Why we need ORBX

[AOB 78]

Like many others I am addicted to fiddling about with FSW. After a few problems I have the ground texture right for Australia (I have put the path to ORBX Australia into the scenery.cfg). Frame rates are really good and it seems to work a lot better than in FSX, BUT houses have roofs but no walls. ORBX object library does not work properly. Also the ORBX PNW caused CTD but ORBX CRM does not (Have not tested NZSI and NZNI yet). Individual airports can be flown to but not flown from. I think getting ORBX on board with compatible scenery will be the single most important update that could possibly be done at the moment. Please DTG get onto it asap!

[ca_metal 2,015]

15 minutes ago, AOB said:

Like many others I am addicted to fiddling about with FSW. After a few problems I have the ground texture right for Australia (I have put the path to ORBX Australia into the scenery.cfg). Frame rates are really good and it seems to work a lot better than in FSX, BUT houses have roofs but no walls. ORBX object library does not work properly. Also the ORBX PNW caused CTD but ORBX CRM does not (Have not tested NZSI and NZNI yet). Individual airports can be flown to but not flown from. I think getting ORBX on board with compatible scenery will be the single most important update that could possibly be done at the moment. Please DTG get onto it asap!

Orbx uses custom objects on their scneries, so you will need their library to have them working right. You can try to use a fake FSX install to make them work right.

There´s a tutorial somewhere in the Dovetail´s Forum. I don´t know if it´s an EULA violation.

[Heimi 91]

I hope we don`t need ORBX, but DTG is doing something big with the ground scenery as they did in thhe sky with trueSky. I don`t want FSW to look the same like a pimped FSX/P3D. Fingers crossed they make their promises true and bring the flight sim to the next level. Even, or especially on the scenery...

[ca_metal 2,015]

4 hours ago, Heimi said:

I hope we don`t need ORBX, but DTG is doing something big with the ground scenery as they did in thhe sky with trueSky. I don`t want FSW to look the same like a pimped FSX/P3D. Fingers crossed they make their promises true and bring the flight sim to the next level. Even, or especially on the scenery...

I'm pretty they have something big to the scenery, but it would be impossible to them to do something like orbx do (developing airports and large detailed regions of the globe). What I expect Dovetail will do is set a new level of quality to the scenery (like they did to the airplanes) and developers like Orbx will fill out the holes that dovetail can't. Dovetail can give the developers new and improved tools do build the sceneries. DTG can improve the base scenery and build the tools to let the 3rd parties work the rest.

Imagine Orbx not just converting their old sceneries, but doing something greater with DTG. I don't know what kind of new technologies they can implement to the scenery, but I really hope for the best.

[A32xx 129]

3 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Imagine Orbx not just converting their old sceneries, but doing something greater with DTG. I don't know what kind of new technologies they can implement to the scenery, but I really hope for the best.

Exactly so: Evolution is better than Revolution, as they say.

[torium 207]

1 hour ago, ca_metal said:

Imagine Orbx not just converting their old sceneries, but doing something greater with DTG. I don't know what kind of new technologies they can implement to the scenery, but I really hope for the best.

John Venema from Orbx previously stated: - "What we have now with DTG's new sims is virtually unlimited land classes defined and engineered by Orbx so that a decade's worth of R&D is now boiled into a new sim as part of its core. That gives us a fantastic foundation to build upon without the previous restrictions we always had to code around."

Let's hope they're already on the right path.

[G-RFRY 1,706]

You do realise that if a sim implements all the things that users ask for in the base product, a lot of developers and the flight sim support industry would disappear.

In truth user want there cake and eat it.

[A32xx 129]

22 minutes ago, rjfry said:

You do realise that if a sim implements all the things that users ask for in the base product, a lot of developers and the flight sim support industry would disappear.

Not necessarily. The base sim would include basic versions of scenery, aircraft, weather etc., while the "Extreme", "HD", "Pro", etc. versions would all be available through the usual channels.

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

You already got OrbX Global as part of the package. Of course you're going to have to pay OrbX for more detail. Ortho4Xp is not ideal for general aviation. It's the same thing with A2A. They added accufeel as part of the default package. They're not going to include their whole fleet of planes for free.

My hunch is that FTX and A2A will make announcements when FSW is released or close to being released.

[AOB 78]

I am not talking about planes just my 19 Orbx sceneries that almost work. On my PC except for PNW, Orbx regions run much better in FSW than in FSX. Frame rates are higher and there are absolutely no stutters or freezes. Just the missing house walls and object libraries need fixing. So close to fully working but just not quite there. I do not believe Orbx need to do anything extraordinary for FSW except convert scenery objects to 64 bit. That will make thousands of existing Orbx FTX owners happy. I know they will almost certainly charge an upgrade fee but happy to pay it.

[turnandbank 243]

3 hours ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

Ortho4Xp is not ideal for general aviation.

?? Why do you say that. I would think the opposite to be true.

[Oliver Ooi 85]

Talking about the FTX Global ground texture that included in the base sim, should we satisfy with the 1m/pixel resolution in the day of 2017? That texture resolution, which is the FSX default, released more than 10 years ago, is still identical like what we see in this 2017 game. Shouldn't they improve the resolution further?

[dtrjones 356]

On 16/09/2017 at 6:57 AM, Heimi said:

I hope we don`t need ORBX, but DTG is doing something big with the ground scenery as they did in thhe sky with trueSky. I don`t want FSW to look the same like a pimped FSX/P3D. Fingers crossed they make their promises true and bring the flight sim to the next level. Even, or especially on the scenery...

I love the attention to detail Orbx have with there sceneries, but part of me wants MS Flight back, the first time I few at sunset around the Koolau forest reserve in Maui - the way the sun dynamically lights up the individual trees and creating the shadows on the ground, it was so good to look at!

I don't know if the Orbx scenery can handle dynamic shadows for mountains and buildings and trees - it's all baked in the texture right? I'm hoping this is something that can be looked at for the next iteration of scenery because it's pretty clear than the current Orbx scenery although beautifully put together is very old school and needs a lick of paint.

[carbonbasedlifeform 179]

23 hours ago, turnandbank said:

?? Why do you say that. I would think the opposite to be true.

Everything gets flat near the ground. The shadows will match whatever time the photo was taken by the sattelite. Photoscenery is better for higher altitudes. Also, it comes down to getting the feel for the region right. FTX is great at that. Airports are really well detailed.

[turnandbank 243]

 

4 minutes ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

Everything gets flat near the ground

Apart from the autogen, all underlying textures start to look flat at low altitude. With good overlays (autogen and W2XP) this becomes less of an issue. Also, using a higher ZL around airports makes it less noticeable.

6 minutes ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

The shadows will match whatever time the photo was taken by the sattelite.

I'll give you that, but, I do not find it that noticeable and FTX textures also have burn't in shadows.

6 minutes ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

Photoscenery is better for higher altitudes.

FTX textures are made from real photos as well, so the same holds true with them.  Again it depends on the ZL. Using a higher ZL around airports makes a big difference in Ortho scenery much as FTX uses higher resolution photoreal textures around their custom airports.

9 minutes ago, carbonbasedlifeform said:

Also, it comes down to getting the feel for the region right.

Agreed. While it depends on the quality of the Orthophotos and the overlay, I think ortho4xp beats generic landclass scenery at realism any day.  Orbx mitigates this by using photoscenery around custom airports and then blending it with the landclass, but this gets expensive, whereas Ortho4xp is free.

I have a ton of ORBX scenery, regions and airports in Prepar3d. It's an excellent product that I have enjoyed immensely, but, since getting into Ortho4xp, I find it more immersive and most of my flying is general aviation at lower altitudes.  I do agree ORBX can provide a more consistent visual experience, but that is also part of the downside as it all starts to look the same somehow. When the underlying Orthophotos and overlay data are good, Ortho4xp is hard to beat.

Neither method is perfect and they both have advantages and pitfalls, but, IMO, both ORBX and Ortho4xp can provide a great environment for general aviation simming.