Jump to content

lateagain

Members
  • Content Count

    382
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lateagain

  1. .....er well I'm sure you don't. The question you need to ask then is how many folk are achieving that? ...probably not many? and as such few developers are likely to build complexity that such processors would cope with. Of course ORBX may completely change tack on airports but at the moment the reviews put UK2000 Xtreme at the top of the list so you can splash the cash elsewhere :lol: .
  2. Why wait? The UK2000 Xtreme ones get very good reviews and they've covered a lot of UK airports already. The few ORBX airports (mainly Oz) didn't get good reviews for framerates as I recall? and in any case they've said they won't be doing them as they're too time consuming. The UK2000 airports have a try before you buy download and are pretty well priced too. BTW The UK2000 VFR airfields also have simpler versions of the Airports included so if you fly all sorts that's a bargain starting point? Geoff
  3. Having flown a C172 which had almost identical (no autopilot) instrument panel to the default (A Reims built version) I'd recommend seeking out the various free downloads of tweaks and improvements for the default and possibly some better skins. Then have a look at FriendlyPanels who do some excellent great value enhancements that work with the default aircraft. The Carenado model is like another version I flew but personally I'm waiting for the A2A and RealAir versions. Just hope they don't put glass cockpits in them ...or only as an optional version. Geoff
  4. But what are we looking at? What are we comparing? What's the co-ordinates of the camera? Are the seasons, time and environment the same in each shot etc. Posting one shot two versions is like posting two Capital Letter A's and saying which is the nicer font? When you look at Font you look at A-Z and the numbers and the punctuation marks included. Geoff
  5. There is also a request for feedback on issues. The devs cannot possibly be expected to have local knowledge and often available satellite imagery itself is missing detail at certain levels. I don't understand why the process of updating and patching, which is comon in just about ALL products as well as software seems to uniquely cause such hostile debate with sim software. If people do not identify issues AND help the devs identify them and just sit on their thumbs waiting for someone else to find and fix stuff not much will get done. The offers there. The only negativity I see is those criticisng the critics? Any design project, artistic and/or technical goes through a series of reviews and criticisms as part of the development process. If the developer is interested in improving things that logically means improving that which is wrong, overlooked, poorly rendered or missing. If folk are happy with what they've got then why not enjoy it? Why come and attack those who've identified issues? Personally I'm enjoying flying the scenery and giving it a critical appraisal at the same time. I've posted here and PM'd Keith with some observations. If folk don't have the local knowledge they can still ask here if they think something doesn't look right. The very density of settlement and population per Sq mile in the UK was always going to make it a tough region to do well but with the willingness of the developer to improve what can be improved all feedback must be useful. Geoff
  6. Much Improved then :LMAO: :LMAO: :LMAO: Sorry couldn't resist a joke. Seriously love Manchester to bits! Hope the switch off works. Geoff
  7. In a nutshell ORBX took prepaid "pre-orders" offering a small discount. When the product was actually released it coincided with a massive promotional sale of all their products at a MUCH higher discount INCLUDING the latest release. This meant in effect that those who'd pre-ordered and prepaid paid more for it than folk who hadn't. PLEASE don't start another debate about this because it's history and no amount of stirring can rewrite that history. The complaints got many folk banned from the official forums (Support was still available) and that's why we have THIS section in the AVSim forums. This section is obviously "NEW" to some posters here and they've followed the "ENGLAND" threads from the general forum. Without reading a years worth of forum entries the criticisms here might seem harsh but many newcomers are missing the fact that most folk who post here have a lot of FTX products, a lot of experience of the bits that they've done astoundingly well and the bits that haven't worked so well. The strength of this section is that people who like the product can discuss it without heavy handed moderation or deletion of their posts. If folk are new to ORBX and arrive here through ORBX England they've missed a great deal of excellent scenery already produced by different teams of designers and creators from all over the planet and those of us who've bought all of it find the assumption that we "don't understand" or "expect too much" pretty patronising and annoying. Such comments are no more than an arrogant assumption on the part of the poster, although they may not have intended that? Lets put it another way. If you were thinking of buying a car would you seek advice from your friends who were mechanics? ....or would you ask your maiden aunt who'd only just passed her test? BTW no personal slight at yourself Cameron it's just that I felt that the issue you raised was relevant to some of the recent posts in this thread. I would point out that this squabbling amongst ourselves is doing NOTHING to help the offer of improvements extended by the development team here and perhaps some of you may like to post some suggested improvements rather than do that? Geoff
  8. A few more Missing Landmarks Corfe Castle - Sitting as it does on the hill between the the main purneck hill ranges this is another landmark clearly visible from the air http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/apmw/09jul10/wareswan/apmw040.jpg Thames barrier - well just not there although there are some marks in the water where it should be. http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/34722-1/ThamesBarrierAerial-ca32752a.jpg Dorset Again and Sandbanks - missing houses and a ferry. The bog standard FTX ferry fits in well here too. Whilst we're around Poole the Cross channel Ferry and Commercial Harbour opposite Poole Quay is shown as a small boat marina. The Ferry's include large cross channel vessels and high speed cross channel Catamarans Back in London the buildings either side of the Thames at Tower Bridge are missing or too small. I know these are only some of the buildings that aren't there but they do give the Tower, Tower Bridge and the pool of London a more convincing feel. Hope that's useful and that anything that technically can't be fixed we'll have to live without. Lastly One wrong placement that's a simple fix. The Woolwich Ferry. One is sailing upstream towards London and this would look better either just leaving one of the loading piers or moored to it. The ferry that's already at the pier should be on the end of the L. Google maps shows this. The models themselves work pretty well as the Woolwich Ferry. Cheers Geoff
  9. Well rather than chew over old wounds lets make this avenue of communication work? Lets start with some easy fixes Firstly in London Hyde Park looks like a a dense jungle? Needs trees removing. Down In Dorset These are the cliffs between Swanage and Studland. Part of the Jurrasic Coast. They should be white like the more famous ones at Dover Also there are some rocks at the headland where Studland bay ends known as Old harry and his wives. These are actually clearly visible from miles around and can certainly be seen from the air. Whilst we're on about landmark rocks the Needles on the isle of Wight are missing too although the lightouse at the end is modelled. Whilst I appreciate this is not photoreal scenery the vert obviously wrong landclass around the baloon at Bournemouth Centre could be better represented by some higher rise buildings and better placed greenery for the winter gardens? Some 3D piers would make the coasts look more convincing too? Not suggesting scale models of all the UK's piers (although THERE'S a project we'd all love?) but at least a few different "generic structures" to represent different sizes and lengths? Think I've busted the pic llimit for this post so I'll post more in another one. Geoff PS Kevin and Mods? Would it help to start a seperate thread just for constructive suggestions so they don't get lost in the debate?
  10. To those who are joining in the chorus of "some folks expectations are unrealistically high" I'd point out that this is nothing more than an assumption on your part? :huh: Wait until some specifics have been posted. Nobody has posted anything I've read that has suggested that and many people posting here have nearly ALL that FTX has produced. In other words they're an "informed" audience. No one has trashed this package. Even those of us who are initially disappointed with some aspects of it see much in it that is good or very good. No one developer or even half a dozen developers can equal the local knowledge and expertise of such a densely populated area and the teams willingness to take on any suggestions has to be as positive as anyone could be. :good: Let's help them with the tweaking and concentrate on that rather than criticising the critics? There have already been some really useful bits of critical feedback and this sort of stuff has been patched in other FTX areas and they're all the better for it. No names no pack drill, we all know who they are, there are some developers who seem to ignore any feedback however constructive it is so surely we should embrace a dialogue with any developer who's keen to get feedback? That means a bit of work on our part too. Geoff
  11. Hi Keith, Great to see your post and it's reassuring. Obviously some stuff will be beyond what's possible (?) and some may require additional 3D which isn't going to be a quick fix but knowing that the team is interested in tweaking and improving is a huge plus in my book. I did sort out some screengrabs on my main box but will try and organise some real shots to illustrate what may be helpful in relation to these. My own experience so far has improved tremendously by some careful tweaking of sliders but there are still areas that hasn't helped. I'll try and get some shots up ASAP. Cheers Geoff
  12. Let's be clear about my points, it's a vast improvement over the combo you mention that I've been using too ....but it does suffer from some of that combos faults still :unsure: and perhaps that's more noticeable with UK and NZ terrain where it lacks the spectacular terrain of the rockies or NZSI?. FTX has a huge fan base and most folk posting here have made a considerable investment in their add-ons. When your competitors fans criticise your product you may reason that they weren't "coming on board anyway"? When your supporters criticise it you ought to pay attention? Banning critics is as stupid and futile as shooting the messenger. :huh: You may not agreee with some criticisms, you may not be able to easily address some because of the techniques used or the limitations of the sim but IF you listen and address the bits that can be addressed and engage in dialogue about those that are not fixable you gain respect and accolades. :clapping: ....but it's not unique in being a base package for the UK ....and further more many of the UK's airfields and airports have been done to a pretty high standard already. All the more reason to make the "base package" truly "Stunning/Awsome/Amazing" etc. etc. The best FTX airport add-ons for any region so far are IMO the ones that have also provided better detail to local areas and landmarks around the field too. There's a couple of old sayings that developers ought to keep in mind perhaps regarding critics? "Not everybody who agrees with you is necessarily your friend and not everybody who disagrees with you is necessarily your enemy." and "Be nice to everyone on the way up .....because you're sure to meet them all on the way down". Geoff
  13. I'd agree with that. There are some significant omissions and some towns have no "centre" being just a suburban sprawl. It looks a bit like a book that hasn't been properly proof read. Lots of I's to be dotted and t's to be crossed still and lots of cases where textures needed better blending or have "smeared over edges". There are some silly mistakes in placement too. There's only one Woolwich ferry and it's alongside it's loading jetty rather than on the end of it. The other one is making it's way upstream towards Tower Bridge. Some of the reasonable 3D models would look a whole lot better if the colours were de-saturated too so that they blended in rather than stood out. Some of the textures and colours are just wrong in places and careless placement of trees and textures have spoilt wilder areas that other ORBX regions have excelled at. I do hope the team will tidy up things that customers flag up and issue a patch or two? The real Irony to me is that it looks much better from a few thousand feet but that is the very level that photoreal starts to come in to its own. The road and rail networks are pretty much spot on but often missing 3D features spoils that too. No elevated tracks or roads and bridges missing everywhere. That may sound trivial but for "eyeballing it" such things help navigate. If they'd copied the UK2000VFR airfield regions rather than go for a political split of the UK I think they could have spent more time on perfecting the techniques perhaps? More hands on a smaller task? Folk would still have bought 3 rather than 2 regions (for England and Wales) if they knew the detail was going to be there? As it stands it does look rushed frankly. Geoff
  14. OK Take 2. As I said I wasn't happy with the performance on my box at first so I applied the settings in the manual. Then I put Real Airfields Denham top of the totem pole and UK2000 VFR airfields Vol1 (wasn't going to move them all until I'd tried them out) and ignored the manual and set autogen all the way to the right. Set off again from Denham in the A2A Cub and flew past Northolt to Heathrow. The Real Airfields Denham (by far the best IMHO) sits perfectly and the textures seemed fine with the FTX ones. I guess the UK2000 VFR airfields are a matter of taste. I like them and they seem to work well. How the textures will work with seasonal changes etc. I'll report back on when I get a chance. With the Autogen maxed the package looks much more convincing to me. Of course there is a performance hit but my AMD 4 core 3.4Ghz machine isn't overclocked and my ATI 5800 series card with 754mb of ram is a bit long in the tooth now even so the compromise between detail and smoothness suits me. Of course all this discussion of frame rates is pretty vague stuff anyway because the same area viewed from different cams gives different rates? I'm much happier with London than my initial trial but there are still some issues that jar a little. With "by the book" settings I was getting no stations and that seemed really naff? Maxed the stations are all there but as very unrecognisable "generic" blocks. I know this isn't VFR London but I'd have thought that at least a curved glass roofed block (even if they were all the same) would be a better representation on many UK main line termini? I've taken loads of screenshots but resizing them and converting them whilst keeping a degree of quality is time consuming. IrfanView does batch conversions but even at "best" settings the .jpgs lose too much detail. I'm off to look again at Dorset to see if the new settings have improved that. I'll report back. BTW obviously it's tricky for FTX to know what to recommend as basic settings because an old sim like FSX is being used on many different machines. I'm sure NGX drivers on the ILS to Heathrow would not see an issue at their speed and height but at 60knots in a cub there's a bit more time to be critical :lol: When I've had more of an explore I'll try "switching out" some of the UK VFR fields to see how the FTX compare. "I'll be baach" :ph34r: and hopefully with at least a couple of helpful screenshots. Geoff
  15. My initial reactions I've posted here http://forum.avsim.net/topic/391418-orbx-england/#entry2521842 Very mixed feelings so far but off to do more slider tweaking to see what I can get. Some issues can't be fixed by sliders and there are a few but a lot of it is Good and even Very Good. Geoff
  16. Well my initial thoughts are that it's like the curate's egg. I know amongst the excitement and enthusiasm that might seem a bit of a blight but bear with me and I'll explain. BTW the spin on the curates egg if you Google it is that "it was bad but called good out of politeness". Not how I've ever understood the saying! To me it means good in parts, bad in parts. Firstly I DID READ the manual. I then ignored it (except for the Mesh setting) and ran it as I've been running other stuff. The results were pretty poor frame rates (unsurprisingly) but I persevered until it beat my set-up and crashed. Entirely my fault not the scenery. Back to square one and I copied the recommended settings to the letter (more or less, always keep aircraft shadows on ground as landing hands on from an exterior view is difficult without it) and saw a doubling of frame rates. However I can't say I saw anywhere near the level of autogen buildings in some of the screenshots posted around. I took some screenshots which I'll try and sort out later. The first trip was obviously going to be round my home town so I started from my old "home" when I flew for real at Denham and set off to overfly Heathrow, and then back to Kew gardens and on into London. Down to London City and North from the Woolwich Ferry to land at Stapleford. Some good bits first. The mesh is excellent. Those who've written England off as flat may be interested to know that the land around Denham whilst hardly being alpine is far from flat. In fact Denham sits on a level plateau surrounded by valleys and rolling fields and all of this is spot on. To be totally realistic you should read the denham approach and circuit details (find them online) as it sits within the Heathrow CTR and is overflown by a standard departure route from nearby Northolt (1500') so circuits are flown at 750'. But of course this is a sim so I set off illegally to overhead Heathrow central area. The lakes on Denhams approach are pretty accurtate but sadly the trees that make Denham 26 approaches occasionally challenging are just shown as ground cover bushes. The next issue I have is that I have all UK2000 VFR airfields (except Denham which I have the Real Scenery version of) and I'd made no adjustments to the scenery library before/after selecting EUROPE in the usual FTX region selector. Obviously FTX was over this as the scenery was not my usual. However when I approached Heathrow and looked left at Northolt I began to think I was looking at UK2000 versions. I need to check this and report back. The next good bit is that the roads are instantly recognisable to those who know here they are so VFR Mk1 eyeball navigation was possible for all of my trip with only a glance at the map to set a heading from Woolwich to Stapleford. So what's bad? Well the ground cover initially didn't seem too bad but some classic landmarks were missing. I know it's not photoreal but one thing every military pilot and Denham pilot knows is that in the valley SW of 26 as you climb out is the Martin Baker factory! BTW are there any FSX models with ejector seats that work?! Heading for Kew it was recognisable even at 1500' from a good way off and the row of Tower Blocks that are North of the Thames opposite Kew are spot on. Alas not much else of the 3D scenery was present and the ground cover whilst being reasonable in some places way way out in others. Obviously I don't expect a 3D virtual home town but there are dozens of high rise office blocks along the start of the M4 and A4 so at least a ground cover more representative would help. If you fly tubes and ride the ILS on autoland you probably don't care but a visual approach to 27L or R at Heathrow has some obvious landmarks. As you fly East up the Thames the landmarks are excellent and convincing although some of the placements in the ground cover look a bit odd. The Natural History Museum is well modelled but looks "odd" and none of the other buildings between it and the Albert Hall are there. When I got to Tower Bridge I noticed that St Katherines dock lacked any significant buildings and this made The Tower look too prominent. Pressing on towards London City and the Dome the first obvious ommision (even as a flat representation) was the Thames barrier which is a major landmark. Heading North to Stapleford I was able to recognise Barkingside, Hainault and Tomswood Hill by the road and railway layout and the groundcover here is reasonably representative but I feel that the suburban type landcover goes far too far into London. There seems little between Tower Blocks and Semi's? Next I decided to head for the Coast and the Bournemouth and Poole areas that I know well. Setting off from Hurn frame rates were imediately higher than the urban area but the 3D content seemed lacking. Maybe I need to play with those sliders again. Again the Mesh was excellent, Landscape and textures not bad with the heathland pretty well placed and textured. However Bournemouth and Poole Town Centres seemed not to exist at all? NOW this might be a slider issue. I'll report back. However Unlike many Seaside Towns in the UK Bournemouth and Poole both have a very obvious centre with high rise and large buildings. As I saw it they looked more like Bexhill, a sprawl of bungalows. The marinas were where they should be in the harbour BUT the Ferry terminal for Cherbourg was totally missing, replaced instead bya marina and where the car and truck loading area should be there was the wrong lanclass. I pressed on toward Wareham and sure enough Ridge was where it should be and Wareham was more or less right given the textures. I headed for Corfe. No castle! Probably the most famous landmark on the purbecks and it was just a hill with some bad texture. Corfe itself was in the wrong place and there seemed too much built up texture on the way down to Swanage. A case of "less is more"? Swanage wasn't bad but extended too far south perhaps and I headed back to Hurn. The second most famous landmark in the region "Old Harry Rocks" was also missing and Studland bay lacked the training reef too. The Studland ferry was missing too and as this is almost exactly like the one modelled already that seemed poor. Sandbanks which is heavily built up was mostly green and towards Bornemouth roads and buildings seemed to tumble into the sea! Both Swanage and Bournemouth piers were just coloured shapes on the water with no 3D at all and the area of Bournemouth where the pier and conference centre stand were totally unbelievable. Before I get trashed let me emphasise that a lot of this is good. Some excellent. Other parts need a lot more work and some are really bad. Of course it was going to be a test for the technique as all of us Brits knew just how diverse and complex our landscape is. It doesn't have as much geographic complexity as some previous areas but texture wise it's probaly one of the most complex. This was a first try and I need to go back and tweak a few settings to see if I can get better. The download took me two hours (3.2Gb) so DVD might suit some better. I'll not post screenshots until I know I've got things set as well as possible. I own all the FTX landclass series so please bear that in mind when reading my comments. Geoff
  17. I take it that's "Autumn"? My immediate thought is that it's not green enough. We're not short of rain in the UK and even when the trees have shed their leaves the grass is usually very green. The trees look too dark too. Looking around at the moment they're more gold than brown. London looks good and is recognisable straight away from that altitude but some lower shots would make it easier to see how the non high rise buildings look. At first glance the non tower block inner city areas look to have too low and too small buildings? Geoff
  18. Well it's released and I'm downloading as I type. At 3.2Gb and just under £27 (approx) it's going to take 2 hours on my connection so I'll not be looking at it for a while. I'll try and get some shots up later but checking out such a large area will start obviously from my own location and move on to areas I know well. I've got the UK2000 VFR airfields already but I want to see what FTX have done before I check those out. Geoff
  19. Well Ron you and a few others here of our generation will remember when the only real technology in the home was Hi-Fi? The same folk who crave the latest M'board, CPU, GPUetc.etc. and monitor the frame rates are the same folk (different generation) as those who used to argue about the reproduction of X amp and Y speaker of frequency levels that (and they could have read up on this from things called books and magazines ...PC's being yet to come) ...anyway about frequency levels that were actually inaudible to the human ear :rolleyes: . Instead of listening to music (the whole point of Hi-Fi) they'd have been happy as pigs in muck with just a few test generators to prove how well the sounds they couldn't hear were being reproduced :LMAO: More to the point there is some belated constructive criticism over on the FTX official forums but lets hope that any glitches can be fixed with a patch or two? Lets also hope there's some constructive feedback on the forum AFTER the release. FTX isn't going to suit everyone any more than the photoreal sceneries have but even then both will have pluses AND minuses? So far FTX products AND UK2000 products have been reviewed as having better frame rates than Aerosoft. If you like and can run Aerosoft stuff without a problem that's fine but the fact that others may prefer or find other's work better on their systems is just fact? It's not a criticism of your choice! :huh: As a Brit my criticism of FTX England is going to be harsher than it is of other regions but I have to ask myself why? It's landclass with 3D environments. Photoreal with 3D environments is a far bigger and processor demanding deal according to reviews so even if that was available for the entire UK would anyones system cope with it? No one has to buy add-ons? If you spend your money you're entitled to know what you'll get for it but I would point out that FTX have offered free trial regions for their software for other regions so you can try before you buy and this ones bound to be reviewed? By this time next week most of the questions raised will have an answer. Go figure what you should do? B) Geoff
  20. Hi guys, Well CalClassics is an excellent site and I already have FS9 but with massive investment in FSX since I "just popped over" from train simming to see how FS was developing ....only to end up spending shameful amounts on add-ons ...hooked ....full blown addict. Nought wrong with FS9 and it's great that there's still stuff being developed but my original thoughts were prompted by the increasing amount of Propliners of varying degrees of sophistication that have been produced for FSX. As "Low n Slow" type with an aversion to glass cockpits and FMC's I figure the only thing missing from some REAL flying (analogue cockpits, ADF's and VOR's, paper charts etc.) was the airports at either end. Purists will howl that there's far more changed than just the airports but even propliners flew too high for that to be so much of an issue? It's the airport infrastructure, runway lengths etc. that have changed. Whilst youngsters listen to arguments over a third runway at Heathrow I wonder how many people realise that the original had 6 ...yes SIX runways, paired in a star shape to cover every possible prevailing wind. Even the default FSX LHR has the last (now closed) 23. Living as close to Heathrow as I do I still remember a rare missed approach to 23 that had a 747 at window rattling full throttle still not cleaned up flying straight over my house! Back in my youth though the whine of the Viscounts and the splutter of the radials that heralded the much gentler arrival and departures of the 60's. IMHO it's a missed opportunity. "If you build it they will come"! A fanciful line from a film? Well when I moved to my current home 30 years ago the local railway ran a 30 min interval service to Waterloo. The trains were old and dirty and seldom ran on time. Few people used the service and it was constantly ear marked for closure. Now we have modern clean, quiet, air conditioned trains and they run on time 90+% of the time and we've a 15min interval service. Guess what! The trains are packed and the service probably the best in my area of London. Geoff
  21. Why some folk here just cannot see this is beyond me Pete. The pilots approach is poor, his visibility of the road from the left hand side of the aircraft being so low must have been hindered BUT the driver of the SUV was on the side of the vehicle facing the aircraft. From the time the SUV enters the frame to the collision is about 4 seconds. The number of fence posts between the centre line of the runway and the faded stop sign is 13. By the speed the SUV is moving at the time it enters the frame and the number of fence posts it passes before the collision it seems improbable/impossible? that it had come to a full stop and in any case it's hard to see how the SUV driver could have missed the aircraft. The only relevant law here in my book is that of common sense? I ask again how many of you would have driven on in that situation? By the drivers own admission they were aviation fans and visited regularly. Even if he was totally ignorant of any technicalities of flying, just by observation he must have been able to judge a low approach from a high one? or not? Every day I see examples of total lack of spacial awareness by drivers on the roads with other road users. BTW I flew from Denham in the UK. If you look at Google Earth you'll see that 24 is within 10 meters of a public road outside of the airfield. The Airfield itself is surrounded by a fence and a hedge. Look further back down the approach and you'll see first trees and then lakes. In the field at the end of the runway were horses. Kids would come to watch the aircraft and/or feed the horses. Guess Where? Yep! Dead on the centre line. So for me the approach over air affected by the radiation from water and then trees, mixed with a bit of crosswind, turbulance and occasionally windsheer was always steeper rather than shallower. In fact when I visited other fields I flew a "Denham approach" through habit. This was a student pilot and there's been much criticism of him and his CFI in this debate and yet two of the worst (and arguably most unecessary) accidents at Denham during my time flying from there involved airline pilots and one of them I understood to have been a training captain for his airline. I also saw an instructor crash at Wycombe Air Park after a mid air collison whom I was told had survived hundred of Deck Landings in Phantoms with the fleet air arm. I still maintain that flying is far safer than driving to the airfield. Geoff
  22. Hi Andy, Great stuff. I guess the acceptability of blending is going to be a matter of taste to some extent? The official FTX forum has already posted some comparative screengrabs of default, their own and UK2000 VFR fields. Unless there are other issues (levelling etc.) the texture differences shown there are acceptable to me personally but others may find them not so. I would point out that some of the FTX add-on detailed airfields use some photoreal textures anyway and for me these work fine. The Photoreal sceneries that look excellent in higher altitude scenarios were not for me, so I only began to appreciate how much work UK2000 had done on VFR fields when folk raidsed this question. I already have Denham and White Waltham by JustFlight and decided in anticipation of FTX England to buy the 3 UK2000 areas anyway. I was delighted to find that the package has a control panel that allows you deselect airfields you may already have by other publishers. Although I'm not (for now) a tubeliner jockey I was none the less pleased to find that the renditions of the major airports included in the VFR packs are also a huge improvement on the basics, although obviously anyone wanting to fly tubes will want the more detailed Xtreme versions or their own favourites? Look forward to your feedback. Geoff
  23. Well most of their scenery is FS9 or earlier and I was really suggesting higher detailed stuff as has been produced for FSX in the current era. The CalClassics stuff is excellent but they haven't done much FSX specific stuff? Geoff
  24. OK it's a deliberately cryptic title but it occurred to me whilst looking at developers screenshots for an upcoming scenery package. Over at FTX they're previewing work on the London Airports that will ship with the scenery. They look fine but as I live near Heathrow they got me thinking. The developer has faithfully reproduced the latest layout but I got to thinking about trips with my cousin to "The Queen Elizabeth building" which back in the 50's had a viewing gallery for the public to watch the privileged few who could afford air travel board their flights. We’re talking about the era of the DC6, DC7C, Stratocruiser, DC3, Viking, Viscount, Vanguard and Britannias. Later of course came the Comet’s, Caravelle’s, 707’s and DC8’s and many of these have been modelled already for FSX. However today’s airports with all of their sophisticated bays, boarding gates etc. were still to come. The steps included with aircraft models of the era were the norm. Navigation and approach aids were totally different. So whilst the freeware community and Payware community busily produce ever more sophisticated modern airports these are totally wrong for all the period airliners now available. Coming to FS from train sims where the luxury of a “go anywhere” globe does not exist I’m used to era specific routes and stocks but it strikes me it’s a niche completely overlooked by FS creators? I stand to be corrected, nut none the less a high detailed airport or two for vintage airliners would surely get a following? What do you think guys? Geoff
  25. If you look at the signs on the road at TNCM and read what they say ....and you don't think they'd be idiots to ignore them I have no further arguments. We're not on the same planet? BTW no "street view" at that location but plenty of stills that show the signs clearly. Of course you're right the NTSB will have a say but will that Federal body override any State or County law? Will the obvious necessary improvements to signage be made, barriers or lights erected and will any of that stop the stupidity of people who jump stop signs and railroad crossings or play "chicken"? In any case I bring you back to "Common Sense". Would YOU have driven across an approaching aircraft? I would not. Geoff
×
×
  • Create New...