fs_av

I am salivating at some of the responses posted thus far. However, I do have a couple more questions before I drum up enough courage to try it or convince my better half that an HDTV is just as good as a computer monitor ! With the prices of HDTV's coming down it would seem to make more sense to have an HDTV than a regular computer monitor, even with a PC tuner card, wouldn't it ? With the HDTV setup, would the computer have to be turned off to watch TV for instance ? Or would the HDTV have to have the PIP - picture in picture capability ?

Appreciate your response. Any degradation on picture quality and/or resolution relative to a computer monitor ? As to other hardware, does that mean you use a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse - 63" is a bigass TV to be sitting up close to ! Come to think of it, is there a wireless joystick too ?

I am just curious. I have seen people talking about their setups and connecting their PC's to their big screen TV's. If it's possible, what is required to accomplish it - any special hardware, connections on the PC as well as on TVs ?

Very good of you to make your contribution open source. Even more amazing, as you suggest in your post "support of other simulators/modes as easy as possible, permitting the support of Fly!Legacy, and a little (buggy) fsx mode." Don't know how guys like you and Jonathan Harris do your magic but every bit helps and is appreciated more than perhaps you will ever know. After all, there may be many simulators but there is only one real world, so why can't tools make that "one real world" a reality instead of the many incarnations like "plausible world" or "as real as it gets", etc. Thank you and hope you have more time and enthusiasm to continue what you have started. Edit : The Google groups gives an error; perhaps Yahoo groups would be better.

The only way I can think of is to convert the dsf file to a text file using Ben's tool DSF2txt.exe (http://scenery.x-plane.com/tools.php) and manually changing the elevation figures. Tedious no doubt but seems to be the only way that is publicly available todate. All this is assuming the dsf2txt tool works on the current dsf files as bundled with v10. Haven't used that tool in a while, so I am not sure. Good luck with your efforts and do keep us posted on your progress.

WorldMaker, (WM), at one point had the capability to create and display facade files which was later removed. Was that because of the "open source" requirement or licensing issues ? If not, why not refine/update that part of the WM code and create a separate facade application, since it appears that facades are the future of urban objects? Secondly, if the facade creation/viewing/editing capability is planned for future inclusion in WED, wouldn't it make more sense to do that sooner rather than later? How long do users have to wait ? Thirdly, is it impossible for Austin and/or Ben to create a separate facade application without infringing or violating open source/licensing issues? Lastly, if X-plane can use it's proprietary graphics engine (or rendering engine, as you call it) to display scenery created with "CGAL and other GPLed libraries", why can't a stand alone program like the facade editor do the same? Not just to me, you admit that it is treated differently by Austin, whether you call it a "step child" or "different out of necessity" or as I call it, Ben's "paraiah" application. Again, appreciate your response, carrotroot.

Not really. Just update the previously available tool sets to where X-plane is today. While you are at it, why not create a stand alone app that is a facade creator/viewer/editor if facades are the object format for now and future - especially when LR considers using OSM building data, if and when available. It does not have to be part of WED. I'd rather have a bunch of individual apps that do one or two things, do them well and almost instantaneously! WED, as implied by it's name, is supposed to be a World Editor (and supposedly a replacement for Worldmaker as bundled with previous X-plane versions), even if it is currently useful as primarily an airport edior. It's been over four years since it's introduction; how long do users have to wait for it to be a true World Editor? Hopefully not another four years. IMHO, it is time for Austin to fully embrace WED as an X-plane/LR application instead of treating it as a paraiah or Ben's application and/or create more tools for scenery creation.

People only see or hear what they want to see or hear. There is nothing worse than a born again whatever or X-plane diehards with thin skins. I am fs_av and I am a recovering X-plane diehard! I believe, the OP, as quoted above is referring to 3rd party products NOT 3rd party product support. X-plane needs 3rd parties to support it by having a stable, reliable, steady predictable X-plane platform. The reluctance on the part of 3rd parties to jump on board the X-plane wagon is mainly 2-fold, as I see it without giving it a lot of thought : 1. A stable X-plane platform. 2. Some way to protect 3rd parties copyright for the products they develop. Support for the products comes when the 3rd parties have developed and sold the products.

Current available WED documentation is AT LEAST 4 YEARS OLD, if not more and I am stuck in the past ? For me to quote the features (or lack there of) of v8/v9 as a measure of where v10 is, is hardly being stuck in the past. If I had mentioned FSX, it would be a completely diiferent ballgame, and I try to avoid that as much as I can. I have been with X-plane since v5; to understand where X-plane is today, one has to have some sense of it's history, IMO. May be so, but where are these "advanced" features documented? We get little bits and pieces of explanations here and there or when someone askes a specific question but where is the full documentation available to anyone who wants it? If users are expected to develop or contribute, shouldn't there be adequate tools, documentation and guidance provided by LR to it's users? But no previews of facades! What I have asked for in my post is a viewer/editor for facades and perhaps updates of the object viewer/editor tools that were useful in previous formats. WED is treated by Austin as a pariah application (developed) by Ben, as I have said many times; from what I have come to understand after reading various blogs and video interviews is that, Ben does NOT have access to the graphics engine code used in X-plane; so, Ben has to develop his own graphics code. That inaccesibility, among other things, is making the pace of improvement, enhancement and development of WED slow. After four plus years, WED is still not quite there yet. I'd be happy to have my understanding corrected by someone in the know, preferably Austin or Ben. Carrotroot, please don't get me wrong. I thank you for your post and I understand you do not represent LR.

So, facades cannot have lights ? Correct me if I am wrong - WED does not currently display objects or facades in 3d - Overlay Editor does or at least it used to. There was a scenery viewing/browsing capability in v8/v9 that seems to have been removed, I believe, also in 3d. Since all of these amount to more limitations on X-plane/WED as far as scenery development is concerned, are there any plans to update the previous versions of object viewing/editing utilities? A facde viewer/editor would be helpful near term as well as longer term considering LR plans on using OSM buiilding data, if and when available.

I believe Austin mentioned WED as Ben's application either in the teamspeak or somewhere else, I am not sure; and since it is not bundled with X-plane 10 Global unlike Planemaker or Worldmaker in v5/v6/v7/v8/v9, which were bundled with the main program. Worldmaker was a more versatile comprehensive program compared to WED and it was thrown by the wayside without the necessary attention devoted to WED for it's debut with v8 (some 7 or so years ago). WED, nice as it is, still lacks the full functionality of Worldmaker. ****************** If you look at my post a little more carefully, perhaps you will see that I used the word "license", not "right". That was deliberate on my part. Let me post the exact quote here in case you missed it : There is a certain level of obligation/loyalty/duty/continuity on the part of a software publisher to it's existing user base. Doesn't LR owe an explanation as to why certain features are deleted even when they are working? In the past, the attitude has been that "if you don't like an update, don't use it". Windows updates don't work that way, meaning they just don't arbitrarily delete features or leave you hanging. Perhaps LR can learn something there. The difference is you pay for the whole thing upfront, including for however many updates; and there is no refund or moneyback gurantee.

GoranM, I don't think you get it. Needless to say, I disagree with the assertions above. First, let's be clear on my criticism about WED, "scenery developer software" as you called it. My criticism is basically twofold : 1. WED, supposedly a replacement for the Worldmaker of old, is NOT bundled with the main program like Planemaker or Airfoilmaker are. Why is that? WED, according to Austin, is Ben's application and treats it like a "pariah"; Austin/LR has no obligation to support, continue development or maintain compatibility with future updates or versions. 2. LR has removed features whenever it feels like it, thanks to the frequent updates; e.g. removal of the facade making capability from Worldmaker (v8/v9), removal of keyboard flying capability i.e. without a mouse or joystick, etc. Even if the features removed were not all that popular, meaning not many people actually used them, that should not give LR the automatic license to remove either of them! I mention the two features that were removed because I personally liked using each one of them, particularly because I concentrated more on development rather than flying and couldn't be bothered with the mouse or investing in a joystick that I would use rarely, if at all. I understand that a plugin for keyboard control was later developed to fill the void/need. But, it's not the same. **********************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*********************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******************* It seems like you are unclear about what the priorities are or should be. Patients do not exist because there are doctors. Users don't exist because there are "professionals". This X-plane forum exists for the users. Developers are also welcome - atleast until, despite forum rules and guidelines, they cross the line from posting opinions or information to pushing commercial products. And, BTW, there is a separate protected "X-Plane Add-On Developer's Forum". I don't know why it is "protected". Not really. First, you assume that to be true. Secondly, MANY USERS ARE DEVELOPERS TOO, they may not be "commercial" developers like you and Tom or openly declare themselves as developers. Additionally, for every developer like you, there are perhaps hundreds more who are not "commercial" developers. MortenM, a freeware developer todate AFAIK, is one who has been around for quite a while and has made some amazing contributions over the years, along with his colleagues at X-plane Freeware group. One can come up with a myriad of reasons why developers may choose to not post here at AVSIM, OR ANYWHERE ELSE for that matter. In X-plane's case, there aren't that many "commercial" developers to begin with - and again, one can come up with many reasons why that's the case - but that's a topic for another day perhaps!

raymar, couldn't agree with your post more. It is a dis-service to potential FSX (or any other platform) converts, OP and other readers/contributors to restrict views on one or the other platform since the topic title actually names the other sim by name. Overall, the flow of posts has been positive and civil for the most part, except perhaps for a few personal attacks. Please, let's not restrict views and/or lock topics just because one or two posters have crossed the lines on ettiquette or behaviour on this or any other fora.

In most of my posts, if not all, I have compared X-plane to the promises and hype put forth by LR, hardly with FSX, if ever - not that there is anything wrong with that since this branch of AVSIM is devoted to X-plane and the topic title actually names the other sim by name, FSX. So, IMHO, any and all comparisons are fair game. After over a decade of X-plane sponsorship, with each release of a new version, I am growing tired of waiting for X-plane to fulfil it's "potential" promise or live up to it's hype. Like many people, the "plausible world" disappoints me because it is totally unrealistic and v8 and v9 provided a far more realistic world; so in that sense, v10 is a step backwards. An actual quote from the website : "X-Plane 10 Global is the world’s most comprehensive and powerful flight simulator for personal computers, and it offers the most realistic flight model available." If X-plane actually delivered on the stated promise of a "comprehensive" flight simulator, perhaps we would not be in this position of comparing X-plane to FSX. In another thread, I was asked about what my agenda was since I have been critical of the program and the publisher's practices. My answer to that is simply to tell the publisher that what was acceptable in the past in terms of practices, incompleteness or the lack of polish in the product will be less acceptable in future. Some of us have been around long enough to criticise LR for it's repeated failures in delivering a complete, polished and comprehensive product. Fortunately, LR seems to be getting the message, albeit, far too slowly, even if many diehards still don't seem to. I know because I was one of those diehards for a number of years!

Heiko : Let's get a few things straight, shall we ? 1. I am not here to please you or entertain you ! 2. Ask me IF I CARE whether what I say annoys you. 3. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE for reading or for ignoring any post. You have that right, as do I. SO MOVE ALONG ! 4. Rather than ATTACKING MY RIGHT to say what I have to say, why don't you CHALLENGE WHAT I HAVE SAID ? Looking forward to a fruitful exchange about X-plane rather than personalities.