FSX | The World's First 1cm/pixel Airport

[JerdooFlightX]

This is just one fine looking scenery :)


http://youtu.be/bTmsfRly0As

[centuryseries]

This is just one fine looking scenery :)


http://youtu.be/bTmsfRly0As

That looks great! Is that Elstree?

[stiz]

yea it is ... and i'm sorry, but i think they need to spend the extra resources on better satic models, it may be 1cm pixel but it looks worse (in my opinion) than the other 2 high quality ones (which are 2cm pixel) .. i mean .. come on ... this is worse most default objects!

84675

and when compared to the other 2 .. its just awful .. its like they've gone for quantity and ££s rather than quality and actually caring what stuff looks like now.

http://www.fullterrain.com/product_cybd.html

http://fullterrain.com/product_czst.html

[JerdooFlightX]

yea it is ... and i'm sorry, but i think they need to spend the extra resources on better satic models, it may be 1cm pixel but it looks worse (in my opinion) than the other 2 high quality ones (which are 2cm pixel) .. i mean .. come on ... this is worse most default objects!

84675

and when compared to the other 2 .. its just awful .. its like they've gone for quantity and ££s rather than quality and actually caring what stuff looks like now.

http://www.fullterrain.com/product_cybd.html

http://fullterrain.com/product_czst.html

Though I agree on the part where there is more quantity than the known quality I also have to add that the screenshot you are posting is probably one of the worst ones you posted.
They use ENB and though ENB enhances the looks in certain ways it also messes up the look and most of all the sharpness. IMHO when ORBX came to europe the quality got less ORBX and most UK airports I try to avoid. Never the less, this one is created by Russ which is an ORBX guy and he knows how to raise the bar so I have to say that of all UK airports I like this one the most.

[stiz]

They use ENB and though ENB enhances the looks in certain ways it also messes up the look and most of all the sharpness.

not by that much it doesnt, and if it did it'd show in every screenshot.


Never the less, this one is created by Russ which is an ORBX guy and he knows how to raise the bar so I have to say that of all UK airports I like this one the most.

if you look he's had a hand in all but 2 of the UK airports, none of which are as good as his US ones :engel016:

[Firekitten]

I'm not as impressed with the orbx england team's work as I hoped to be... Sure, its pretty, but requires a computer at warp factor 9 to function. Excessive detail where its not needed rather than optimising for performance... a ballence that the main orbx team seem to manage far better with the us, nz, and canadian work. (aus is a bit of a different beast in my book) Sure... it looks lovely, and perhaps yes some models are lower poly... but how MUCH of this do you see from a plane? how much needs to be high poly super pixel graphics? Development is equal part creativity and artistry, coupled with resource management.

Anyone can make utterly gorgeous scenery... its like the infinate monkeys and infinate typewriters scenario. Not ever monkey can make it run well too.

[Bone]

Sure... it looks lovely, and perhaps yes some models are lower poly... but how MUCH of this do you see from a plane?

The Orbx scenery is extremely nice, from a craftsmans point of view, but that's not what it all looks like when flying in real life...so I totally agree with you. Photoscenery is the way to go! I know many many simmers love all of the autogen, because they think that's a step closer to realism, but it's not. All of the autogen (stock FSX and addons) is far too big/out of scale, and far to conspicuous even at 200 feet AGL. Photoscenery looks real, and feels like real life flying, ALL of the other stuff does not. I have the Orbx NW Blue and UK sceneries, but only sometimes use them when flying a chopper model..never fixed wing.

However, simmers like what they like, which is the beauty of this fantasy. Whether it's really like real, is totally irrelevant.

[Firekitten]

Mmmm.... as a real world pilot also, i disagree... I PREFER autogen, perhaps that's an 'artistic' concern, but I do. I've never liked photo scenery, while yes, its 'absolutely authentic' I find the lack of 'depth' very very deceiving, especially when descending to land. At altitudes of 5000ft upwards... looks great, but I rarely get the plodding old 152 above 3... at that altitude it looks false in the sim, and I'd rather navigate with VRP's in orbx quality terrain. Heck, I took off from my home field in orbx England, and managed to navigate through to the location of my home 25 miles away with nothing but visual reference. Its accurate enough, easily, and if anything, it forces you to look for features, not simply recognize the area... more of a challenge in my book and a better mental exercise.

The autogen in FTX England does seem better scaled... but perhaps thats my eye, I know at my local they did a fairly good job... it feels almost right in the pattern. I wouldn't say wanting visual fidelity is a simmer's 'fantasy', I'd say you can have both fidelity and accuracy, however performance hit by badly coded features of scenery, is what ruins the accuracy, by limiting the computers performance. This is a fairly good example... few will be able to run it like the screenshots, and thus, its less accurate. make something with the right level of detail compromises, and accuracy wins out.
In my personal opinion, photo scenery looks largely false in most temperate environs... coupled with autogen of correct scale... better.

I put it to you that a good portion of 'accuracy' is mentally putting the pilot into the situation, the higher the imersivity, the greater the simulation potential for training. Sure we can train with black and white wire frames... its accurate right? why bother with more complex software if all it is is fantasy.

but we do drift rapidly off topic, so I apologize.

[Roger]

I think it also depends how and where you fly. I like low and slow and the photo scenery I've seen for the UK suits high flyers but for low and slow it looks not so good.
I'll be getting Elstree when my card has cooled a little, lol.

[THibben]

My only concern with Elstree is the much lower fps I get. I have a high end system ,i7 980x, and am quite consistent with 23 - 30+ fps in all scenery's and most slider to the right. I have my fps set at a maximum of 30. I purchased both Elstree and Popham a few days ago and was surprised when at Elstree I was only getting fps in the mid teens. I then switched to Popham and was back up to 25 - 30. I didn't realize Elstree was 1cm/pixel and can only assume that is why the fps are so much lower. I really didn't see any difference in the visual quality. I will probably not get any more scenery's set at 1cm/pixel for now. Tom

[Bone]

Mmmm.... as a real world pilot also, i disagree... I PREFER autogen, perhaps that's an 'artistic' concern, but I do. I've never liked photo scenery, while yes, its 'absolutely authentic' I find the lack of 'depth' very very deceiving, especially when descending to land. At altitudes of 5000ft upwards... looks great, but I rarely get the plodding old 152 above 3... at that altitude it looks false in the sim, and I'd rather navigate with VRP's in orbx quality terrain. Heck, I took off from my home field in orbx England, and managed to navigate through to the location of my home 25 miles away with nothing but visual reference. Its accurate enough, easily, and if anything, it forces you to look for features, not simply recognize the area... more of a challenge in my book and a better mental exercise.

The autogen in FTX England does seem better scaled... but perhaps thats my eye, I know at my local they did a fairly good job... it feels almost right in the pattern. I wouldn't say wanting visual fidelity is a simmer's 'fantasy', I'd say you can have both fidelity and accuracy, however performance hit by badly coded features of scenery, is what ruins the accuracy, by limiting the computers performance. This is a fairly good example... few will be able to run it like the screenshots, and thus, its less accurate. make something with the right level of detail compromises, and accuracy wins out.
In my personal opinion, photo scenery looks largely false in most temperate environs... coupled with autogen of correct scale... better.

I put it to you that a good portion of 'accuracy' is mentally putting the pilot into the situation, the higher the imersivity, the greater the simulation potential for training. Sure we can train with black and white wire frames... its accurate right? why bother with more complex software if all it is is fantasy.

but we do drift rapidly off topic, so I apologize.

Maybe it all depends on the speed at which a person is flying, when making a call on photoscenery depth. Most of my sim flying is down low and fast, and photoscenery wins over dense autogen every time. As I said before, I only use the Orbx scenery when flying and hovering choppers in the sim, and that's about as low and slow as a person can get. So I do find it usefull. One day you'll be flying something alot faster than a C-152, and you may possibly end up changing your 2D/3D outlook on these sceneries. Vref final approach speeds in my jet range from 137 kts to 165 kts depending on weight, and that's inside the outer marker. From 10 miles out until the marker it's between 180 and 210, and 250 up until then. A VFR pattern at one of the smaller cities we serve, is flown at 200 kts. Even with a speed of 250 kts at 2000 feet, the ground scenery isn't that 3 dimensional, with the exception of really tall buildings. Speeds of 90 to 100 knots may give you more of a 3 dimensional outlook of ground scenery, and more time to spend noticing it. It's been so long since I've flown a bugsmasher, I may have just forgotten the sight picture at those speeds. I'll try to keep more of an open mind about it. As far as the sim being a fantasy or not, I guess that too depends on a persons relative outlook. It certainly can teach a person much about the craft of flying, or help a low time private pilot keep their skills somewhat up to speed, but there's a definate limit to the sim, in regards to making someone a pilot. I'm not using it to learn how to fly, or keep my skills sharp, it's where I can do whatever I want in a plane or helicopter without any jeopardy what-so-ever, and where I can get a limited visual/tactile stimulation of an airframe I wouldn't have a chance to ever fly. I do try to keep an open mind on where different simmers are coming from and what their uses of the sim are all about, but I guess there may be room for improvement there, too. Happy flying.

[Firekitten]

Barely fly the 152 in the sim actually :P Mostly its bush planes, cargo multis, upto 200kts usually, I still prefer it, but like you say, we have personal preferences, and thats what makes fs great.. we can choose.

[Bone]

Well, I meant something besides a C-152 IRL. That's where you can see what I'm referring to. I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion, lol, just stating my experiences on flying compared to simming.

[Firekitten]

See I was viewing that backwards... yes, in real life you have a definite point

[huub vink]

It looks absolutely stunning, but I'm afraid I don't have the machine to run complex scenery like this. :isadizzy:

Cheers,
Huub

[JerdooFlightX]

not by that much it doesnt, and if it did it'd show in every screenshot.
if you look he's had a hand in all but 2 of the UK airports, none of which are as good as his US ones :engel016:


Yes it does ... ENB can mess everything up ... I have seen for a long time that depending on the angle and location the shot can be blurry, too dark and so on. Without ENB FSX gets the sharp look back, at least on my system that is. ENB is just a bloom enhancer for me and nothing more than that.

I know, but I said that off ALL UK airports I liked this one the most ;)