FTX Global to have companion products ...

[Paul Anderson]

... saw this announcement from ORBX posted over at Flightsim.
FTX Global Vector (roads, rivers, etc.).
Along with the upcoming landclass, this promises to be one stop shopping for the world.

(darn, I better start saving)

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/64669-orbx-announces-ftx-global-vector-and-iceland-free-demo/

[Roger]

It'll be interesting to see how it all mixes. I run in hybrid mode and some of the "borders" between Global and Regions are a little odd but these addons will probably help clean up the edges. I'll be trying their Vector product and it'll be interesting to see the Iceland demo.

[TheGrunt]

When I saw that announcement (was it yesterday?), I started wondering what is their business model with all this? With FTX Global textures, landclass and now the vector data, ORBX is soon eating away the market for their specialized areas. I mean, ORBX global set gives you soon everything they offer in their specific areas with perhaps two hundred bucks, but globally. There may not be the same fidelity as specific areas, at least for starters, but many will be satisfied with global sets and they offer enough of "plausible" scenery all over the world. So why bother?

Not my problem, but interesting still. Well, perhaps ORBX will market new specific areas as more accurate HD addons with lower price and switch focus more on the airports, who knows. With ORBX Global releases, I just can't be without thinking of FSGenesis and Justin the dev, who pretty much killed his own market by releasing subscriptions, where you could get all mesh releases from discount at a very low price and with "life time" downlads. Money flow simply died after a couple of years as the sim community is so small.

[ramjet]

Hi All,

I read the Orbx announcement and like many of you, wondered how so much could be changing so fast. I agree with TheGrunt that FTX Global is already giving us a big boost in scenery quality everywhere on Earth. The new Vector program they will be releasing looks like it will bring an even higher level of accuracy and realism and I will certainly be ready to check that out.

The latest Global upgrade patch makes the lights look wonderful, so much so that I am doing more night flights just so I can enjoy them and soon its going to be even better. It is incredible to me that the lid is being continuously blown off of what I thought must be close to the best simulation experience I could own. I hope there are enough younger FS addicts to support these remarkable efforts for many years to come. The brain trust at Orbx is a real treasure.

good flights, Cal

[MCDesigns]

When I saw that announcement (was it yesterday?), I started wondering what is their business model with all this? With FTX Global textures, landclass and now the vector data, ORBX is soon eating away the market for their specialized areas. I mean, ORBX global set gives you soon everything they offer in their specific areas with perhaps two hundred bucks, but globally. There may not be the same fidelity as specific areas, at least for starters, but many will be satisfied with global sets and they offer enough of "plausible" scenery all over the world. So why bother?

Not my problem, but interesting still. Well, perhaps ORBX will market new specific areas as more accurate HD addons with lower price and switch focus more on the airports, who knows. With ORBX Global releases, I just can't be without thinking of FSGenesis and Justin the dev, who pretty much killed his own market by releasing subscriptions, where you could get all mesh releases from discount at a very low price and with "life time" downlads. Money flow simply died after a couple of years as the sim community is so small.

I was wondering the same thing myself, guess we'll see.

[heywooood]

this is how FS11 is coming to us in piecemeal...

one developer does a complete terrain and scenery overhaul $200.00
another does a complete environments and lighting effects overhaul lets say $80.00
aircraft and systems developers making new inroads WRT weapons and engine effects / sounds etc lets say for $35.00 per aircraft average
and so on...

I have no problem with this as an all new, comprehensive sim would have been expensive too -
and this way, I can pick and choose just how I want FSX (FS11) to look and feel

and as long as the performance impact is slight to nil to maybe an improvement - I'm ok with it

and all this same stuff is happening on the freeware side too, so you dont HAVE to spend unless you want to

WRT to FTX / ORBX - they will still sell their highly detailed airfields...

I will probably not purchase global simply because I have no wish to fly anywhere but the Western North American continent (and maybe St Kitts) and I already have NRM and PNW
My only concern now is that they will not develop a South Western USA pack (including So Cal.) - that would actually be quite irritating as I have been anticipating them getting that done.

[OleBoy]

I've mixed thoughts going based on what I've seen developed. They tend to follow the highest demand/populated areas to lure the fish. Early developed areas seemed to be the "icing" on what lies beneath (other near by additions to the region), a lesser standard, so-to-speak. The pattern is clearly evident as the level of details has never been consistent. One reason I'm glad I didn't get sucked into the wake as more and more airports, or areas were announced. Sales tactics are one thing. I can't say I differ their approach to "take over" as they develop more and more globally. There's just no "standard" in anything from what I've seen.

I'm not saying that the individual addon (s) are not "good". Just that the quality could be better as a whole. Form a standard. Don't just move on.

[MCDesigns]

There's just no "standard" in anything from what I've seen.

I'm not saying that the individual addon (s) are not "good". Just that the quality could be better as a whole. Form a standard. Don't just move on.

Unfortunately with so many buying into the FTXG hype, that is going to be the standard with textures it seems.

There are just to many variables these days for scenery developers. If you do any kind of photoreal base you have to decide what texture set you will blend it with, default, GEX and now FTXG. With terrain, it used to be default and then UTX which was usually a big difference. Now you have the new FTXG vector which shouldn't be to far off from UTX. The images for the vector series also show the new LC packs and FTX global mesh which is another nightmare. My old Acton scenery is pretty much unusable with FSGenesis installed unless I make everything flat, LOL.

It's enough to make your head... :isadizzy::pop4:

[TheGrunt]

I've mixed thoughts going based on what I've seen developed. They tend to follow the highest demand/populated areas to lure the fish. Early developed areas seemed to be the "icing" on what lies beneath (other near by additions to the region), a lesser standard, so-to-speak. The pattern is clearly evident as the level of details has never been consistent. One reason I'm glad I didn't get sucked into the wake as more and more airports, or areas were announced. Sales tactics are one thing. I can't say I differ their approach to "take over" as they develop more and more globally. There's just no "standard" in anything from what I've seen.

I'm not saying that the individual addon (s) are not "good". Just that the quality could be better as a whole. Form a standard. Don't just move on.
I myself find all the ORBX areas high quality and big jump over the default or any other texture/autogen/landclass based sceneries covering a somewhat larger area than a city or smaller island. Some of the ORBX areas are just more interesting and exciting, but I don't find that much of a variety in a quality itself. I don't own every region of theirs, but most of them. I think only addons I lack are NZ SI, ORBX Southern Alaska, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

FTX Global is a huge improvement over default overall just by looking the day textures, but 3D lights and night textures boost night/dusk/dawn flying by the order of magnitude, at least. I will buy their landclasses and vector data sets when they are available, not just because I think they deliver good quality, but they are IMO also affordable for the coverage and of course the said quality.

Only thing that bothers me a bit is that they fork the FSX/P3D. With FTX Global they changed the autogen annotations of the core sim itself, which might pose a problem with other addons at some point. I haven't yet seen or heard any big problems, but there may be some in the future, where other 3PD devs create sceneries based strictly on SDK and they just don't work as they should with ORBX sceneries, unless developer hadn't designed them ORBX in mind.

Overall, so far benefits are IMO clear and they deliver far more better scenery with large coverage than any other developer so far. Photgens are another matter, and I like quite much MSE 2.0 and MegaSceneryX products too. Still, photogens are a different ball game and both have their positives and negatives, I use both gladly, as I use bunch of great freeware and payware sceneries. One thing I anticipate the most is the cooperation of ORBX and LM and the fruits that ORBX can deliver with Prepar3d 2.0 when it comes out hopefully already by the end of this year.

[TheGrunt]

Unfortunately with so many buying into the FTXG hype, that is going to be the standard with textures it seems.

There are just to many variables these days for scenery developers. If you do any kind of photoreal base you have to decide what texture set you will blend it with, default, GEX and now FTXG. With terrain, it used to be default and then UTX which was usually a big difference. Now you have the new FTXG vector which shouldn't be to far off from UTX. The images for the vector series also show the new LC packs and FTX global mesh which is another nightmare. My old Acton scenery is pretty much unusable with FSGenesis installed unless I make everything flat, LOL.

It's enough to make your head... :isadizzy::pop4:
You have a point here, Michael, and like I said, ORBX forking the core sim doesn't make things easier. A good thing is that we have a possibility to choose between products by the preference we like. There are so much addons for FSX/P3D that you should really have true alternatives, at least for US and most of the Europe. Problem comes with these large area addons, where conflicts are most likely. Everyone should just be aware of these before they spend their hard earned money in addons: you may gain a lot, but there is also a possibility to lose something.

[OleBoy]

I suppose I should have mentioned that my days of FSX (figuratively speaking) are behind me. About the time I contemplated buying from ORBX the whole package they had at the time, I believe LM came into the picture. Or was about too. Back then I was quite frustrated with all the messing about that had to be done to get FSX performing best it could based on peripherals. It was then I moved over to Prepar3D (v1.2) and never looked back. Then the onslaught of getting FTX scenery installed into P3D came and it was more trouble than I was interested in putting time into. I don't fly all over, although where I do fly I like it to look the part and "fit" the specific regions.

Looking better than default (to me) is irrelevant for the sum of money that has to be spent. Looking the part for landscape is more my concern. The PNW has trees that are known only to this region of the world for instance. Fir, Maple, Blue Spruce, Pine, Hemlock, Alder, Cottonwood, etc. Some evergreens only grow in specific areas. Other deciduous growth are everywhere mixed in. Different elevations also claim their own stakes for growth based on those more hearty and less robust or colorful. Then there are the different leafy plants growing from sea-level on through and up-to the higher altitudes scattered about. It's obvious more times than not that there are no members on the teams that hike throughout to see the beauty that flight sim scenery lacks. Granted this is virtual flight, but I honestly think a better representation could be in this world if taken the time to do so. The talents are obviously there. And the knowledge to make it (virtual) reality. All I want are representations in what's there. Not what doesn't belong as I see a lot of.

This is my perspective.
Over-and-out.

[Roger]

For now I can afford it and continue I will to buy into what I want. Some ORBX stuff I don't want and I don't feel the need to have it all. For me, seeing the Tasmania demo some years ago sold ORBX textures to me and although the quality varies from region to region, for me they are so much better than default or GEX. I moved to FsX from Fs9 because at last the world and not just the aircraft could look real. Default barely does that for me but with ORBX it largely satisfies.

[TheGrunt]

I suppose I should have mentioned that my days of FSX (figuratively speaking) are behind me. About the time I contemplated buying from ORBX the whole package they had at the time, I believe LM came into the picture. Or was about too. Back then I was quite frustrated with all the messing about that had to be done to get FSX performing best it could based on peripherals. It was then I moved over to Prepar3D (v1.2) and never looked back. Then the onslaught of getting FTX scenery installed into P3D came and it was more trouble than I was interested in putting time into. I don't fly all over, although where I do fly I like it to look the part and "fit" the specific regions.

Looking better than default (to me) is irrelevant for the sum of money that has to be spent. Looking the part for landscape is more my concern. The PNW has trees that are known only to this region of the world for instance. Fir, Maple, Blue Spruce, Pine, Hemlock, Alder, Cottonwood, etc. Some evergreens only grow in specific areas. Other deciduous growth are everywhere mixed in. Different elevations also claim their own stakes for growth based on those more hearty and less robust or colorful. Then there are the different leafy plants growing from sea-level on through and up-to the higher altitudes scattered about. It's obvious more times than not that there are no members on the teams that hike throughout to see the beauty that flight sim scenery lacks. Granted this is virtual flight, but I honestly think a better representation could be in this world if taken the time to do so. The talents are obviously there. And the knowledge to make it (virtual) reality. All I want are representations in what's there. Not what doesn't belong as I see a lot of.

This is my perspective.
Over-and-out.
Of course you can have expectations as you like, but you always have to remember what the simulator engine can practically do and what not and what is worth the effort of the devs. For example, placing tree types exactly as their elevations, sizes and so forth are or using them as mixed local groups is just not possible by the autogen routines of FSX/P3D. If you want that, you have to place those objects manually. Every one of them. For ORBX PNW alone that would probably take a couple of decades for the entire team. So as you said, if taken time, it is possible. But not practical.

Creating a virtual world is and is not possible. It is easy to do with 2D images at a certain point if you look at the photogens and google streetview. If you want to have that data tranferred as true real time rendered 3D data, things are far more complicated. You have to have at first, the precise data what trees, objects and so forth is where. After that you have a possibility to start thinking how to model all that in the engine. You can of course get quite easily data of elevations, terrain types, geological, street, railroad and powerline information and some building data even for free or at least if you pay for it, sometimes huge sums. It doesn't still mean that all that translates magically to virtual models i nthe sim. You need first an engine that can represent practically all that different data, which in FSX is possble practically by hand placing. Then, you have to create all those models, which is a different task all together.

[nio]

I rejoice in the fact that we have products for all tastes and pockets.

Surely a good thing.

best

nio

[Naismith]

I love their stuff but they seem to be pumping out various different add-ons at a prodigious rate at the moment, it is hard to keep up let alone afford. This latest seems to do away with Ultimate Terrain from what I gather.

[OleBoy]

Of course you can have expectations as you like, but you always have to remember what the simulator engine can practically do and what not and what is worth the effort of the devs. For example, placing tree types exactly as their elevations, sizes and so forth are or using them as mixed local groups is just not possible by the autogen routines of FSX/P3D. If you want that, you have to place those objects manually. Every one of them. For ORBX PNW alone that would probably take a couple of decades for the entire team. So as you said, if taken time, it is possible. But not practical.

Creating a virtual world is and is not possible. It is easy to do with 2D images at a certain point if you look at the photogens and google streetview. If you want to have that data tranferred as true real time rendered 3D data, things are far more complicated. You have to have at first, the precise data what trees, objects and so forth is where. After that you have a possibility to start thinking how to model all that in the engine. You can of course get quite easily data of elevations, terrain types, geological, street, railroad and powerline information and some building data even for free or at least if you pay for it, sometimes huge sums. It doesn't still mean that all that translates magically to virtual models i nthe sim. You need first an engine that can represent practically all that different data, which in FSX is possble practically by hand placing. Then, you have to create all those models, which is a different task all together.


I have to agree with you. A lot of the way you state the means to get things to look as they should, is a time consuming choice of representation in the simulator. Then again, for anything, what isn't if it's to look the part? I guess my expectations are way off the charts given the capabilities within the FSX game engine. My knowledge of the game engine is very limited. I feel they can do a lot better than what they do given the time.

I'll leave the subject alone. I made my comments. My apology for the disruption to the OP.