I don't get it...perhaps slow this morning...

[alpilotx 505]

Difficult to say. But they are already working on it.

Then you know more than me :ph34r: ....

 

And visibility improvements will come with XP10 already (have seen the internal "test" of it a few months ago ... and yes, looked good ... it will just almost double your RAM needs ... but it will also be optional, so no need to worry).

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

would love to purchase it again and I'm sure that many fellow simmers would do so

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

 

Ralf, I would open my wallet, no problem. I have even, pretty clearly told John...in my O.P. , just as much.  I would not consider it, doubling up...as it would be a redoux, for a completely different platform...not based on prior M.S. coding...and I would expect to have to re-purchase the offerings.  Again...I would...IF THEY WOULD GET OFF THEIR BUTTS AND PRODUCE IT!

 

XPX.(x) or XPXI is here to stay...it isn't flying towards oblivion...just as FS9 isn't going anywhere soon.  C'mon ORBX....give we multi-platform simmers...what is being asked for.  Jeez....

Difficult to say. But they are already working on it.

 

But considering ORBX: You all forget that a big part of their structures can't work in X-Plane. They would have to reinvent their whole processes since the Mesh of X-Plane is totally different to what you find on FSX. It would be a totally different product and you don't know if someone might need it, when they are finally ready.

I just heard all the world-wide silent 'yes...I'd buy it...if it was ready for download'.....and the head noddings.   Longranger, they (ORBX) have a vested reputation for superior offerings...and combining that with the XP engine... would be a hit-out-of-the-park.  As I said...unfortunately for most, this is truly a cart-BEFORE-the horse affair as seen by present P3D/FSX users.  Those same Users are waiting for such time as ORBX would invest R and D into X-Plane, announce the purchase and download link........and then...hell...the flood gates of P3D/FSX users would pour open...and it would look like another Oklahoma Land Rush.....  and oh...A.I. and ATC would not alone keep those from ordering their copy...for that would come soon after.  For P3D/FSX users..it is predominately scenery and 'big iron' representation that is holding them back.  They are still missing out, regardless...but that would set the hook in the cheek, for sure.

[mtaxp 666]

Then you know more than me :ph34r: ....

 

And visibility improvements will come with XP10 already (have seen the internal "test" of it a few months ago ... and yes, looked good ... it will just almost double your RAM needs ... but it will also be optional, so no need to worry).

Feel free to answer or not ...

but I remeber that you also saw the new fog , how is it , and does it solve the problem that when flying high you can see the haze color changes abruptly between the dsf that is loaded and those that aren't?

Im asking because if it is, it'll make high flights much more enjoyable with scattering effects

[tttocs 301]

Ralf, I would open my wallet, no problem. I have even, pretty clearly told John...in my O.P. , just as much. I would not consider it, doubling up...as it would be a redoux, for a completely different platform...not based on prior M.S. coding...and I would expect to have to re-purchase the offerings. Again...I would...IF THEY WOULD GET OFF THEIR BUTTS AND PRODUCE IT!

 

OK, that's one sale - and that's the point.  You're looking at it from a personal "I really want it" perspective, while Orbx has made a business decision.

 

Look I understand an individual wanting it, but I have no doubt that JV and Orbx have looked at this extensively from the business perspective and have decided that the ROI simply isn't there for them.  It's not a matter of "getting off their butts", it's a matter of looking at the investment involved, the number of butts required vs the number available, and the return they believe they'd get short, medium and long term, and then deciding to continue their focus on other platforms based on that analysis.  Simple as that.  What's not to get?

 

Orbx' skill sets, and the tools and libraries they've built are all centered around 1 core platform.  Making a move would require developing a different skill set, different tools and new libraries.  As it is, they're having trouble getting all of their existing stuff ported to P3D, the platform they're already committed to for the future.  I rather expect that the bulk of their installed base would howl in protest if they diverted efforts to yet another, and completely different, platform.  Their "butts" are obviously already heavily committed, if not over committed.

 

Frankly, I think XP will be best served by continuing to support a new generation of developers, schooled in XP and committed to and focused on that platform.  And like others here I don't think it's lack of Orbx-style scenery that's keeping FSX/P3D users on their platforms.  It's a whole laundry list of things - some perceived and some real.  A solid PMDG release could potentially open, if not floodgates, at least a substantial flow of new users, but Orbx?  I really don't think so.

 

Scott

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

Orbx' skill sets, and the tools and libraries they've built are all centered around 1 core platform.  Making a move would require developing a different skill set, different tools and new libraries.  As it is, they're having trouble getting all of their existing stuff ported to P3D, the platform they're already committed to for the future.  I rather expect that the bulk of their installed base would howl in protest if they diverted efforts to yet another, and completely different, platform.  Their "butts" are obviously already heavily committed, if not over committed.
 
Frankly, I think XP will be best served by continuing to support a new generation of developers, schooled in XP and committed to and focused on that platform.  And like others here I don't think it's lack of Orbx-style scenery that's keeping FSX/P3D users on their platforms.  It's a whole laundry list of things - some perceived and some real.  A solid PMDG release could potentially release, if not floodgates, at least generate a substantial flow of new users, but Orbx?  I really don't think so.

 

Excellent post.

 

You're absolutely right - developing addons for XP requires learning a totally new platform and methodology. It's not something that can be done quickly or easily. Every day an Orbx developer would spend tinkering with XP and trying to work out the ins and outs of the new platform is a day not spent making stuff for FSX, which is an already established revenue stream and would ultimately impact Orbx's bottom line.

 

The best analogy I can think of is just because somebody is great painting with watercolours doesn't necessarily mean you can expect them to pick up oil paints and produce a masterpiece straight away.

 

If Orbx really wanted to break into the XP market the most sensible way would be to hire new developers who are already well versed in XP, but for various reasons I don't think this is at all likely to happen.

[tonywob 4,770]

Frankly, I think XP will be best served by continuing to support a new generation of developers, schooled in XP and committed to and focused on that platform

 

 

Completely agree. There are already some great developers leading the way, e.g.: http://www.truscenery.com/index.php/component/content/article/9-x-plane-articles/48-helsinki-metropolitan-vfr who look like they are producing scenery which easily rivals ORBX. 

 

Also, with HD Mesh v3 and OSM scenery and the amazing speed OSM is being updated, we are constantly getting better and more accurate scenery by the second: http://osmlab.github.io/show-me-the-way/. 

[CarlosF 1,243]

IMO the only thing is needed from this list is a weather injector , somthing like ASN.

REX? SMP2 is much better in terms of simulation , 3d dynamic clouds , feels just like... clouds! and not a beautiful 2d picture.

 

ORBX vector? please... WORLD2XP packs + HD MESH is way , way , and another way , much better than ORBX VECTOR.

+10

[Longranger 148]

Then you know more than me :ph34r: ....

It seems so.

But I have to admit that it is a pretty sure bet, due to the nature of the development process.

There are always changes that would break the API,  depend on changes in other parts of the code

or simply require very careful tests, before you could dare to release it.

 

I would guess even you made changes that will only produce results in XP 11!

I just saw a week ago that I obviously started working on the version that we just finished last week 10 days after the previous version...I wouldn't have guessed it but the bugzilla was quite obvious.

[airlinejets 709]

 Whoever said we don't need ORBX in X-plane is quite correct. We've even survived the last 3 years without PMDG!! Honestly, if IXEG were to actually release their bloo%& 737, it would be far more important than anything PMDG is doing presently.

 

The potential is there, nothing compares. Companies come and go. There will always be someone to replace you if you don't heed the warning signs.

 

Long live X-Plane! :wink:

 

[alpilotx 505]

I would guess even you made changes that will only produce results in XP 11!

 

Nope ... not that I would know about it ...

 

And even though I am sure, that plans are already made about XP11 .... at least I am not involved in that process. And neither do I get the feeling at the moment, that development is massively shifted in that directions (as there are still a few "bigger" features, which were already worked on for 10.xx ... like the long range vis, atmospheric changes etc.)

 

But I wouldn't talk much more about this topic, because most of what I would / could say might either be "hearsay" or "not meant for the public". Period.

[alpilotx 505]

Feel free to answer or not ...

but I remeber that you also saw the new fog , how is it , and does it solve the problem that when flying high you can see the haze color changes abruptly between the dsf that is loaded and those that aren't?

Im asking because if it is, it'll make high flights much more enjoyable with scattering effects

No, I did not see a version which had big changes made to the atmospheric / haze part (there might have been some first experiments in, but definitely not the intended "larger" changes). To my knowledge Ben is still "in the middle" of the development of those changes.

 

So, the only thing I did see, was the long range visibility. See my comments on it here:

• http://forum.avsim.net/topic/437972-better-long-range-visibility-in-x-plane-1030/?p=2953325

[ryanbatc 13,025]

Guys touting OSM... Yeah it's great in some places like in Europe but in the US it can be really spotty. I know my hometown of about 100k is poor. And no I dont have time to work on it... That's what I pay other developers to do. Please take my money for MN/WI/ND region.

 

Bashing Orbx is just silly... They have decent tech and if it can be ported to XP why reinvent the wheel?

[tonywob 4,770]

 

 

They have decent tech and if it can be ported to XP why reinvent the wheel?

 

I don't think it can be easily ported, it's a different technology and a completely new learning curve for them. 

 

 

 

Guys touting OSM... Yeah it's great in some places like in Europe but in the US it can be really spotty

 

Yes, this is a big problem, but then again simmers in the US for X-Plane have it good, since all the roads, default autogen etc are all meant solely for the US. So much so, that the rest of the world's cities and towns look like the US :smile:. LR unfortunately seem to show no interest in diversifying the scenery outside of the US, and instead leave it to third-parties.

[User72 28]

Personally I think good hi def photoscenery combined with OSM is far far superior to what Orbx offers. Orbx coming over would only be useful or even doable from an airfields point of view imo. John Venema has said many times that he has no interest in anything other than P3d/FSX so good luck to him. I would hate XP starting to look like the others anyway, I stopped using them in favour of what is imo a much better all around sim.

[N1G 88]

I really do like 10.30, but I am with you guys. Wheres the scenery!  Also, when running FSX or P3D the frames go lower at night because of the lights I would assume, but in XPX the frames get better starting at dusk. I guess because the trees are not being displayed? Really strange. I am maxed on the settings except shadows, and at KSEA in the 337 daytime, taking off on 36, I get about 24-25 all the way to downtown. The same scenario at dusk, and I get 33. 

 

Bob