PDA

View Full Version : Scenery : Pariah of FS ?.....



Javis
July 1st, 2013, 16:11
I just noticed this remarkable phenomenon again (just an example) :

'Sibwings An-2 released' : Views : 32,711 ; Replies : 451

'FTX EU Scotland released' : Views : 290 ; Replies : 3

Seems we can't sleep before another new aircraft model is released but new scenery gets shoved aside like it's something to steer away from asap....

Quit often it is only thru some wonderful screenshots that more or less new scenery gets some attention and then it is quite often too that posters here ( including myself) inquire about it.

Don't we like scenery ? Is it not like scenery designers put as much love, dedication and countless hours into their work like aircraft designers do ? Are we spoiled to the bone ?

Low and behold if a new aircraft model doesn't get a sticky the minute it has been released. I don't think i have ever seen a new scenery package getting a sticky...

Food for thought maybe ?...

Anyway, in my FS book Sibwings' An-2 gets a 10 for quality and that goes the same for FTX EU Scotland. While cruising around Scotland in the An-2 i couldn't help feeling i had just installed FSXI.... ( who needs MS, éh ?.... )

Here's a couple screenies of my trip. I just think it's very unfair that aircraft get all the attention and scenery almost non. And i don't understand it either.

Can't we get atleast a sticky for the ' Screenshots here' thread ? Atleast we can get a view of breathtaking scenery every now and then there. We'll then just keep on inquiring about it... :)

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/sl1.jpg

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/sl2.jpg

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/sl3.jpg

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/sl4.jpg

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/sl5.jpg

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/sl6.jpg

I don't know. Just saying... :cool:

cheers,
jan

delta_lima
July 1st, 2013, 16:53
Looks gorgeous - I've always wondered about Orbx - worried they'd be hard on FPS on those of us with "mediocre" PCs. Always assumed they were targeted at folks with higher end systems.

As to your philosophical question - my guess is that a scenery pack is fairly "committal" - likely a far narrower band of customers are interested in a given scenery than are in a particular aircraft. So for example, I'm willing to bet the ratio of buyers of the AN-2 to the buyers of something like this Scotland pack is easily 10:1. The scenery can only be enjoyed if you fly in that area, whereas the plane can be flown from countless airfields around the world.

I started a thread a couple of years ago entitled "Classic Sceneries for FSX" or some such title - pointing out which/how of the Calclassic and other sceneries worked in FSX - I'd have thought with a good following of "classically-oriented folks", that it may have generated some interest - it got very little input.

You'd have my vote for ONE thread entitled "Newly released Sceneries" - I'd say that would be worth something. The trouble with threads is that they're linear, and after a few pages, it's hard (for some lazy or unskilled folks) to search threads very effectively. And so long as there is isn't a plethora of sticky threads (diminishes view ability of new threads).

Just my thoughts - but good thought-provoking thread ...

DL

ps - and nice screens - those deserve entry into the "screenshots" thread for sure ..

stiz
July 1st, 2013, 17:35
people are just more interested in planes really, after all these years with FSX scenery being released people have an area they like to fly around and aint really interested in other areas.

I however would love to see some more screenies of FTX scotland, especialy around stornoway, fort william (below ben nevis) and the islands. I'm a bit wary after the england release to impulse buy :engel016:

mmann
July 1st, 2013, 17:41
Well it is a Flight Simulator not a Scenery Simulator!

jmig
July 1st, 2013, 18:08
You know Javis, I have the same problem. Good looking young woman seem to get far more attention than I do. :D

You are correct, however. Scenery seems to be an afterthought. For the record, I have purchased every one of the FTX scenery sets, except for Europe. That is only because I do all of my flying in the US or Canada. Heck, I purchased both the Australian and New Zealand sets. Both are still in the plastic wrap. I have never installed them on my system.

I have some of the MegaScenery USA states. I really like them and would buy more except for the fact that I have to unzip and run 30 plus files for each state. I have written to PC Aviator twice about making some sort of single installer file to unpack and run the files. However, no one there has bothered to respond. So, I haven't bought any more states. If you can't bother to answer email (especially after you send me an email asking me to bye more) don't expect me to run to your store.

Maybe I will go and bye the UK set?

Daveroo
July 1st, 2013, 19:23
i tend to agree....i like the planes..but im not to into the paints..i fly from the VC ..i rarely ever go to the outside view...my reason for having FSX or or even getting into any of this was to have the alternitive to real flight..which to me means sitting IN the cockpit of an airplane and flying..looking out the windows and looking at the world..going from A to B.so i like scenery..i admit that i load some planes up..like wozza's at-6 all of johns repaints reciently...but normally i will have either the "stock" paints..or if im lucky..i have a custom paint made for me..and i fly from the cockpit...

heywooood
July 1st, 2013, 19:34
I completely agree with Jan - and it really makes no sense that the aircraft get so much attention, followed by the atmospheric environment (REX, Active Sky etc...) then the terrain....

to me - a beautiful plane needs a backdrop of some quality...whenever I see someone post a screenie of their new aircraft purchase or paint scheme over default FSX land class - I feel sad :kilroy: inside

WarHorse47
July 1st, 2013, 20:16
I agree with all that has been said. In fact I am now starting to acquire many of the ORBX airports for the PNW.

One thing I've noticed is the imbalance between airplane and scenery types. Nearly all the available scenery addons are for airliners or GA, yet there is an abundance of military aircraft available that just do not seem to fit in with this type of scenery.

Sundog
July 1st, 2013, 20:21
So far, the best scenery I have for military aircraft are the military airbases that are a part of NL2000. However, you might be interested in knowing that Orbx are working on a WW2 airfield for England, though they've not announced which airfield it is yet.

Howellerman
July 1st, 2013, 21:29
Hmmm. I would not call scenery the "pariah" of FSX development, if only because of my own actions.

When FTX releases a new product I don't go "review it, ask about it, or debate it", I go buy it. I had maybe a half dozen threads/comments going on about the new Alabeo Staggerwing, and exactly *none* (well, I did follow some of the debates about cost) on the impending release of FTX Global. I am just going to buy it. (I did end up buying the Staggerwing as well - sweet, *really* photogenic aircraft).

Reminds me an old Internet Survey that said Jasmine.com was the most popular by "hits" for adult entertainment, and what did it mean that American men were spending so much time talking to naked ladies on the phone, blah, blah, blah. The study was flawed from the get-go: just because Jasmine.com was the single largest advertiser/pop-up on the web did not mean it was the most trafficked. Damned annoying was what it was. So, I am not saying that ... maybe you all should step away from the phone?

Wait - did this conversation slide too deep into that last bourbon? :)

Anyway, I think the scenery designers know why they are in business, and why products such as REX, GEX, and others are still in the Top 10 according to sites that also sell software. My PayPal credentials are on record at FullTerrain, no debate required.

falcon409
July 1st, 2013, 21:52
I think quite a few have mentioned good reasoning for why scenery isn't as big a draw as aircraft. Airplanes can be flown anywhere, any time. . .scenery is regionally oriented and unless you're terribly excited about what's being released because it's your favorite place to fly. . .for many folks. . .new releases of scenery are "Yawners". I'm sure there are beautiful Vistas to be enjoyed in the England/Scotland sceneries that are being released right now, but I don't fly there and even if I did on a whim, it wouldn't justify the price. Now if something in the area of New York/New Jersey or Texas was to be released I'd consider it.

I no longer support Orbx, but in the beginning I purchased whatever I could afford because it was in an area that was fun to fly. The Pacific Northwest is a beautiful area and the remote airports and mountain flying make it very desirable for a lot of pilots, consequently those early releases were pretty popular to a lot of folks. As they move away from that region and start working in other areas, the popularity moves to a much smaller "fan base" if you will and it won't draw the attention that PNW did or that any new aircraft certainly will.:salute:

Naismith
July 1st, 2013, 23:12
I like ORBX but I had to delete the few that I had, never experienced 'out of memory' issues before. I know from research that it is not ORBX fault it is an intrinsic fault within FSX mad worse by its being 32 bit within a 64 bit system.

pilottj
July 1st, 2013, 23:22
I agree with everyone that aircraft tend to get more 'buzz', but you notice that it depends on the FS site. Orbx's forum certainly is busy and has a large following. You could almost make the point that Orbx's forum is larger than Sibwings. The size of the forum obviously has no bearing on the quality of the product but for the sake of Javis's post, I thought it was interesting.

It is also interesting how airplane genres vary from site to site. Here at SOH, I bet you PMDG's 777 release won't generate that much buzz, compared to a big warbird or vintage GA release. Likewise at Avsim, 777 release will have a huge buzz, and a warbird release will have a relatively minor buzz there.

Daube
July 2nd, 2013, 05:38
When a new aircraft appears, people get to discuss about it: how does this or this works, how to do this or that, is that realistic or not, how is the real world aircraft, is this a bug in my gauges, etc...
Then come the repaints, and other mods.

When a new scenery is released, there's not much to say, or mod. That doesn't mean that nobody appreciate it. There's just less stuff to be done with a scenery than with an aircraft, that's all.

Another element that comes into the balance, is the popularity of the addon itself. This works exactely in the same way for aircrafts and sceneries.
There are some aircrafts which are long-time awaited, and when they finally appear, discussions about them go on, for pages and pages...
There are other aircrafts which are nice, but not popular despite the quality. Topics about them live for 4-5 pages, then die.
For sceneries, it's the same. I don't expect the Scotland scenery to generate as much pages as the PNW region. At all.

WarHorse47
July 2nd, 2013, 06:05
I no longer support Orbx, but in the beginning I purchased whatever I could afford because it was in an area that was fun to fly. The Pacific Northwest is a beautiful area and the remote airports and mountain flying make it very desirable for a lot of pilots, consequently those early releases were pretty popular to a lot of folks. As they move away from that region and start working in other areas, the popularity moves to a much smaller "fan base" if you will and it won't draw the attention that PNW did or that any new aircraft certainly will.:salute:Interesting perspective on Orbx. Now that I have PNW and a few of their airports, I've noticed that in order to enjoy their scenery I'm limited to small GA aircraft. For example, flying into 2W3 Swanson rules out anything larger than a Cessna 172.

Firekitten
July 2nd, 2013, 06:55
For me, scenery is as much a part of the whole as the aircraft, and equally vital and important.

Some areas don't matter... sure, but some of us roam the globe exploring, rather than flying our 152 around our back yard. I like new places, new sights, I play FS Economy, which takes me to many of those new, otherwise ignored places. Scenery is a key importance, aircraft... actually the secondary concern.


Would I like to see more discussion? sure, we seem to take it for granted, ignore reviewing, gloss over... in fact scenery in general is often a misrepresented part of the fs community, developers aren't lorded like aircraft modellers, people don't crow about their work... thus, they feel less inclined to release projects that people will largely ignore... why bother?
I think if we gave them a bit more of their due, we'd see far better freeware scenery and more, rather than shoving them aside saying 'well its not orbx'

MarkH
July 2nd, 2013, 09:20
remarkable phenomenon

Sounds less remarkable when you consider that the AN-2 was released 27 days ago and FTX EU SCO only 2 days ago.

CWOJackson
July 2nd, 2013, 09:21
One of my biggest complaints about FS9/FSX is the lack of a built-in ability to easily modify scenery. Although MS went to the extreme to give us most cities/towns/airports, it's only expected that with a few local exceptions they feature, most details would be generic at best. With the ability to easily correct and adjust local scenery and airports I imagine many users would have made those changes to their own, or favorite, regions. Back that up with an online exchange to share these local scenery improvements and I do believe it would have changed the nature of the FS experience.

For a while, LAGO had a product, and online exchange, that did a fairly decent job at providing this ability in FS9; they just never could get the bugs worked out of the program.

Geomitrak
July 2nd, 2013, 10:07
Actually I'm now concentrating on improving my FSX world with scenery add-ons rather than spend money on aircraft I fly once then forget about. Orbx has finished mainland Great Britain, and I'm buying up every UK airfield they come out with. For me, scenery is my new priority.

By the way, 'pariah' of FSX ?? Overlooked, taken for granted, ignored even, but not 'pariah'. Scenery isn't despised or outcast. ;)

heywooood
July 2nd, 2013, 11:40
Actually I'm now concentrating on improving my FSX world with scenery add-ons rather than spend money on aircraft I fly once then forget about. Orbx has finished mainland Great Britain, and I'm buying up every UK airfield they come out with. For me, scenery is my new priority.

By the way, 'pariah' of FSX ?? Overlooked, taken for granted, ignored even, but not 'pariah'. Scenery isn't despised or outcast. ;)

yeah that term was likely used more for impact than literal accuracy - but you are right of course

And I agree with you on the benefits of quality scenery being more lasting in terms of usage - the planes do tend to pile up and sit around unused, with only one ore two favorites being flown with regularity...I hate to admit that based on the dollars but it IS a fact

Good scenery tends to be money well spent when compared to some aircraft models

Sieggie
July 2nd, 2013, 13:02
The biggest problem for freeware scenery designers is the total mess the object library system turns into. There is no standard for how to place or use library objects in the FSX file structure. This leads to people including bits and pieces of existing libs in their sceneries potentially breaking other sceneries. The other big problem is the mesh system. Everyone has different mesh and the shareware designer has no control over it like the big boys do. They install their own hi def mesh to match the airports so you don't end up in a hole or on a plateau. I create scenery for my own use all the time but because I use commercial mesh, and various lib objects, I don't really know how to wrap it into a package that could be shared. Gaiiden, from "MegaSceneryEarth Airports" had the best idea I have seen so far. He includes no library objects but tells you which Libraries to download and which site to get them from so that all the stuff at his airports shows up. This way you don't have multiple lib.bgls with the same objects and different textures that cause all kinds of problems. Even his stuff still suffers from the occasional plateau, as he does not specify what mesh to use, in additions to the priority order of all the libs sometimes bites you.

Then the last biggie is the photo scenery. I have no idea what is allowed to be distributed or not based on all the different licenses. I do not have a lawyer on retainer in case I violate Google, or M$ use licenses for the photo scenery I create for my own use should I release it as freeware.

Dave

clmooring
July 2nd, 2013, 16:02
Maybe off topic but can anyone recommend good scenery for norfolk Virginia

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Sundog
July 2nd, 2013, 20:21
Just an FYI, Orbx is not moving on to other lands now that PNW is "done." They have a completely separate team working on Europe. They are going to to be making more Alaska regions, IIRC. They are also currently working on the Northern California region and are also working on the Northeast of the U.S. They also have more PNW airports coming up and SAK (Southern Alaska) airports otw as well. They also have another freeware Canadian PNW airport coming out soon, CBB7 Tipella for B.C. They haven't given up on their second biggest market. They also haven't given up on their biggest market, Oz, and will be releasing more new airports for it as well. For more information, see this Link (http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/60519-july-2013-product-roadmap/).

GaryGB
July 3rd, 2013, 09:56
Well it is a Flight Simulator not a Scenery Simulator!

For some of us, FS is primarily a scenery simulator in which we fly around admiring the landscape using various aircraft.


Also, via P3D we can explore the virtual 3D world with a submarine.

And perhaps before too long, it may also be possible to explore that same virtual 3D world via much-enhanced boats and vehicles with as many bells and whistles and realistic control-ability such as we now have in quality add-on aircraft.

Oh, and with further research and development on "user-pilotable craft" and scenery, we may also achieve enhanced navigation of low-earth orbit ...at altitudes up to (and even exceeding ?) the current 1 Million foot altitude limits of the FS world. :cool:

GaryGB

hairyspin
July 3rd, 2013, 12:31
For interest, the contrast between aircraft development posts and scenery/facilities development posts at FSDeveloper is stark. It can often seem by far most development work is being done in scenery, not aircraft.

vora
July 3rd, 2013, 13:11
btw Orbx has just released the Tipella freeware scenery here (http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/60888-cbb7-tipella-airport-for-pnw-freeware/?p=554107).
I'm almost in tears... what a work!

Javis
July 3rd, 2013, 13:29
Interesting visions and thoughts, gents, thank you ! :salute:

I used the word 'pariah' because, like heywoood mentioned, i thought a bit of exaggeration wouldn't hurt. I wanted to use the evenmore dramatic 'undershoved baby' , a well known expression in my country for something that seems to be ignored unjustyfied, but i wasn't sure if that would've come across...


Sounds less remarkable when you consider that the AN-2 was released 27 days ago and FTX EU SCO only 2 days ago.

That's true of course but after 2 days of the An-2 release the thread already accumulated 150 replies. The 'FTX Scotland released' thread still stands at 3 replies.... If you don't think that's remarkable then that is what this thread is all about.


As to your philosophical question - my guess is that a scenery pack is fairly "committal" - likely a far narrower band of customers are interested in a given scenery than are in a particular aircraft.

Absolutely. But apparently scenery is selling too, otherwise devs like FTX/Orbx would've been long gone, wouldn't they. I just can't help wondering why there's always so much feedback on newly released aircraft models and just about zero feedback on newly released scenery. Afraid that if i wouldn't have taken up the honours of posting a thread about the (breathtaking!) Aerosoft Skiathos scenery with some screenies to boot it might've gone down with only 3 replies too... Atleast now it got 25 replies and 1000 views... Yiihaa! :cool:

Back in 2009 already i tried 'something else' to get attention for a new released freeware scenery.So it's not that i am wondering about the lack of 'scenery feedback' only since the release of FTX Scotland.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?23845-FSX-Art-Harbor-sights


ps - and nice screens - those deserve entry into the "screenshots" thread for sure ..

Thanks,DL, appreciated. :)


people are just more interested in planes really, after all these years with FSX scenery being released people have an area they like to fly around and aint really interested in other areas.

If that would be true FTX/Orbx, Aerosoft scenery dep., Megascenery, LatinVFR, Flytampa, TS, PIS, FranceVFR, to name but a few, would all have closed up shop by now. Scenery sells, probabely in good quantity too so there must be a lot of interest in it. Simmers just seem not interested in talking about it . I'm just curious to try and find out why....

Ain't it just fantastic that we can get a fair impression of what it's like to fly over area's of the world we will most probabely never get a chance to do for real. Atleast that's the main reason i am a dedicated flightsimmer from FSII onwards. I can still remember the day i bought the first ever scenery for the San Francisco Bay area and how extraordinairy enchanted i was about it. (IIRC must've been for FS5) To fly over the SF Bay Bridge which i only know from photo's, movie's.... A dream come true, even if it is only virtual.

And yes, of course i wholehearted agree with the theory that every flightsimmer's mileage may vary. It's clear though that the one common factor is that we love aircraft. The answer to why this doesn't *seem* to be case with scenery so much might well stay hidden in the realm of FS forever.

It's not like the seemingly desinterest in new released scenery packs happens only here at SOH. We can see the same thing at Avsim ( 7 replies to a 'FTX Scotland released' thread there... Although i did see someone complain about the release of this scenery not being advertised on the Avsim frontpage... So atleast i am not the only one 'worrying' about it... ), i couldn't find anything about the Scotland scenery release at Flightsim.com FSX forum...

For the time being i'll just keep on clicking the "FSX Screenshots here!" thread to satisfy my hunger for new scenery suggestions. Row with the oars at hand is the device... :)

Thanks again for your input,gentlemen !
cheers,
jan

heywooood
July 3rd, 2013, 13:46
we take the world and its environs for granted...and so are only mildly stimulated by virtual reproductions of it...no matter how exact they are.

we appreciate our own constructions far more - and are very stimulated to see those reproductions...

A cloud is a cloud...a river is a river and a mountain...well no need to itemize...

A Stearman on the other hand...or a Mustang - Do they sound correct? The instruments where they should be? rivets? compound curves? dihedral?
So many facets so particular to each individual aircraft - and then to each reproduction...

Some will remark on the layout of airport X or city scape Y.... but to a far less degree...and again - those are human constructs - not naturally occurring contours...almost no one ever remarks on those -

OleBoy
July 3rd, 2013, 15:04
For myself, scenery is what's realistic in my real world. I'm slowly learning the modeling of aircraft portion. In-sim I fly where I can based on my real lifestyle and the time I would have to do so. Which is my lure to general aviation is so strong. I'd be more apt in real life to purchase a lesser modernized type aircraft or experimental so I could get into those outlying areas. Then given the region of the USA I reside in, plot my vacations and weekend jaunts. Scenery is superficial for me anymore until a developer creates something more realistic than just airports. I take off at one, land at another. Like highways, they're all full of traffic. Not intended as a plug, but when MegaScenery updates and releases v2 of the PNW regions, I'll be investing in what I see as the best topography scenery developer around.

I moved from FSX to Prepar3D in hopes LM will fill the need through ties with developers and the advancement of my virtual experiences.

greenie
July 3rd, 2013, 18:23
I am an aviation enthusiast and not a gamer as such .Thats why I fly FSX . Scenery is the most important part of my simulator . I have learned the basics of how and why of flying through the simulator . Now to enjoy it .

If I had only default scenery I wouldn't be simming, period . I find Orbx has given me the lease on my simmimg life I wanted .

I dont understand the military argument here . I happily fly all sorts , unless the argument is about the lack of military scenery .

falcon409
July 3rd, 2013, 19:03
. . . . . .I dont understand the military argument here. I happily fly all sorts, unless the argument is about the lack of military scenery.
I only saw two mentions of anything related to Military scenery on the previous page and those were only mentioned in passing. The basic statement was that given the abundance of available scenery (freeware and payware) most of it is designed for Commercial and GA aircraft while the aircraft we see released almost on a monthly basis can sometimes be overwhelmingly Military in design. No argument, simply a statement of fact.

falcon409
July 3rd, 2013, 19:21
When a new aircraft appears, people get to discuss about it: how does this or this works, how to do this or that, is that realistic or not, how is the real world aircraft, is this a bug in my gauges, etc. . .Then come the repaints, and other mods.
When a new scenery is released, there's not much to say, or mod. That doesn't mean that nobody appreciates it. There's just less stuff to be done with a scenery than with an aircraft, that's all. . . .
The debate will continue but Daube has basically answered it in a nutshell here. Aircraft will always garner more attention for the reasons he stated. Lord knows this forum has seen debates on aircraft that went on almost endlessly about trivial aspects and that was just when the first screens were released before it was even close to texturing. It's a Flight Simulator and Pilots that we are, we will lobby for every variant we've ever read about, heard about or thought we saw once in a publication. We will do side by side comparisons of wing dihedral and argue to "inth" degree that the model is off by.005 degrees. The interest in aircraft is what almost everyone is passionate about.

Release a scenery package and it can go one of two ways: "Awesome, they've finally released my favorite area to fly". . .or. . ."That's some great stuff but it's really not my cup of tea. . .yawn". End of discussion. You won't hear a debate about the fact that someone's house isn't correct, that the roads aren't the right color or that those trees don't really belong in that area. Freeware/Payware Scenery is great, wonderful, necessary and so on, but in the end. . . .it's scenery, nothing to pick apart like aircraft development. It's a replacement that makes a sometimes dull area come alive and give us something new to enjoy. Orbx and others do a very good job of that. . . .but sadly Javis. . .it's just scenery.

greenie
July 3rd, 2013, 21:10
I only saw two mentions of anything related to Military scenery on the previous page and those were only mentioned in passing. The basic statement was that given the abundance of available scenery (freeware and payware) most of it is designed for Commercial and GA aircraft while the aircraft we see released almost on a monthly basis can sometimes be overwhelmingly Military in design. No argument, simply a statement of fact.


Your right Falcon . I tend to speed read sometimes and maybe skim through a bit too quickly .

About military airfields for scenery . I remember a discussion about this sometime ago on , the Orbx forum I think. The problem is gaining access to get the required information . Understandable I suppose .

emfrat
July 3rd, 2013, 23:45
For some time now, I have been considering a simple tick-off sheet for those who only want to indulge in destructive criticism.
Below are the first two items - any further contributions gratefully received.

"When I decompiled the mdl, I found that the internal fuel pipes had been modelled as 25mm diameter instead of the real size of 1" (25.4mm). My Granpappy fought and died in three world wars to stop this metric system stuff. This plane and everything else this designer has ever done is pure crap."

"I installed the scenery and was able to find my brother's place, but I noticed it shows a blue car in his neighbour's driveway, and I know for a fact that the neighbour bought a red car two days ago. This scenery and everything else etc, etc, etc..."

More in sorrow than in anger
MikeW

Francois
July 4th, 2013, 02:19
For some time now, I have been considering a simple tick-off sheet for those who only want to indulge in destructive criticism.
Below are the first two items - any further contributions gratefully received.

"When I decompiled the mdl, I found that the internal fuel pipes had been modelled as 25mm diameter instead of the real size of 1" (25.4mm). My Granpappy fought and died in three world wars to stop this metric system stuff. This plane and everything else this designer has ever done is pure crap."

"I installed the scenery and was able to find my brother's place, but I noticed it shows a blue car in his neighbour's driveway, and I know for a fact that the neighbour bought a red car two days ago. This scenery and everything else etc, etc, etc..."

More in sorrow than in anger
MikeW


ROFLMAO !!!!

FentiFlier1
July 4th, 2013, 03:29
Lol :icon_lol:

My approach to scenery is:

Highly detailed for my home area, prepared to spend quite a bit of money to achieve this. More generic sceneries such as Orbx won't do to be honest.

Less detailed payware or freeware for other areas chosen specifically to contrast with north-west Europe: Socal, Alaska & Hawaii!

All that kept to a reasonable amount of disk space, because I find it is easy to start collecting scenery (and aircraft) that are hardly ever used.


And as another poster said, if I was allowed only stock fsx scenery, I would abandon fs. So I guess scenery is very important.

Owen.

clmooring
July 4th, 2013, 05:33
I have not purchased scenery in the past because I assumed it would further reduce my frame rates. Am I wrong?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

mmann
July 4th, 2013, 05:38
For some of us, FS is primarily a scenery simulator in which we fly around admiring the landscape using various aircraft.
...
GaryGB

Perhaps a train simulator or farming simulator would get you even closer to the land. :running:

WarHorse47
July 4th, 2013, 05:54
Your right Falcon . I tend to speed read sometimes and maybe skim through a bit too quickly .

About military airfields for scenery . I remember a discussion about this sometime ago on , the Orbx forum I think. The problem is gaining access to get the required information . Understandable I suppose .I don't buy that explanation. I don't think anyone is asking for that level of accuracy with a military airfield. Most addon scenery today is based on Google Earth anyway.

From my perspective, something is better than nothing. I have a lot of addon military scenery from different eras in FS9, but FSX is sorely lacking. Even some decent flight plans for AI would be welcome.

I have the Orbx PNW scenery and several of their airports, and just love them as they have a lot of static and AI aircraft. Yet within that same territory if you fly into McChord or Whidbey, there is nothing. I don't expect Orbx to make them come alive, but nobody has made any decent attempt to fill this areas like they've done with FS9.

BTW - if you have the same Orbx scenery and did some exploring, go to Gray AAF just South of McChord. You will find the field populated with static Blackhawks. And if you fly over the Forth Lewis training areas look for a variety of military vehicles scattered about. There are even some live practice going on late in the morning. Orbix did a grand job in that area.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/WarHorse47/Random%20FSX%2001/2013-5-15_13-11-57-975_zpsd7da188f.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/WarHorse47/Random%20FSX%2001/2013-5-15_13-18-31-347_zpsa239e075.jpg

vora
July 4th, 2013, 07:54
I don't buy that explanation. I don't think anyone is asking for that level of accuracy with a military airfield. Most addon scenery today is based on Google Earth anyway.
....
Could you remotely imagine the outcry of ORBX's customer base if they would publish airports with Google Earth or standard buildings? Probably the same if PMDG would publish a Devastator with few details :icon_eek: . The military stuff isn't just their business.
I assume that SOH is the gathering place for military flyers in FSX and we are currently in a thread where most people say that they don't care much about sceneries. That may be a factor why there aren't so many scenery designers in that sector.

WarHorse47
July 4th, 2013, 08:53
Could you remotely imagine the outcry of ORBX's customer base if they would publish airports with Google Earth or standard buildings? Probably the same if PMDG would publish a Devastator with few details :icon_eek: . The military stuff isn't just their business.
I assume that SOH is the gathering place for military flyers in FSX and we are currently in a thread where most people say that they don't care much about sceneries. That may be a factor why there aren't so many scenery designers in that sector.Nothing negative about ORBX, nor do I want them to change.

My context is to say that in general there seems to be an imbalance between the military aircraft available for FSX and the "active" (e.g., static objects, ai, etc) military airbases available.

Let me explain it another way. Most of us like to take screenshots. My preference is to take a screenshot with good background scenery that is in concert with the type of aircraft in the screenshot. A WWII fighter screenshot (to me) looks best at an WWII airfield. Modern military aircraft look great at a current military airfield, along with other vehicles and aircraft to make the screenshot look as realistic as possible. Just sayin' :wiggle:

vora
July 4th, 2013, 12:49
Nothing negative about ORBX, nor do I want them to change.

My context is to say that in general there seems to be an imbalance between the military aircraft available for FSX and the "active" (e.g., static objects, ai, etc) military airbases available.

Let me explain it another way. Most of us like to take screenshots. My preference is to take a screenshot with good background scenery that is in concert with the type of aircraft in the screenshot. A WWII fighter screenshot (to me) looks best at an WWII airfield. Modern military aircraft look great at a current military airfield, along with other vehicles and aircraft to make the screenshot look as realistic as possible. Just sayin' :wiggle:

Ah, ok, since I now get your angle let me give you my assumption: it might be just a case of perception. The number of civilian types is somewhat limited. All the Cessnas, Pipers, Boeings, Airbuses etc. of the last decades are already covered, partly two or three times. So when Carenado publishes his umpteenth Cessna or some designer group the 20th B737-xxx we hardly take notice. Only exotic types like An-2 or Staggerwing raise some eyebrows here.

On the other hand, "thanks" to two world wars and the cold war, we have an almost unlimited pool of aircraft types. Just take the early Pacific War: Mitchell, Buffalo, Devastator, Marauder, Kate, Val, Betty.... these would get be talked over in this very place.

With airport scenery it's the other way around. There is a limited number of airbases versus an almost unlimited number of civilian airports/-fields/-strips which are yet to be covered in detail. And we military simmers are a minority. SOH is a cozy place because we know each other, and that's because we are a few.

PS: For Whidbey try this at simviation (http://simviation.com/1/search?submit=1&keywords=whidbey&x=0&y=0)

greenie
July 4th, 2013, 15:05
I went to that AF base Warhorse and saw the statics . Also tried to check out the live action at the Fort Lewis training area . I couldn't see anything at all - no action no statics . I must be looking in the wrong area . I looked at about 11am in the morning . I'm looking to the north east from the air base to the river , would that be correct.

All this surprises me . I have been an Orbx customer since day one . I have all their regions and most airfields - a large area to cover . Its the first time I have realised they have military statics and ai . I haven't heard a thing about it before.

Getting back to the scenery - theres been many times that they have said they cant do this one or that one because they cannot get proper access for someone to take the photos they need . Also. of course , they need to be sure of its commercial viability . Whether military fields are viable or not I wouldn't know.

WarHorse47
July 4th, 2013, 15:54
@vora

Thanks for the Whidbey link. Unfortunately, it was not compatible with PNW in that the roadway traffic was running right through the planes and hangars.

@greenie

I'm pretty sure it's ORBX that added some excitement to the Ft. Lewis gunnery range.

Take off from McChord on Rwy 16, and bear to 147 degrees. About 3 to 5 minutes out look for an open patch that has a small airfireld. If you look closely there are two vehicles and people standing at the turn around.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/WarHorse47/Random%20FSX%2002/2013-7-4_16-36-1-633_zps7bbb6da7.jpg

Another perspective

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/WarHorse47/Random%20FSX%2002/2013-6-24_13-27-6-402_zps454886cf.jpg

If you find this field, turn to 270 degrees and fly towards another open area. You have to look around, mainly on the roads to see the static vehicles.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/WarHorse47/Random%20FSX%2002/2013-7-4_16-39-19-979_zpsc8aa2f93.jpg

It's this second area which is a little Southwest of Gray AAF that I encountered the firing practice.

Now I just took the two Blackhawk shots, so everything is there on my install. I have the ORBX PNS, their latest patch and library, their freeware fields and ai flightplans.

EDIT - Here (http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/21074-pnw-patch-002-has-some-new-content/?hl=%2Bft.+%2Blewis) is a link to the ORBX forums that discusses some of the Ft. Lewis objects as part of one of the PNW patches.

anthony31
July 4th, 2013, 16:05
You will almost never see a payware military airfield. Any payware developer will have to ask permission to take photos of a military field and you can pretty much guarantee that they will simply say no (security and all that hush hush secret business don't you know).

A few years ago I did scenery for RAAF Tindal. This is a military airfield but with a civilian apron attached. I emailed a company on the civilian apron about a photo of their office and they simply said no as they were on a military base (even though they were civilian operating in a civilian area).

I've done a couple of freeware military fields (ie RAAF Tindal and Darwin) but mostly used generic buildings as the imagery for more detail is simply not available.

On the other hand old warbirds are relatively easy to photograph.

ShawnG
July 4th, 2013, 17:38
A couple points from my perspective:

I recently bought both the Antonov An-2 AND Orbx's Scotland. I consider both to be great purchases. I probably viewed the antonov thread here about 587 times over a two week period, and the orbx thread once. why? Repaints. The only thing that can be discussed on a scenery release is whether or not it sucks. Airplane releases, I'm looking to greedily devour the work of many of our fine repainters, and now I have an entire airfield full of antonovs. nobody is going to be repainting autogen buildings in ORBX's scotland or making any meaningful additions to it (Although if you visit Return to Misty Moorings you can see a fine argument why they should.) so not much to do than enjoy the scenery. for the record, my FSX purchases in scenery by far outweigh aircraft, so obviously I consider scenery very important and not a pariah at all.

I would love to see more Military airfields, but doing them to the level we expect payware addons to be these days involves access to the field that cannot be had due to security concerns.

WarHorse47
July 4th, 2013, 19:04
I would love to see more Military airfields, but doing them to the level we expect payware addons to be these days involves access to the field that cannot be had due to security concerns.I could not tell you if an addon military fields was accurate or not. In fact I never question the layout of the military fields in FSX.

What is missing for me are: the AFCAD files for parking, static objects, and flight plans that make the fields come alive. I can fly in and out of McChord all day with the Area51 C-17, but it's kinda boring when the field is empty or the ATC has no option for parking. I would just settle for those addons.

Now before someone mentions it, I'm aware of the process to convert MAIW packages to FSX. I just finished reading that manual for the 4th time, and I definitely do not have the skills nor time to convert those packages. If someone were to do it for me so I just run an executable file, then I can handle that. But right now it seems that only a few people have the expertise to do just that.

And speaking of the An-2...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/WarHorse47/Random%20FSX%2002/2013-6-8_18-34-49-892_zpsc1abfbb0.jpg

..the scenery is a little old, but it works for me..

Timbohobo
July 4th, 2013, 19:57
I am working on a World War II airbase, based on original plans and blueprints and camo patterns, with hand crafted baked textures etc.., its something I have always wanted to do since a kid and have been collecting/harvesting data for two years, it will be payware and I have a lot of work ahead of me still!

I expect to get a complete colonic inspection from the many veterans here, so I am paying a lot of attention to accuracy :173go1:

greenie
July 4th, 2013, 21:15
LOL ... Timbohobo


@ Anthony - thanks for your fantastic scenery Its a pity your not making more . How about some payware ? ...anyway , even if you don't your aircraft are more than worth it . Please do not stop producing either !!

Warhorse. I'm surprised again !..I took your directions . Dont know about 3 or 4 mins to get there . I flew the Sea Fury and by the time I had taken off I had to slow down !
I could see a bit of military as shown in the screen shots . This has to be Orbx work . Mine were static . My ordinary traffic cars are working . No military action though .
Curious , unless you downloaded another file from somewhere or an obscure Orbx easter egg . Anyway , a good little mission for me . Had fun screaming across the skyline 300kts @ 150 ft.

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/07/04/mDAPz.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/07/04/geZtv.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/07/04/kUJh0.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/07/04/dQYTc.jpg






..and heres one for the scenery lovers , such as myself . It makes a WORLD of difference.



http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2013/07/04/35cm.jpg

WarHorse47
July 5th, 2013, 06:01
Yes, ORBX. Never saw the tents in your first pic. Have to go look for those.

And yes, on my system there is firing practice late in the morning. Usually between 11:00 am and noon.

My standard flight is a cold start at my home field, KOLM. Before startup I can actually hear the cannons going off at the fort. When I first installed ORBX PNW, I thought there was a problem with the aircraft sounds or my sound card, then later realized what I was hearing. Very cool. :applause::applause:

EDIT - Found the command center tents and a few other goodies.