Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Looks good from above, but down on the ground, there are a lot of terrain issues.  I'm currently reading from users expressing some disappointment.  Since it's an initial release, I guess this is to be expected as it was originally developed for FSX/P3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't be any terrain issues I would think if you turn on Flatten Airports in the settings?    Or is a polygon texture overlay problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lenny777 said:

Even DJT in the Oval Office.lol. Looks really good.

Whilst funny, I have to wonder what the point of this is. If you are getting that close to the Oval office in a flight simulator then I would have to wonder what exactly you are doing :-). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Whilst funny, I have to wonder what the point of this is. If you are getting that close to the Oval office in a flight simulator then I would have to wonder what exactly you are doing :-). 

What about the Cessna sitting with Marine One?  This raises an eyebrow as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Whilst funny, I have to wonder what the point of this is. If you are getting that close to the Oval office in a flight simulator then I would have to wonder what exactly you are doing :-). 

Nice details. I want the same for our countries in Europe. Looks good. Even better when you can put entire governments on seats in the Houses of Commons and view them from a helicopter hovering near the stain glass windows!!😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2017 at 2:07 PM, ohsirus said:

There are elevation issues being  reported.

This is what was making me hesitate. I purchased New York from DD and there were many floating objects and other anomalies. Normally that wouldn't bother me, since I presume this could be fixed, but in following the replies on the website to many users noting the issue, the developer seemed to be saying its a problem with XP geometry tools, and that, along with my experience with New York makes me very cautious about their FSX sceneries converted to X-Plane. (though I think their FSX stuff is probably fine)

It's on my watch list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I never noticed any glaring issues with their scenery at all. Maybe two or three floating buildings in New York, but this did not disturb me, given the enormous amount of buildings included. Maybe that's because I'm flying above the cities, and not walking at the ground (that's also why I did not notice any issues in Washington so far. Moving in the air everything looks good to me.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarioDonick said:

Maybe that's because I'm flying above the cities, and not walking at the ground

Yup, that's pretty much what DD said when somebody else asked about the floating NY objects and buildings. I was on the site for the first time, just about to ask the same thing, but walked away when I saw the developer reply, which was that they were meant to be seen from high altitude. He also added that if people wanted them to look good lower down then maybe they should play taxi or bus simulator instead. He then provided links to two YouTube videos of those games. 

Hmmmmmmmmm.........

I thought the reply was interesting, considering DD's own promotional material for Washington proudly shows extensive low level detail, including the President being seen through the windows of the white House. To be clear, the issues seem to be with X-plane conversions, so I would probably tend to pick up the FSX version if I had to chose right now. (but that's just me)

Also, doing my due diligence, I did come across this: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/118340-drzewiecki-washington-orthoterrain-issues/#comment-1144948

I am interested in the product, so will continue to keep an eye on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I've seen that post, and after one hour of searching I can confirm the last of his screenshots; the mesh at that remote area looks indeed a bit awkard when looking directly at it from the ground. From other directions, farer away and from the air, the area looks just like a nice hillside neighbourhood. The other screenshots look as if the object density in his X-Plane settings was a bit low. It looks best when at maximum (in X-Plane 11).

Given the fact that you can't (easily) edit the mesh in X-Plane to correct such errors, and because Washington, Arlington and KDCA are really good (the night lighting again is X-Plane's biggest advantage here; "real" lights look so much better than the LIT ground textures in the FSX version), and even the quite complex road networks look good at most places, I don't think purchasing this would be a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did buy New York even though I had doubts. maybe I will eventually go for Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now