X-Plane 11 new autogen

[Jimmy RFR 406]

Well, I don't know why you mention Orbx all the time, as if they are the bad boys, but this isn't an Orbx 'feature': it's an Microsoft FS and hence also an P3D problem. So replace Orbx in your post with FS or P3D and it will be a bit more balanced. At least Orbx managed to make something nice out of that flawed system.

 

Don't get me wrong, though: I do agree those baked in roads are absolutely horrifying. Just don't blame the wrong guys.

 

 

You are partially correct - it can be an underlying issue with that style of scenery design, yes.  However, the issue doesn't have to exist. It's Orbx's choice to use annotated imagery for their underlying landclass scenery which include baked in roads. They are not required to do so by the existing Microsoft FS system. If they wanted, they could choose to create underlying imagery that doesn't include those roads. In fact, I have used freeware landclass imagery that doesn't include baked-in roads, and in the particular regions I describe above, the result is more acceptable (to me).

 

The second reason why I use Orbx as my example in this (apart from it being a response to Tony's comment about annotation), is because I believe that they recognize the conflict between real road networks and the baked-in roads present in their FTX Global imagery. I have their FTX NA Vector scenery, that I've come to realize is devoid of many rural roads - networks that are in default FSX scenery, and some which are actually the roads that lead to airports. In fact, I pointed out this omission of minor roads in FTX Vector on it's release in the FTX forums when the road leading to a freeware FTX Global airport, an airport that I authored, which had a road leading to it in default FSX, and a road leading to it in a well known competitors product, was no longer there, leaving the airport stranded in a sea of baked-in roads.

 

As well, I feel the comment in response to a discussion regarding annotation is highly relevant, because I feel that although finely annotated land class scenery *looks* nice, I feel it can have an unintended result of making an entire area feel quite wrong because of it's placement.

 

That said, I do think that Orbx brings many positives to the table, and my above complaints are only in regards to certain regions. In areas where I'm not as familiar with the overall region, or in very sparsely populated areas such as a lot of the west coast bush flying in enjoy in my sim, FTX scenery is quite wonderful.

 

The previous post I wrote is simply my thoughts on the comparison between FSX style scenery (in which nearly anyone I know who flies low and slow uses Orbx) and it's design counterpart in X-Plane, with a explanation given as to why I prefer one over the other.

 

Also, prior to the above, my previous mention of Orbx was in your thread about their new FTX Central application - a thread in which I was not negative at all, and came away very impressed and happy about their new developments. 

[Guest]

Good points, good post, well said, Jim.

[Oliver Ooi 85]

 

 

It's Orbx's choice to use annotated imagery for their underlying landclass scenery which include baked in roads. They are not required to do so by the existing Microsoft FS system. If they wanted, they could choose to create underlying imagery that doesn't include those roads.

 

I don't understand what you mean, how will a 'city' landclass image looks like without any road? Just full of houses and buildings, no roads, really?

[Guest]

I don't understand what you mean, how will a 'city' landclass image looks like without any road? Just full of houses and buildings, no roads, really?

I think so. But ideally the image would look like 'ground' and the houses would all be 3D.

 

To me the main problem with this kind of scenery isn't even the baked in roads: it's the 'real' roads running right through houses and buildings. And it is how the images are cut off right through the same houses and buildings. It just looks wrong.

 

My problem is that I also don't like photoreal scenery because it only looks good from one angle. I hate those flat cities a lot more than the baked in roads and roads cutting through houses.

 

I won't be satisfied until I get photoreal 3D scenery.

 

But anyway, the new autogen in XP11 is looking interesting. I never liked the (what did they call it) believable (?) scenery in XP but maybe XP11 will be better.

[Denco 48]

I think so. But ideally the image would look like 'ground' and the houses would all be 3D.

To me the main problem with this kind of scenery isn't even the baked in roads: it's the 'real' roads running right through houses and buildings. And it is how the images are cut off right through the same houses and buildings. It just looks wrong.

My problem is that I also don't like photoreal scenery because it only looks good from one angle. I hate those flat cities a lot more than the baked in roads and roads cutting through houses.

I won't be satisfied until I get photoreal 3D scenery.

But anyway, the new autogen in XP11 is looking interesting. I never liked the (what did they call it) believable (?) scenery in XP but maybe XP11 will be better.

We have photo scenery with 3D if you use Ortho4XP.

[Peter Webber 339]

Europe, USA.....that's all I hear with flight sim products ...what about us "simmers" in other areas on this planet?.....jokes aside, the product looks good and I think I will give it a try...

[Guest]

We have photo scenery with 3D if you use Ortho4XP.

 

 

I've heard about it but 1. I've seen a lot of screenshots that look terrible (awful coloring, autogen sticking out) and 2. it feels very daunting and complicated for someone who doesn't know XP at all... The idea of having to install various addons and do all kinds of voodoo magic (as a matter of speech  :wink: ) to get things done isn't very appealing. I watched a tutorial and just installing Ortho4XP already scared the hell out of me. :wink: I'd like everything to look okay out of the box or by simply installing one addon... There seems to be way too much work involved to even get going with this.

[pmb 5,137]

Fully agreed Jeroen. If you have plenty of time and motivation, you can certainly get away with these tools. I lack both and need things to work out of the box. For me it's either using that half of an hour left after work now and then for flying or for number crunching.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[Denco 48]

Some of the issues above have already been improved in Ortho4XP. For example, there is no installation process for windows users. You just run the executable inside the bin folder.

[tonywob 4,769]

I think it's pretty evident that the tools are there in X-Plane to create incredible scenery for free, but it does require some initial effort and learning and most would prefer a simple click&install solution (and are willing to pay for it). I don't see anything wrong in this because I find myself spending 99% of my time now in X-Plane just playing with and making scenery as opposed to actually using it as a flight sim and sometimes I'll just open up P3D or AeroflyFS to actually fly  :smile:. I can't actually enjoy X-Plane as a simulator like I once could because it is now just a tool for me (part of my programming toolkit).

 

 

 

Europe, USA.....that's all I hear with flight sim products ...what about us "simmers" in other areas on this planet?.....jokes aside, the product looks good and I think I will give it a try...

 

Joking aside, I completely agree with you. I'd love to fly over convincing scenery for Australia, Japan, India, etc. It's sad nobody really concentrates on these areas, but also not surprising since the majority of simmers are in the US or Germany.

[Desaix 235]

I think it's pretty evident that the tools are there in X-Plane to create incredible scenery for free, but it does require some initial effort and learning and most would prefer a simple click&install solution (and are willing to pay for it). I don't see anything wrong in this because I find myself spending 99% of my time now in X-Plane just playing with and making scenery as opposed to actually using it as a flight sim and sometimes I'll just open up P3D or AeroflyFS to actually fly  :smile:. I can't actually enjoy X-Plane as a simulator like I once could because it is now just a tool for me (part of my programming toolkit).

 

So true, but it must be something connected to a creative side of one's personality, you see you can improve things and you don't give up the challenge, like those ancient map makers who simply couldn't enjoy just traveling around.

[Guest]

So true, but it must be something connected to a creative side of one's personality, you see you can improve things and you don't give up the challenge, like those ancient map makers who simply couldn't enjoy just traveling around.

 

I am a full time graphic designer and I have to be creative all freakin' day so when I get home I just want to fly... I have no desire to spend my free time being 'creative' (if that term actually applies) with scenery tiles... :wink: My second hobby is composing music and if I would I also could spend my days creating oil paintings and taking photographs so there is absolutely nothing wrong with the creative side of my personality... :wink:

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

I don't understand what you mean, how will a 'city' landclass image looks like without any road? Just full of houses and buildings, no roads, really?

 

I was referring to the roads that are part of the underlying textures used in landclass imagery, not the vector based roads which are placed in their proper real world locations. The two conflict, which was the basis for my posts. As Jeroen pointed out, the roads that are part of the textures, along with the annotated buildings and such present in MSFS landclass imagery, cause even further issues in cities.

[Oliver Ooi 85]

 

 

But anyway, the new autogen in XP11 is looking interesting. I never liked the (what did they call it) believable (?) scenery in XP but maybe XP11 will be better.

 

The landclass scenery in FSX, when it launched in 2006, looks good at that time but not now in 2016. I think the XP scenery generation which using OSM data is the more ideal way but it needs some very sophisticated algorithm in order to make a city looks good (like what we see in 'Simcity' series). LR called their scenery 'plausible world', but when XP10 initially launched, some called the scenery 'laughable'.