To FTX or not to FTX....

[jdhaenens]

I've been playing with and investigating the ins and outs of FTX's PNW scenery over the last few days and have decided that I will not design scenery to work within or support the package nor will I modify my existing scenery to be compatible with the PNW addon.

Here's the deal: If you like Kevin Burns' great Bellingham scenery, unless he makes it specifically for PNW, you will never see it in PNW. Every time you select PNW in FTX central, all the PNW libraries, terrain, landclass, and placement files get loaded in the priority 1 through whatever slots in your scenery library which automatically overrides about everything below them. In Bellingham's case it looks like the photoreal background may remain, but the custom objects are gone.If you manually place the KBLI Scenery folder ahead of the PNW folders in priority, you end up seeing
double buildings and autogen interference. You will see one other thing from Kevin,the AFCAD, and that leads to problems elsewhere.

FSX will ALWAYS read an active Airport File. Call it an AFCAD, ADE, AFX, AFD, whatever, FSX will read it. And it will generally read the entire .bgl, not just the airport data. So places like Oak Harbor Seaplane Base become especially obnoxious because even though the custom buildings don't show in PNW mode(I didn't put them in the same.bgl as the airport info), the tarmac does because it's part of the airport file. It looks kind of strange, but there you are. The other problem this leads to is that FSX believes the first altitude it reads whether it's in the airport files in the main scenery folder or the airport file elsewhere like Oak harbor.

If you have to change the altitude of the airport because you changed the terrain, to make sure that FSX reads the right altitude, you generally have to build a "Stub" file which is generally a shortened airport file located in the scenery/world /scenery folder. The disadvantage to this is that FSX thinks this is the new altitude forever even when you revert to FSX mode, so it in effect, "breaks" the FSX Default (or other freeware or payware airport) that uses the original altitude.

It may break the stuff you've already paid for.

This is not so good and the FTX folks are working on a fix so this doesn't happen.

I guess this is why there's almost a taboo against using an AFD file among the folks that develop strictly for FTX and partially the reason for the "Do not touch" list they get as well.

Now, I've got to tell you, I've received above and beyond customer service since I bought the PNW addon. Holjer is the absolute best, but the FTX folks and I seem to have a basic philosophical difference. They appear to me to be installing a proprietary system, restricting the sceneries they allow into the system and charging whatever the traffic will bear for addons into it. Great marketing...lousy for existing scenery.

That's why I won't bother. I guess I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive.

So you will NOT need any addons to enjoy my sceneries, and they should be ok if the addon (any add on) reverts to a true FSX condition including altitude, library support and cvx resolution.

Enjoy,
Jim

Note: Those of you who really don't like the tarmac at Oak Harbor can remove the Oak Harbor folder from your addon scenery folder.Be sure to deactivate it first or FSX will whine about it until you do.

[jmig]

I...snip... Now, I've got to tell you, I've received above and beyond customer service since I bought the PNW addon. Holjer is the absolute best, but the FTX folks and I seem to have a basic philosophical difference. They appear to me to be installing a proprietary system, restricting the sceneries they allow into the system and charging whatever the traffic will bear for addons into it. Great marketing...lousy for existing scenery.
...

Interesting Jim. I bought the PNW scenery and quickly got spoiled. It will be a shame if no one else's scenery works with PNW. There are others like you who do exceptional work. To be forced to do two versions, one for FSX with FTX and another without, doesn't seem right to me. It limits the consumer.

I also purchased Darrington and Twin Oaks airports. While they are beautiful and well done, I my opinion the value is not up to the price. I am sure the amount of work that went into each airport was considerable. They look wonderful. Still, at $35 an airport, this scenery thing will get quite expensive very fast. The hundred dollar hamburger will become the hundred dollar airport.

[deimos256]

PNW unfortunately left a bad taste in my mouth, for the price and performance hit, I dont think it changes all that much in FSX. The airports getting released seperate and costing nearly as much as the addon is a bit excessive in my opinion as well. Personally It runs pretty poorly on my system and my issues are shared by a few people judging by the forums and the repsonse to it I have taken as rather cold. IF there is ever a patch that rectifies it I might check it out again but until then I'm chalking it up as a $50 lesson in life.

[Holger Sandmann]

Hi guys,

First off I respect Jim's decision and agree that it's 100% up to an add-on developer to decide for which FS configuration(s) he releases his add-ons. Personally, I've always tried to make my projects compatible with as many common add-ons as possible (and helped others doing the same) but that's my thing. Thus, I just want to make a few technical remarks about Jim's original post:



Every time you select PNW in FTX central, all the PNW libraries, terrain, landclass, and placement files get loaded in the priority 1 through whatever slots in your scenery library which automatically overrides about everything below them.

The FTX Central configurator that comes with the FTX regions has an option called scenery library insertion point that allows you to decide where you want the block of FTX entries placed. Much easier than moving the entries around manually. It's explained on page 7 in the PNW manual.




If you have to change the altitude of the airport because you changed the terrain, to make sure that FSX reads the right altitude, you generally have to build a "Stub" file which is generally a shortened airport file located in the scenery/world /scenery folder. The disadvantage to this is that FSX thinks this is the new altitude forever even when you revert to FSX mode, so it in effect, "breaks" the FSX Default (or other freeware or payware airport) that uses the original altitude.


The general issue with those elevation stub files is correct but the fact that they remain when FTX Central is switched to Default was an oversight on our part. Today John and I tested an update for FTX Central that remedies that and the new version will be in the first service pack (the upcoming demo has the new version too). Sorry about that!



They appear to me to be installing a proprietary system, restricting the sceneries they allow into the system and charging whatever the traffic will bear for addons into it. Great marketing...lousy for existing scenery.
I'm not sure where you get this idea. The payware add-on airports ORBX is offering are entirely optional and anyone can make add-ons for any of the ORBX regions and that's what happened with the Australian regions already. There are no inherent technical reasons why you can't, it's just a new landscape similar to a combination of FSG terrain mesh and Ultimate Terrain USA/Canada. After Misty Fjords came out for FS9 it started a building "frenzy" with dozens of add-ons made for its replacement landscape. Hopefully, FTX PNW will be the same.


In general regarding compatibility: I always encourage scenery developers to start with a "clean slate". That means making a general exclude for the project area to remove the existing apron and buildings and then rebuild the area to your liking. That way the final product is stand-alone and can be placed at higher display priority on top of a replacement landscape like FTX or UTX and has a much higher chance of being compatible. Even if you want to retain some of the default objects the new version of ADE allows to import those objects and compile with your own files.


Specific to Jim's Oak Harbor SPB addon (oakhrbr.zip): I like it very much :applause: and it looks to me as if a few extra flattens should make it compatible with FTX PNW. I'm going to give it a shot in a few days. If I'm successful I'll ask Jim for permission to share the patch files in the FTX compatibility forum.

Cheers, Holger

[anthony31]

As one of the few people who makes freeware scenery addons for Australia and who isn't associated with ORBX (either directly or indirectly) I have to agree with Jim. Trying to make scenery that works with FTX Australia is not particularly easy and certainly not made any easier by ORBX. I chose to make exclusively airport that will work with FTX as the default FSX Australia is simply atrocious. As a freeware scenery designer the idea of making two different versions just does not appeal, besides, why would I make a scenery (ie one compatible with default FSX Australia) that I would never use?

For quite a while there I had the same scenery library order problem that Jim describes (ie FTX putting itself at the top of the scenery library order) although this has been fixed in one of the service packs. Hopefully ORBX will do the same with PNW.

The funny thing is that I know there are people who have gone out and bought FTX Australia after downloading one of my airports.

If US freeware developers do not embrace PNW (and if ORBX doesn't acommodate this) then PNW may well have a limited future. After all, how many small payware airports/airfields is the market willing to buy?

[MCDesigns]

Interesting views. I have yet to get PNW, but I plan to as it gives me a better/new canvas on which to develop on, plus I also look at it as supporting people I respect such as Holger and Bill and encouraging development further in this direction which is totally turning FSX is to something special. Which also ties into developing for it, which equals higher visibility and more sales hopefully.

I wouldn't blame Orbx for creating a product that promotes addons designed specifically for PNW only (if that was the case) afterall, that is marketing and they are a business and want to promote development that helps them sell products..

I agree with Anthony, why develop for a "freeware" version of your scenery that is compatible with default or another addon that the developer doesn't use?

Holger is correct, I have seen him bend over backwards to accommodate other addons with his work.

[jdhaenens]

Ahhh. Thanks for the info on the insertion point, Holger. I must admit I did nothing but observe the default actions of the addon.

I believe I did say in my post that the altitude problems were being fixed and we'll have to agree to disagree on the proprietary thing. It seems our definitions are different.

Thanks for your well reasoned responses. This was and is not meant to be an anti FTX/ PNW thread. I do believe, however that FTX/PNW did not perform its due dilligence where the freeware community is concerned.

[spotlope]

For quite a while there I had the same scenery library order problem that Jim describes (ie FTX putting itself at the top of the scenery library order) although this has been fixed in one of the service packs. Hopefully ORBX will do the same with PNW.

Anthony,

As Holger said, the PNW ships with this ability to set where it gets put in the library order. There's nothing to patch in this regard; it works this way out of the "box".

[anthony31]

Thanks Bill

Holger must have posted about the scenery library while I was typing.

I'd just like to clarify some points with regards to scenery design with FTX.

The only time I made anything compatible with default and FTX is with Hamilton Island. Due to the silly way FSX creates water I had to make separate water polygons that worked with a default setup and with an FTX setup. Now, I don't know if anyone here has had the pleasure of rebuilding water polygons around closely placed islands but just let me say it is not fun.

It is perfectly possible to make addon scenery for an FTX environment but trying to make different versions to be compatible with FTX, UTX and default may just be too much work for some developers.

Now, onto the nitty gritty. FTX uses custom textures in it's own folders. Addon developers have no real access to these textures therefore things like landclass, vector poly's and lines using FTX textures are pretty much impossible. Unless you want to stick your addon scenery into FTX folders which is not something I would recommend. It's this one thing which makes creating scenery for an FTX environment very difficult and much more complicated than for a default FSX environment.

It will be interesting to see in the future how many developers create airport addons for PNW. Not only freeware developers but payware developers as well perhaps?

[Holger Sandmann]

Hello Anthony,


FTX uses custom textures in it's own folders. Addon developers have no real access to these textures therefore things like landclass, vector poly's and lines using FTX textures are pretty much impossible. Unless you want to stick your addon scenery into FTX folders which is not something I would recommend.

Sorry but that's not correct. As long as your add-on with its polygon data sits above the FTX scenery library entries then those will automatically use the FTX custom textures. In fact our own polygon files are in a different directory from the textures themselves. And for the vector lines you just need to copy the information from the terrain.cfg file into the SBuilder or ADE .ini files (or ask us for the lists).

What is more tricky is to know what textures represent which land class type as we don't rely on the standard descriptions. However, all of that can be addressed by asking us specific questions so we can provide specific answers. Then again, FS developers tend to be men and men don't like to ask for directions :mixedsmi:

Cheers, Holger

[harleyman]

You men are way to smart for me...

I just fly planes.....:mixedsmi:

[thetford569]

very educational thread Jim and Holger both. I edited the FTX AFCAD in ADE for NAS Whidbey Island a couple days after PNW was released. I did this because I have MAIW P-3's as AI and other AI traffic that wasn't showing up because there was only the 1 default parking "fuel box". I noticed early on that both the add-on buildings and default FSX buildings were showing up (some were overlapping). I deleted the default buildings and for awhile could not figure out how to get rid of the fuel box and fuel pump object. I finally got rid of them, added my parking spots, and then I began noticing the double taxiway signs everywhere. I resigned myself to the fact that this airport needs a "start from scratch" approach to be compatible with FTX and just ignored the taxiway signs for now. After hinting in another thread I was hoping that Jim would be working on this base but judging by your post above maybe that's not going to happen for an FTX version anyway. I have other projects in mind first and then maybe I'll try my hand at some FTX compatible scenery. Until then I'll have to be satisfied with my parking looking correct but seeing double the amount of signs around...

Brandon

[arrowmaker]

Well I have PNW and I love it. OK most addon airports, released prior to PNW, probably are no longer going to show. However thats why we have FTX Central which makes activating and deactivating PNW a breeze. One of my favourite little airstrips was Bill Womacks' Bear Gulch (care of RealAir). This totally disappears under the Orbix scenery. However if I wish to fly from there I simply deactivate PNW and then fly in my default scenery (UT+GEX) which is quite nice looking to begin with.

I certainly don't believe that the fact that PNW "overwrites" already existing airports, that you may have added, as a valid reason not to buy it. The package as a whole just add's so much more to the region and is an absolute bargain at $50.

[dharris]

Now this is a good thread, very informative very over my head, I just know what I like when I see it. By the way, is PNW compatably with FS4? Would not want to have to upgrade too soon!

[jdhaenens]

Not buy it? Heavens, I didn't suggest that anywhere. I'm just helping to make an informed decision.

I am, however going to have nightmares when they do North Florida, as there is a lot more possibility that more of the folks accounting for the 12,000 or so downloads of NAS Pensacola will purchase FTX as well, and my email inbox will go bonkers for a week. Not to mention the other 7 sceneries I have in the area.:isadizzy:

[anthony31]

Hello Anthony,



Sorry but that's not correct. As long as your add-on with its polygon data sits above the FTX scenery library entries then those will automatically use the FTX custom textures. In fact our own polygon files are in a different directory from the textures themselves. And for the vector lines you just need to copy the information from the terrain.cfg file into the SBuilder or ADE .ini files (or ask us for the lists).

What is more tricky is to know what textures represent which land class type as we don't rely on the standard descriptions. However, all of that can be addressed by asking us specific questions so we can provide specific answers. Then again, FS developers tend to be men and men don't like to ask for directions :mixedsmi:

Cheers, Holger

But then you run into Jim's problem. ie compatibility between an FTX and non FTX environment. If I create a scenery that references the FTX textures and someone who doesn't have FTX installs my scenery then my scenery will not appear correctly on their system.

Even though I made scenery for an FTX environment I was still careful to make sure that I didn't use any FTX exclusive stuff like autogen, textures or models libraries so that at least my scenery would still work in a default FSX. There may be some colour mismatching, tree textures will be default and some of the roads leading out may not line up but it will still work in a default FSX.

If you download OZx with FTX Australia then you find that many of the strips will not have autogen because they used the FTX autogen sets. Or they will have missing models because they may use FTX model libraries.

These are some of the issues that addon developers must confront and be aware of when developing in 3rd party addon environments like FTX and UTX. Do they make something 100% compatible with FTX or do they make two or three different versions to be compatible with the different environments? It is certainly possible to make one scenery compatible with FTX and with default but that does place limitations on what you can do as a developer.

[koorby]

Hi Jim,

As Holger intimated, we're more than happy to give you the info on the LC calls to make, exclusions to use and anything else you need to fully integrate your sceneries. We have thumbnails to use with SBX which make LC editing a doddle too, using our actual texture facsmilies.

It would be remiss of us to stifle 3rd party freeware addons for PNW, since I am sure there's a wealth of really cool sceneries out there which would add immense value to the user experience. Same goes for Florida and other areas if/when we get there - the USA is a huge country, hehe!

With our FTX Central tool it's really quite simple to show your users how to ensure your scenery takes priority over PNW, and set the appropriate library insertion points so that you can call our textures.

Happy to help!

[koorby]

Hi Anthony,

Congrats on the Tiger Moth, it's a credit to you mate.

You make very valid points, and I concede that a developer needs to choose to make an FTX-compatible scenery, or an Default (or UTX) compatible scenery - or bundle versions for different flavours. It's a legitimate conundrum.

Like the AU series, we've just made the sandpit for Orbx and 3rd party developers to play in, and we are more than happy to assist those who want to call our assets.

There is also the independant OZx team (http://aussiex.org) now making freeware scenery for PNW, and they have a lot of tools and tips which they would be happy to share with anyone joining their team, to create content for their PNW releases.

[spotlope]

Making decisions on what version of FS to support is nothing new. A couple of years ago it was a question of FS9, FSX, or both, then whether or not to design with UTX in mind, or the default terrain. Now Orbx has upped the ante with more options. Those sorts of choices are the scenery dev's lot in life, I'm afraid.

I'm encouraged by what I've seen with the Australian scenery, with Orbx and OZx working together to turn out many, many beautiful freeware airfields. Anyone who's nervous about the PNW's future need only look down under for reassurance.

[jdhaenens]

I hear you Anthony. I only had three islands to worry about with Barakoma, and it was a real pain. I'm with the Holger Sandman school of landscape design: ....take everything apart first then build it back the way you think it should be. That's what got me in trouble with the LC calls on Oak Harbor. There wasn't a good enough ortho image I could find to use and I would have had to regress that to the 40's anyway, so I took the lazy way out and just did an LC background.

Thanks for the info, John.

Brandon, I had seriously thought about doing NAS Whidbey Island or maybe Olympia since I have the Art Deco Hangar built, but it's off for now. If you're using ADE to edit the airport, set it to remove all the taxi signs and see if that helps. It should.

You're right, Bill. Although I also remember a few not-so-complimentary posts and emails when I went FSX only...and when I told some folks that I was not planning on an fs9 version.:blind::icon_lol: You pay your money and take your chances.

[anthony31]

Hello Anthony,



Sorry but that's not correct. As long as your add-on with its polygon data sits above the FTX scenery library entries then those will automatically use the FTX custom textures. In fact our own polygon files are in a different directory from the textures themselves. And for the vector lines you just need to copy the information from the terrain.cfg file into the SBuilder or ADE .ini files (or ask us for the lists).

What is more tricky is to know what textures represent which land class type as we don't rely on the standard descriptions. However, all of that can be addressed by asking us specific questions so we can provide specific answers. Then again, FS developers tend to be men and men don't like to ask for directions :mixedsmi:

Cheers, Holger

Hi again Holger. I'd just like to revisit this issue again as I'm not so sure that I understand how to use FTX textures.

I should point out that I am not using PNW yet so I am basing what I say on FTX Australia. I will have to wait for the DVD version to be released before I can get my hands on PNW.

I should also point out it was over a year ago that I had a look at this issue so my memory may be a bit fuzzy on the matter. So apologies in advance for any mistakes I may make.

I'll just look at the FTX roads. As I understand it the FTX textures and scnery bgls are stored in FTXAU_05_ROADS folder. Now, I had a look at the terrain.cfg and the FTX road entries reference the FTX textures.

As I understand it FSX will look in a scenery files associated texture folder first for any textures it needs and then in the Scenery/World/Texture folder. FSX will not search down through every scenery folder looking for the right texture.

I've just tested this by pulling out one of the FTX road bgls from FTXAU_05_ROADS and placed it into a different active scenery folder with no FTX textures. As expected, the roads disappeared from FSX. The reason being that FSX looked in the new scenery folders texture folder, couldn't find the FTX textures being called, then looked in the scenery/world/texture folder, couldn't find them there either so FSX stops searching and the roads were not drawn.

I'm not sure then how it is possible for someone to create roads using FTX road textures unless those road textures are placed in the scenery/world/texture folder or the scenery .bgl is placed in the FTXAU_05_ROADS scenery folder.

Any way, that is they way I understand how FSX works but of course Holger is a much smarter man than me so I wouldn't be surprised if he proved me wrong.


"Those sorts of choices are the scenery dev's lot in life, I'm afraid."

And that Bill is why I make planes now :icon_lol:

[Holger Sandmann]

Hi Anthony,

actually, your observations regarding vector textures are correct, my previous post was regarding polygon textures. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

Indeed, for custom vector textures the textures themselves have to be in the texture subfolder paralell to the .bgl file that references the vectors, or, alternatively, they can be in Scenery\World\texture (I believe Scenery\Global\texture works as well but I'm not 100% sure).

I agree that it's not a good idea to place third-party add-ons directly in the FTX folder tree and, for copyright reasons, you can't include FTX textures in your add-on package. However, you can provide in your docs a list of FTX files for the users to copy into your add-on's texture folder. Better yet, you can include a small batch file that does the job automatically.

If that sounds awkward or inellegant have a look at some of my old landscape add-ons for FS2002 and FS2004 where people had to deactivate and move dozens of files from different directories :isadizzy: yet these add-ons were rather popular and I received very few complaints.

Cheers, Holger

[Henry]

as a aspiring mud mover over the past few years
i have tinkered a lot but never ever mastered anything:icon_lol:
going back to cfs1
the problem the way i see it
has always been you can create an airfield
but who knows who has what?
in fs9 it could be golden wings, silver wings
and what mesh etc etc
Jim you have created some great stuff:applause:
but this has been an ongoing problem for all developers
I remember you sending me a patch because what i had and what you had where different
there is no way possible for every scenery designer to have everything
if you have UTX or if you have FTX etc etc
total frustration i know been there and Quit:icon_lol:
sadly unless everything was freeware
so we all had the same or at least could get it
but even then going back to fs9 and golden wings
ya had to make 2 variations
wish i had a simple solution
i guess that comes with open architecture
if everything was the same we would not have a problem
but in a sense im glad we do
H

[NoNewMessages]

Indeed, for custom vector textures the textures themselves have to be in the texture subfolder paralell to the .bgl file that references the vectors, or, alternatively, they can be in Scenery\World\texture (I believe Scenery\Global\texture works as well but I'm not 100% sure).

I have never tried to implement such a thing, but would a Texture.cfg file, such as used on airplanes be an alternative to moving files to a local texture folder?

[jdhaenens]

I have tried doing a texture.cfg file in scenery before and been unsuccessful, but I haven't tested the full gamut of possibilities. I fear they may only be effective in the simobjects folder.

And you're right, Henry it is frustrating. If FTX is smart enough to come up with this tremendous alternate universe, they ought to be smart enough to tell it to leave stuff alone and allow FSX compliant scenery to coesist without problems. But that would decrease sales of FTX only addons...

At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, the philosophical portion of this thread is at a repeating point.

The outcome is that FTX will do exactly as they please as will the freeware and payware developers.

FTX wants folks to design stuff for their environment and will help. (Almost zero chance it will be 100% functional in FSX mode, but parts may still show in FSX.)

FTX will not support by default, most of the hundreds of existing freeware and payware scenery packages available in the U.S. (almost all would require additional work by their authors to even be seen correctly in FTX)

Designing for FTX only mathematically guarantees less exposure than designing for FSX alone.

It will be up to the consumer to choose where to invest their money.

I like the scenery. I don't like the limitations.

[David_Sheridan]

You only need to talk to "Aerosoft" and ask them all the problems that FTX created with the Aerosoft - Lord Howe Island and to this day most people that did purchase Lord Howe Island are still having problems created by FTX and NOT Aerosoft.

Regards
Dave

[Holger Sandmann]

Hi David,

not sure why you are saying what you are saying but I'm glad you've brought it up :wavey:

Lord Howe Island is actually a nice example how I managed to make another payware add-on compatible with ours. We have a sticky thread over in the FTX payware forums that gives people three options: Aerosoft only, FTX only, or an Aerosoft-FTX hybrid. I'm rather proud that I've managed to do this without help from the Aerosoft developers.

The link is http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=6009.0 though you need to have an FTX forum account to access it. Note that the compatibility package has been downloaded more than 500 times!

Cheers, Holger

[spotlope]

I'm having a hard time seeing how Orbx could possibly win, given the arguments I've seen. The reason people buy this scenery in the first place is because of the way it completely transforms a region. There is no way I know of to do what they've accomplished and make it 100% compatible with everyone else's work as well. John has said they'll be happy to work with any freeware developer who wants to make their work compatible, and they've demonstrated a commitment to freeware themselves in their AU releases. What more can they do, short of eliminating the very features that users love about FTX?

As soon as I heard they were moving into the Pacific Northwest, I contacted Orbx and offered to join their dev team. The reason was simple -- their vision for how scenery could look and work is the closest thing to real I've seen yet, and a good match for my own vision. I knew I was giving up potential sales by using the FTX methods, but I also gained access to a whole new world of FTX-heads. Was it worth it? You bet.

This discussion is similar to those that raged right after FSX was released. They broke my scenery! Now I have to decide which version to develop for! Well... yeah. That's life in the digital age. Would you give up FSX with all its advancements in order to be able to use sceneries you downloaded in 2004? I definitely would not.

[David_Sheridan]

Hi David,

not sure why you are saying what you are saying but I'm glad you've brought it up :wavey:

Lord Howe Island is actually a nice example how I managed to make another payware add-on compatible with ours. We have a sticky thread over in the FTX payware forums that gives people three options: Aerosoft only, FTX only, or an Aerosoft-FTX hybrid. I'm rather proud that I've managed to do this without help from the Aerosoft developers.

The link is http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=6009.0 though you need to have an FTX forum account to access it. Note that the compatibility package has been downloaded more than 500 times!

Cheers, Holger

Holger, the reason I raised this was to give others an example of what people have been saying. What it also raises is WHY should everyone that purchaced "Lord Howe Island" have to become a member of the FTX Forum just so they can download the fix ??

Dave

[Holger Sandmann]

Hello Dave,


What it also raises is WHY should everyone that purchaced "Lord Howe Island" have to become a member of the FTX Forum just so they can download the fix ??


Well, obviosuly only those who also bought the ORBX package that contains our version of Lord Howe Island would need to have access to our forums. Since they are our customers it stands to reason they would have gotten an account already anyway.

Cheers, Holger

[David_Sheridan]

Holger... not if you purchase from the Flightsimstore.com which is the only place you can purchase from back then anyway.

God if I joined every single forum I purchased addons from I wouldn't have time to fly in flightsim as I would be visiting to many forums.

Holger a very GOOD example is I have every addon you have released as Payware and I purchased them all via Simflight.com but I am not a member of the Forum at Simflight.com or FSADDON.com.

Dave

[NoNewMessages]

1802

I hope I don't incur any wrath for the picture. :icon_lol:

It's still early in the FTX PNW release cycle, so how great a demand there might be for revised work is still unknown?

I hope the efforts of FTX are successful. More good places to fly is always a good thing.