This is the best year for flightsimming Ever!

[alex86 192]

It’s nice to see a topic like this for once, where people are encouraging, positive and grateful for all the hard work developers put into their products. This hobby would be nothing without these hard working people. Sometimes people tend to forget that, and while we have the right to complain since we spend money on these products, it really gets old reading all the complaints and negative attitudes because “the aircraft doesn’t turn smoothly with the autopilot on”. I for sure am thankful and excited that we have all these excellent developers that make our hobby what it is today.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

On 9/21/2017 at 8:58 PM, TheFlightSimGuy said:

Thank you hardware manufacturers for making hardware perform at new heights again and thank you DTG for adding 100's of thousands of new simmers to our marketplace! 

Yes, my new MSI Vortex made P3D and XP11 possible!

John

[787WannabePilot 12]

I am drooling over Ortho4XP for XP 11.. wish it could be ported to FSX / P3D!

Hopefully one day. :)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

19 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

I am drooling over Ortho4XP for XP 11.. wish it could be ported to FSX / P3D!

Hopefully one day. :)

Sadly I cannot get OrthoXP to work, I believe it is due to the source, I am not sure how to enter it.  FSEarthtiles is a great add-on for FSX/P3d.  I have a working .ini file for those who wish to try, only downside is I don't know how to get coastal masks to work.  Inland areas are OK, takes a while to download the photoreal scenery, a few days for a typical state.  But if you just want a metro area, like Dallas, it does not take too long at a 90 pct. compression rate and 2m resolution.

John

 

[SmokeDiddy 262]

It's a great year to have several fine choices of sims to feed our need to fly.  Certainly, the third party devs, for both payware and freeware, deliver some finely detailed goods to add to our needs and wants.

[787WannabePilot 12]

1 minute ago, Cactus521 said:

Sadly I cannot get OrthoXP to work, I believe it is due to the source, I am not sure how to enter it.  FSEarthtiles is a great add-on for FSX/P3d.  I have a working .ini file for those who wish to try, only downside is I don't know how to get coastal masks to work.  Inland areas are OK, takes a while to download the photoreal scenery, a few days for a typical state.  But if you just want a metro area, like Dallas, it does not take too long at a 90 pct. compression rate and 2m resolution.

John

 

I did look into it... but the flat look (lack of autogen) isn't for me. From high above, it is good looking, not so much on approach.

I know there are ways around it, but it is a bit too tedious for me.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Just now, SmokeDiddy said:

It's a great year to have several fine choices of sims to feed our need to fly.  Certainly, the third party devs, for both payware and freeware, deliver some finely detailed goods to add to our needs and wants.

After Microsoft dropped development on MSFS, there was a period there where the third party developers kept the sim alive.  I believe their interest is what got Lockheed Martin onboard with saving the sim.  Meanwhile Xplane continued to develop into the fine product it is today.  I know there are new contenders to the sim hobby, still early in their development, that will keep the market competitive.  It was sad to see Real Air leave, however, they made a great product.  Today I discovered that Carenado and Alabeo kept their product links and my keys archived, so I was able to restore quite a few aircraft that I thought I had lost when my old system crashed.  The only aircraft I repurchased was the 550 and Mirage, since I hadn't noticed this before.  I am glad they still serve the hobby, they know their market and they cater to it well.

John

[John_Cillis 2,406]

5 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

I did look into it... but the flat look (lack of autogen) isn't for me. From high above, it is good looking, not so much on approach.

I know there are ways around it, but it is a bit too tedious for me.

I don't use autogen in P3d--too unrealistic to me, at altitude the Photoreal scenery looks fine.  I do use it in XP-11 where I find it very realistic and also area sensitive, for instance in Europe the buildings are European in appearance.  I also think it scales better than P3d.  XP11 also has great landclass and ground textures.  I can live without OrthoXP because they are so well done.

John

[787WannabePilot 12]

31 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

I don't use autogen in P3d--too unrealistic to me, at altitude the Photoreal scenery looks fine.  I do use it in XP-11 where I find it very realistic and also area sensitive, for instance in Europe the buildings are European in appearance.  I also think it scales better than P3d.  XP11 also has great landclass and ground textures.  I can live without OrthoXP because they are so well done.

John

Can or can't? :)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

8 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

Can or can't? :)

I can live without OrthoXP.  In P3d I have my photoreal platform, and the visibility stretches further than XP11.  In XP11 the default scenery looks very good, I always thought it was better than FSX in resembling what the pilot sees.  The only thing I don't like about XP11 is the exaggeration of torque and P-Factor on takeoff, it requires hard rudder to keep straight down the runway.  I know there's a way to adjust this in the aircraft dynamics, I just don't know what to adjust.  The two sims compliment each other rather than compete with each other I think.  Flight dynamics I used to complain about in XP-11, but they have changed and feel more like real aircraft do in the air now.  The 172 is my favorite XPlane Aircraft, also the Columbia.

John

 

[787WannabePilot 12]

On 9/23/2017 at 0:38 PM, Cactus521 said:

I can live without OrthoXP.  In P3d I have my photoreal platform, and the visibility stretches further than XP11.  In XP11 the default scenery looks very good, I always thought it was better than FSX in resembling what the pilot sees.  The only thing I don't like about XP11 is the exaggeration of torque and P-Factor on takeoff, it requires hard rudder to keep straight down the runway.  I know there's a way to adjust this in the aircraft dynamics, I just don't know what to adjust.  The two sims compliment each other rather than compete with each other I think.  Flight dynamics I used to complain about in XP-11, but they have changed and feel more like real aircraft do in the air now.  The 172 is my favorite XPlane Aircraft, also the Columbia.

John

 

What resolution did you use for altitudes above 6k to 10k where it looked good?

My view is to blanket a state with a resolution for high altitudes, then pick certain areas near my airports where better resolution is needed.  Then overide one over the other in the scenery order.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

1 minute ago, 787WannabePilot said:

What resolution did you use for altitudes above 6k to 10k where it looked good?

My view is to blanket a state with a resolution for high altitudes, then pick certain areas near my airports where better resolution is needed.  Then overide one over the other in the scenery order.

My problem wasn't the resolution in XP11, it was getting the scenery to start, period. I get a script error once OrthoXP looks at the source.

John

[787WannabePilot 12]

14 minutes ago, Cactus521 said:

My problem wasn't the resolution in XP11, it was getting the scenery to start, period. I get a script error once OrthoXP looks at the source.

John

Sorry, I was referring to FSEarthtiles that you are currently using. :)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

25 minutes ago, 787WannabePilot said:

Sorry, I was referring to FSEarthtiles that you are currently using. :)

I decided to download MSE scenery for the most part, with FSEarthtiles I use 2M resolution, but I haven't started any new projects yet, not sure I will use it, it takes way too long and the servers aren't happy with someone grabbing images for free.  I have enough photoreal scenery in P3d to keep me going for a long time, since I like to fly out west.  My scenery stretches from California to Colorado, plenty of flights there to keep me happy.

John

[John_Cillis 2,406]

13 hours ago, Cactus521 said:

My problem wasn't the resolution in XP11, it was getting the scenery to start, period. I get a script error once OrthoXP looks at the source.

John

I finally got OrthoXP4 to work, the secret for me was extracting the Python files directly into the OrthoXP folder and placing my scenery build folder there.  Everything came together immediately after that.  I have OrthoXP installed on a separate partition.  This morning I generated my first scenery, of Maricopa county.  Autogen lays down perfectly on the scenery, adding a 3d depth to the photoscenery.  Although I used some of the youtube tutorials to get started, none covered the install process well of OrthoXP.  I knew the script error I had was some type of pathing issue, I am glad I got it figured out and working.  P3d is still my primary photoreal platform, but XP-11 has a certain ambiance about it which I like for VFR, GA flying.  I used 17 as the resolution for OrthoXP and USA_2 as the source, which looks fine even at a lower altitude.  Maricopa county came in at about 200 megs in size at that resolution.

John