector lights have less impact on FPS than the UTX lights. If the impact is significant, the vector lights would be fine for me.

 

One thing I can say, at 6 pages on this thread, I tihnk we are all starting to stretch the "truth" a little... :biggrin: 

 

Ted 

There you go, nice shots and thanks for posting.

 

Though it looks like this does not iclude the new FTXG patch, is that correct?

 

This was WITH the patch but I am now talking to JV or support over at ORBX payware support forums. The second shot I put up is missing the Vector Road Lights even though I have it enabled. Turns out if I have UTX USA enabled in any way, FTXG Vector Road lights are dead. Hmmm... Well see. But here it is... FTXG Vector Road lights enabled properly. Default FSX only without any UTX or Landclass running. First shot here is default FSX with FTXG period. Second shot is UTX running with FTXG and UTX Lighting enabled. Orbx is releasing a light tweaking tool for FTXG to play with orb size and so on for people that think this is garish looking. Also, imagine this will corrected Landclass better than we have ever had. OpenLC is coming for NA and it's soon! Also.... Free.... They are retouching default airports and releasing them in packs! Add REX and A2A, PMDG, Flight1 and Realair planes and Steve Parsons DX10 fixer and this will truly be FS11.

 

FTXG Lights versus UTX Lights (both with FTXG installed)

 

yawn - you say Potato and I say Potato'  

The California mentions sound promising.  I'd like to see various shots of the SF East Bay hills (the Mt. Diablo region... even the hills north and south) in both winter and summer.  IRL, the hills should be brown / tan in the and summer and fall -- as well as green in the winter / spring.

 

Is there a vendor who currently sells FTXG with any length of a money-back guarantee?  30 days would be way more than enough time. 14 or 7 or even 3 1/2 days would also be much more than what I'd need to validate. Even 1 day would let me check my surroundings and know if I'd be mostly happy or not.