Scenery : Pariah of FS ?.....

[vora]

btw Orbx has just released the Tipella freeware scenery here.
I'm almost in tears... what a work!

[Javis]

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!

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/sohforum...-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]

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]

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]

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]

. . . . . .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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[WarHorse47]

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.

[vora]

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 . 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]

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 . 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'

[vora]

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'

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

[greenie]

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]

@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.



Another perspective



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.



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 is a link to the ORBX forums that discusses some of the Ft. Lewis objects as part of one of the PNW patches.

[anthony31]

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]

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]

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...



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

[Timbohobo]

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

[greenie]

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.














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

[WarHorse47]

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.

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