JasonD210

Yep! I missed a very simple thing - to apply Europe! Thanks.

Hi ! I just bought FTX England scenery - my first ORBX add-on. I wanted to post this on the ORBX support forum, but when I click on the forums link there I don't see any forums, just a couple of images. I've tried in both Chrome and Mozilla. So that's why I'm posting here. I'm using this in P3D, and it doesn't appear to working correctly. Firstly, I can see road traffic everywhere, but no roads. Another problem is that areas where there should be water are covered with ground textures. These two issues make it almost impossible to use the software for VFR, since nothing is recognisable. The default FSX scenery is more accurate with regards to water than this, so I'm hoping this is a bug and not a design! Can anyone help? /Jason

Hi Thanks! I'm also in the UK and was thinking of getting the England package...presumably this just sits on top of any other ORBX global scenery. I use A2A aircraft, as well as Aerosoft's Otter, quite a lot and in FSX at UK2000's Manchester Airport Extreme and the B-377, I was getting about 14 fps on the tarmac. I haven't noticed anything different with the same set up in P3D v3 yet, which is disappointing, but my computer is due for an update, as you can see (actually my nVidia is a 660). I think I'll probably go for the FTX Global base, then add individual areas I want to enhance. /Jason

Hi I want to get some scenery for P3D - moving away from the default. I am not really knowledgeable on it and there seems to be several mainstream alternatives. From what I can gather by reading various threads, one way to go seems to be to install FTX Global base scenery, then get vector and openLC or even UTX scenery for any specific areas I want to enhance, and finally, specific airports on the top layer. Does this sound ok or is it problematic? /Jason

Where are you from?

Nothing to stop there being multiple runways at different angles. That example in the link shows two parallel runways, but you could have as many as you want at any angle you want.

Here's a slightly better link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/starrport/flash.htm

Here's some information: http://earthwiseint.com/pages/starrport.php

You seem not to be familiar with this proposal. The apron is on a raised platform with runways sloping up to it from different directions, so it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing. You just change the runway, as you would in a normal airport. The reason why you don't see this simple idea is the same reason why you don't see any other -- because it would be a long term investment and profits are to be found in short term investment.

No, because forums are associated with specific subjects around which like-minded communities then evolve. One problem with using social media sites is that work, personal life and hobbies all tend to get blurred together, not everyone wants that. Sites like Facebook have gradually and successively removed almost all the privacy we had when we first joined. Google are following a similar route. Also, a Facebook page does not offer the organisational and hierarchical structure and tools that professional php or aspx forum does.

One could start with airports. Right now most airports are the result of 60 or 70 years of evolution, rather than an efficient design. Airports need to be redesigned to benefit climate and ecology also the health of the users and people who live nearby it. For example, I saw one idea for an airport where the landing runway slopes upwards to the apron, and the take off runway slopes down from the apron. Such a simple idea, yet the saving on fuel and braking is enormous. Ideas like that.

Hi If you haven't heard already, thought I'd announced this great news - this quote from Eagle Dynamics, producers of the DCS series: Source: TFC/ED Newsletter, April 2012 This effectively means a simulator platform, instead of study sim. Nice that 3rd party stuff will be allowed!

It's pity people go for such extremes, because one see's a review where ther reviewer gives it 1/10 or a 9/10, I think the review loses credibility. The review is obviously not balanced. I gave it a strict 5/10 and I'll probably change that if and when Flight changes for the better. I find it impossible not to compare it to other simulators, not just FSX, but X-plane also.

HiI've been with Gamespot now for 10 years - noticed that they've got a review out already for Flight. I don't know if you guys at Avsim knew about it. On the whole I thought it was a fair review.http://www.gamespot.com/microsoft-flight/reviews/microsoft-flight-review-6365704/I was a bit harder with my review (Jason210), which can be seen, amongst others by clicking on Player Reviews in the block on the left.Cheers/Jason

I'll certainly keep my eye on Flight - but I can't see myself getting more into it until Microsoft release an SDK, open the doors to allow freeware and also allow 3rd party developers to compete with their own DLC content. That would make all users happy, wouldn't it?

I have an iPhone and I use a lot of apps that are better than the Apple default apps, or other Apple apps. I honestly don't see this being problem on the iPhone. I have some great apps for mine, such as Camera +, Vlingo, DocumentsToGo, Skyfire, DragonDictation, SpeakIt, TuneIn Radio, Weather + and more. Also, you are allowed to use the SDK and submit apps.There is already a precedent for successful DLC which I have referred to. Railworks 3. I recently bought a DLC package called Woodhead Route and have since modified it so that one of the stations and surrounding scenery on the route is more accurate. Anyone can produce and submit DLC, and the software is open for manual editing.Rail Simulator is an excellent program.

For me the golden age was in the late 90s early 2000.I don't think PC games are dead, but rather the concept of a PC game has given way to the concept of a console game. There will also be PC games but I believe that mainstream game cores are now designed to run on multiple platforms - this is ok but it makes the input logic somewhat limited. I mean, consider FSX - there's literally hundreds of controls. Compare that with flight and you'll see there's not more than 20 or so.

Indeed, but would a casual gamer pay that?

I think the real risk with investment is for DLC developers who decide to cooperate with MS to produce content.If Flight doesn't hit it off, then as a user I guess you won't see so much content produced, get bored with it, and move on. MS might try a few drastic changes in a last ditch attempt to draw in the crowds, for example by introducing a combat expansion, or some kind of adventure, but once it starts going down that route I've no idea what will happoen.No, the real risk is for the developers. Who would want to invest loads of time, money and knowledge in a venture where they are not allowed to promote or market what they do, where MS take a percentage of the revenue, and where they are forced to work to MS restrictions and deadlines? If Flight goes well, it will be ok, but if Flight goes badly, MS will drop you like a stone, and that might prove difficult to recover from.My own view on Flight is a puzzled one. I am having some difficulty in understanding why pilots would want to use it, since it is too basic and gamey to be of interest to them; nor can I see why gamers would want to play it, it being to boring (if one compares it, for example, to GTA IV). I can see it appealing to a group of casual gamers, but I can't see those spending loads of money on DLC, because of all the casual FSX users I have come across, they have never bought any add-ons and would never dream of doing so.

Online activation is necessary for most games now. Think of the Internet as a service, like electricity. You don't go around worrying that you won't be able to play Flight, or any other online, if there were a power-cut. So this doesn't worry me.Flight might be very simple out of the box, but this doesn't worry me.The only thing that worries me is that MS will only only DLC, and they will control that DLC and will only allow select companies to develop for that DLC. That has made me decide not to use Flight. Nothing else. If in five years time, things have changed, then I'll use Flight. In the meantime, all those who are against this business model should criticise it. That way there may be a change. However I fear it will come too late.I'm going to carry on with FSX, and purchase X-plane 10 when it's got beyond beta. While keeping an eye on P3D and Flight. I've no idea how will things will turn out.

Thank you - mirror my view exactly.

The only problem FSX has in my opinion are a few bugs that should have been fixed, like the occasional CTD when accessing the menu bar, the flickering when using DX10 mode and a fix to make it use 4GB of memory for those with 8GB systems. It would be nice if it were updated to ensure Windows 7 and Windows 8 compatibility.But as to add-ons, and simplifying the add-on process, that could be solved with an open DLC policy, where 3PDs are allowed to submit their work for approval, to be included alongside MS developed / co-developed content. This would produce a rich DLC environment, offering a variety of stable add-ons that are easy to install. At the same time the software could be left "open" ended so that we can mod it manually if we wish - at our own risk. That can only be a win win for all the users, and, in my opinion, would provide some healthy competition for MS. This is exactly how Railworks 3 works on Steam.

There may be a problem in my argument, but if there is I suspect its because there isn't really another argument other than to accept what MS are doing without criticism. All I can think of at the moment is to send the message to Microsoft that I want them to allow 3rd party development without the restrictions they want to impose. And I guess its obvious to you that what you say about the way Microsoft works is not conducive to producing a good quality simulator. We should stand up for what we want, in my opinion. I want a platform that I can develop on.Microsft could still produce their DLC, and still have the simulator open ended. That way we have the best of both worlds right? Those who want stability can stick with the approved DLC, while those want to be use 3rd party content can use that but do so with the knowledge that they are risking stability. It's a choice. I have heard this point before and I can understand it. However, it doesn't have to be one thing, or the other. We can have a choice. Personally, given the choice between the creative hotpot of an open environment, and closed but stable development environment, I'd choose the open one, simply because it's more interesting for me. I find to experiment with different add-ons, and come up with my own customised, personlised adaptation is all part of the fun.I have a simulator game called "Silent Hunter 5". When it was released it was terrible. It was unfinished, buggy, and lacking many features that should have been there from the beginning. However, the developers made it open and "moddable" and now, over a 18 months after its release, there is an enormous number of add-ons and mods and thriving mod community. This for me is fun. It requires a bit of effort, and some trial and error, but the reward is you learn something and you are actually part of the creative process. You feel involved. And there is also the possibility that you can change something yourself. The simulator is unbelievable good now. Great things have been created out of enthusiam that no-one would have created commercially.Now to compare that with another niche game - the Train Simulator "Railworks 3", which has a different, but still very good, approach. Railworks 3 is available on Steam and as DLC. But anyone can submit DLC, plus, you have the option to install non-dlc and modify files. Thus those who want a stable system can be happy, because they can just use the DLC, while those who want to try their hand at developing can do that also. This is also a great solution because it allows the producers of railworks to produce DLC to make money, but to that they must compete with other developers. Competition is healthy, right? For the consumer, it's what leads to good products. What MS want to do with Flight is eliminate the competion. This is, I am afraid to say, very typical of western thinking today. Their game is chess. Their goal is to destroy the competitor; whereas with Eastern thinking their game is marbles, and their goal is to own the most marbles. As long as they own most marbles then it's ok - there's rioom for other competitors. This is health competition in my opinion.This issue isn't just about Flight, for me it runs a bit deeper. I think the world would be better off if it changed how it played the game.

The thing with freeware is that it's motivated by pure interest and enthusiasm, rather than by executives looking to maximise shareholders' profits. Freeware from the enthusiasts has often led to quality payware projects such as the LevelD 767 which started out as a hobby from a Lufthansa pilot.This whole development culture that had grown around MSFS has been wiped out with an executive decision. Flight might be good for shareholders, but why should I or any other flight simulation user be interested in that? The wants of the majority may be what steers such commerical decisions, but inspirational products and works always have their roots in someone who makes things out of a love of the subject.Let's hope that MS see sense on this and open up the doors so that ANY developer can at least submit their work, and be allowed to brand and market it how they want. As apps for iPhone, for example. That seems to me to be a reasonable way of doing things.

As I said, scary.