George,Correct me if I'm wrong here, but before we even got to the level of detail issue....back for FS9, I thought "one" of the biggest issues that prompted us to even start more detailed ground work to begin with was that; using the default FS method meant things like taxi way widths were all the same size. That alone meant we had to start 'hand-making' the ground just to get an accurate layout of the airport itself.Now, I've looked through the FSX SDK's but wasn't really looking for that issue because we were actually content with having to use the old way providing it would work using the FS2002 SDK...LOL. i.e. gmax and PS. People have no idea how large these files get either. In most cases they can't be viewed all at once in their raw format simply because todays computers can't load them.Now as to the poster who says were just lazy is just idiotic because we actually chose to take loads of more time in order to bring a more realistic and accurate look to "their" add-ons. That poster also has no clue as to what sceneries actually bring in either. He has no clue as to how long it takes just to get the photos needed to make a scenery and the enormous amount of coordination required just to get to the design phase. He has no clue as to what source is actually needed for an underlay for good ground work either, nor the amount of time it takes to then 'hand paint' that ground work. He has no idea that some developers probably chose to spend a ton of money (almost half of what that scenery would probably make) to buy images if they wanted to use those imges in the final product.You're **ssing in the wind trying to explain the numerous issues to people like that.They don't understand that we're just not going to simply place our scenery in the FSX directory with some minor hacks and no upgrades just to give our products longevity (if you could call it that).We are simmers also, and wanted more then anything to take advantage of the NEW features that FSX has to offer, and if that meant writing a major upgrade for our old stuff, we were prepared to do just that...for free even...when others would be charging for a simple port over with no upgrades. In other words, folks, we didn't ask for shortcuts, all we asked for was the ability to have the flexibility required to continue on. If that ####### you off, well, you know what they say "Lifes a bit** then you mary one."

I can't believe that I am having people come on to AVSIM and have a pop at my opinion simply because I am pointing out the need to innovate. Where would the world of flight sims and indeed the world of aviation be if Orville had said to Wilbur: 'Nope sorry it's too difficult mate, let's stick to making bikes shall we?'And calling me an idiot is just indicative of that entire attitude, when I was trying to be upbeat and suggest that nothing is ever created that is worthwhile or innovative without a bit of sweat and effort. Furthermore, I should like to point out that since one of the companies I do work for is Adobe, suggesting that I have no clue about image libraries and the need to purchase pictures, is as laughable as it is ignorant of what I do, and do not know.I am not suggesting that I have all the answers to the issues that will crop up, but one thing I do not have is a defeatist attitude to finding the inevitable solutions that I and others who choose to produce stuff for FS will come up with.Why don't you check back here in two years' time? And if at that point no-one has managed to knock out an impressive airport scenery for FSX, I'll gladly eat my words.OK, you can get back to insulting me now, instead of actually atempting to consider the possibilities rather than the drawbacks.

I have no doubt devs with figure out how to get quality scenery into FSX in 2 years. But, now right now, the future is very bleak. Not even taking into account the performance is god awful.You have to understand, without the FS FDK, you really can't do anything.Innovation is one thing. I think we'd been very creative in out current range of sceneries. I get about 10 emails a week asking be how the ********** we do certain elements. Until you can prove you are capable of creating quality artwork, I'm afraid I'm finished listening to your broad, speculative ideas. They sound more like some #ull#hit management meeting than an actual solution.Slapping a photo onto a Derbyshire hillside is a completely different ballgame to building an international airport.

Man all of this over the traditional devoloper whine, impressive. I do the same thing everytime a client requests something that we don't think we can do. i stamp my feet and whine and curse, then sit down and figure out how to do it. Everyone else I work with does the same thing. It's just how the game works. You can't refuse the client (without a very very good reason), and you are paid to find answers. So get to finding!The same thing is happening here, the dev got the rant out of their system and now can get to figuring it out. They have the luxury of choosing not to, but they will quickly be replaced by someone who will. Again, that's just how the game works. The old scenery was done through unnoficcial means, meaning a hack, somebody sat down and figured it out. It didn't just appear, someone had to do some investigation and trial and error to get it to work. That just needs to happen again. The solution will probably be different. But whatever works, right?Hacks are great, they make the development world work. I swear that if all the major software suppliers fixed all the bugs and weird behaviors in their products the internet would collapse and companies would grind to a halt. So stiffen that lip, get some Mountain Dew (or your beverage of choice), and lets break this program so it works!

Hey Jeff,Yep, the taxiway widths is another reason we need ground polys or a new solution.

When you tell us that we're sitting on our arsses, you can expect that kind of response every single time. It was you who said that, right?Why don't you take your little behind over to fsdeveloper.com and see just was other tools have been developed "outside" the FS box over the years so that we can bring you all that stuff you say is in the SDK.Once again, when get a little more knowledge, come back and say hi, because I can tell you right now, I don't even have all the knowledge that's required.We're not saying it can't be done or won't be done, we're saying this is a very serious issue that has the potential to be a show stopper. Eventually some things are going be just out of our control. We hope that isn't the case here.Edit: this is in response to "Chock"

I thought this forum would be "kum ba-yaa" for FSX. The complaints seem to have escalated instead.Great reading over here during the lunch break! Wait...let me get some popcorn before the next post!Ed Lin, D.O.S.

I never said that 'slapping a photo on a Derbyshire hillside', as you so delightfully put it, was the same as creating a major airport, although the principle of designing one scenery is much the same as another if realism is what you are striving for. I'm merely trying to point out that the situation with the SDK, which does as you say have issues, is not an insolvable one.I do not feel the need to prove to you that I am capable of producing quality artwork, since, amongst other things, that is what I have been doing for a living for around 25 years. The numerous design awards residing on my mantlepiece are enough proof of that, and I might add, matter more to me than the unlikely chance I'd want to seek your approval of any of my artwork. So like you, I too am finished listening to the blinkered attitudes of people who want everything put on a plate for them.Good luck with your scenery design, I was not posting on this thread to make enemies, merely suggestions. But apparently those blinkers make that invisible too.

All I see in Mr. Martin post is they may have a few problems. Not that the world has ended. I'm sure the addon Scenery makers will cope with them and as always bring us stuff that will make out Jaws drop and say how did they do that.The ones posting insults and name calling or we don't need the addon makers. Take a time out you need it.:-bluegrab

Actually no, I did not say developers were sitting on their asses. What I said was that they will have to get off their asses and do some work. And that is not the same thing at all. And I'm including myself in that by the way.

Escalation is right. I don't think this thread is accomplishing anything, actually. Instead of a reasonable discussion you have people telling other people to "enjoy their dumbed down sim". That's blather. Blather!Can't a reasonable civil discussion take place? I'm sure all of these issues can and will be resolved. They always have been in the past.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Seems to me someone doesnt want to take the time to learn new processes. Happens all the time in my line of work. If you dont adapt, you get left behind and loose your job. I'm sorry to see Marting throw in the towel so quickly.Courage is fear leaving the body

So were we not working before? I guess I'm just not uderstanding you then, becuase for the rewards versus the already incredible amount of dev time needed just for the ground work using all the work arounds in addition to the tools in the SDK, I'm not getting it. Call me dense...ROFL.The major problem here is that by adding to an already intense and lengthy process, it's not financially feasable for most to continue.Now for those who aren't worried as much about that part you have to take into account the standards they're using for their design work also. For the 3 of us mentioned here in the thread, we expect to be able to not only continue the high customization and detail level, but also expect to be able to utilize the new features of FSX at the same time. We can't do this at this point. For us here at OSS we have to have both the detail and quality but the financial aspect at the same time. That means we can't accept lengthy dev times, but further if in all actuality, we have to get to a point where we can start cranking very high detailed projects out at a rate of 1 every 3 months. As you can see from the time of our last release till now, we can't even do 1 every year, so we're pretty much stuck before these new issues with FSX.

It's not about learning the new process. THEY ARE NOT THERE!!! DO YOU COPY?? ROFL.Tell ya what, I'll just call the used flight sim factory adn see if they can make us one. rgr that?

By posting the link to his forum and associating his writing with "frustration/anger". Its brought an onslaught of commentary by a huge number of folks that have entirely different backgrounds, who won't be able to help Martin, and who can't sympathize, understand or contribute meaningfully.Its brought on debate that stirs together fact, fiction and marketing sloguns, along with a touch of "customer is always right" indignation.Martin was simply providing his customers status.I read his writing, and nodded the whole time, these are knotty issues the development community is struggling with.No more, no less.Everthing else in this thread is added on by the emotions stirred up by the original poster. None of which makes sense in light of Martins reasoned, scientific, accurate assessment of the current status quo.Something he felt his customers deserved, and I agree with his idea that his customer's would be interested in status.