Pe11e

I don't even understand what is it, comparing to the base XPME scenery. What are the differences, except not downloading updates so often?

Thanks! I managed to kill the textures with the help of ChatGPT last night. The same process as in the post from the link. But now I must solve XP12 crashing during loading the flight, 4 out of 5 times using LU 737 + X-WORLD PRO + XP MAP ENHANCEMENT PRO combo. I'm getting Vulkan crashes in Log.txt.

Cheers, will try it. But honestly, they are making a mess with this. I've checked ORG store product page, Version History tab is missing, so I logically thought it's still v1.0. It never crossed my mind to check SH website for hotfixes. They should include it in the ORG store download. Or they already did? EDIT: the hotfix doesn't remove those artificial green patches.

Anyways, anyone triggered by these fake overlay textures added by X-WORLD PRO? I'm just not sure why they did that, especially when 80% of users are using it with ortho? Anyone have an idea how to disable these overlay textures?

Wow, that one is new. I always thought X-WORLD was causing fps drops, not Global Forests. Thanks for clarifying.

Finally got it, as I had couple of hours of spare time to test it. Mixed feelings about buildings around my area - many new buildings, or at least with correct shapes now, but some major buildings are gone. Strange. Vegetation is on another hand, much much better, and allowed me to remove Global Forests. Still preliminary results though. But one major thing - FPS is way better on my system comparing to free X-WORLD! And cherry on the cake, with all X-WORLD PRO layers enabled (people, benches, mail boxes, hydrants, and whatever it has)! Quite surprised about that to be honest, especially when taking into account that I keep all scenery sliders to the max (except, LOD, that is on notch lower than max).

Just saw this video, and changed my mind big time about this. It's literally like going back to FS2004 scenery tech. Low resolution textures, blurry mess all around. Yuck. Looks like a step back from a right direction. The main question is - is it better than default XP12 scenery? Maybe, just maybe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMPA-OtMLa0

Traffic Global is full of bugs (aircraft flying under the ground, through the mountains, etc etc), so I use World Traffic 3. WT3 AI doesn't slam onto the runway, they land pretty nicely, they use SIDs and STARs, you can adjust airport operation (active runways), etc etc. Much smaller margin to be annoyed by AI, like I was with Traffic Global. Truth to be told, WT3 traffic must be started manually, and that is why community prefers TG probably, no matter the bugs.

Although I like the idea behind how orthographic works, I just don't understand why suddenly devs are in rush to release scenery solutions in the minute to midnight, just when big scenery update for XP12 is around the corner. It's like brushing teeth, then eat a cake a minute later. After looking at the video, it gave me an idea that Lamiran is actually doing something like this, using OSM data to drop textures around the world.

Thanks, will do this if I buy it. But still unsure what I'm getting comparing to old freeware X-WORLD? Except, and quite possibly updated all sorts of data, what else I'm getting? Will it place proper forests and many trees in towns and cities, unlike Global Forests v2? I'm not going into nitpicking the differences, but trying to determine if is it worth getting.

I'm on edge getting this, just wondering is the FPS hit still huge, like in testing versions? If it is, we need to disable certain layers to achieve FPS like in old freeware X-WORLD?

It's a no from me. I was always satisfied with the looks of XP11/12 default airports. Yes, most of the airports are not super detailed, wrong terminal textures, etc, but they are close enough for me to completely neglect addon airports for that platform. And for me, that is one of the biggest advantages comparing to MSFS, which simply requires addon airports, freeware or payware. It will be another story when MSFS gets scenery gateway, hopefully soon. I also know couple of friends that simply can't fly in XP12 without having addon airports. Full immersion or nothing. One good friend also is buying a ton of airports for both sims, and I don't even want to know how many $$$ he spent on airports solely.

I've applied 3 years ago lol, never an answer. Had to go with ORBX.

To justify the price....

How's the standard engine version in terms of flight and fuel consumption numbers? I should maybe fly that one until turbo charged is tweaked properly.

34gph, at FL250, and 25% mixture? Wow, just wow. I thought it won't gonna go over 20gph, at most. Practically only 10gph less than a turboprop, for example, TBM900, that is (way) larger and heavier. I'm missing something here.

No issues, except slow download speeds (max between 9-11mb/s), which is really slow considering their Legacy package size.

Bought the plane last night, just before the sleep (14 hours ago), and did a short 10 minute flight just to get a taste of it. I think I tested 0.1.4, since 0.1.5 was out like 8-9 hours ago. Nevertheless, for that short test, I loved it. I took turbo version for a pattern, and the engine behaved a lot different than in Aerobask version. The only thing that was a bit off, was that "sticky" rotation on TO. I hated that in P3D and FSX. COWS and A2A have that smooth takeoff feel that I believe, will be introduced here in the Legacy too. I have one question - does the addon simulate hypoxia effect? For example if we don't seal the cockpit, and fly 12k+ feet? I like the wind sounds of the unsealed cockpit though. :)

I'm on verge too to get FSW Legacy, even in beta state. I love the aircraft, have the Aerobask version in both XP11/XP12, but the lack/simplicity of systems/engine modelling isn't attractive to me anymore. In Aerobask version I can lean the mixture so ITT goes pretty high and gal/hr lowers to like 6-7, at 200kts. I'm quite sure that is not the case in RL, well at least not without consequences at pretty high ITT. I actually started flying mediocre addons in both sims less and less. When there is no penalty for bad engine and systems management, I lose interest. People on XP forums say "you get what you paid for", referencing to the price of Aerobask Legacy which is around 45$, and I'm quite sure FSW goes way more into details for the same price. The only difference in the platform, and the foundation for the flight modelling.

I don't find this addon high quality as of yet. I immediately noticed pretty bad sound transition after the fuel is introduced during engine startup, and most importantly, engine startup is not right, NG stabilizes too fast (also acknowledged by RL pilots). If you look into how HotStart TBM engine is starting, you will immediately notice a difference. Also, the addon uses default G1000 suite, which lacks few pages from real M600. Of course, it's up to M600 dev to introduce these pages, as of course, G1000 dev team can't make it universal for all aircraft types. Those are only the things I've noticed by watching the feature list, videos and screenshots. Is it worth 45 bucks? Maybe, but not yet.

No worries, happens to the best of us. Speaking of ActiveSky, its trademark is a sudden change of weather, in both MSFS and XP. It's simply how it works. It loads new METAR data every X minutes (depends on what we choose in the options), and some weather stations apparently change METAR data on every 30 or even 60 minutes, so for example during approach, weather can change from CAVOK to 6/8 cumulus, and it ruins the immersion. I've learned to ignore that, but it's not easy when you know that default weather depiction has (had) smooth transitions.

What ASobo update? This is X-Plane forum. Asobo has nothing to do with X-Plane. Also, Active Sky exist/supports both MSFS and X-Plane.

I don't want to stir the pot, but I think you switched the forums or Laminar Research with Asobo. 🙂

Does it happen also with ActiveSky that uses METAR?