Posts by Trespassers

    And in the real life they're far less shiny.

    They need to be seriously dimmed, but as already stated the config file should allow adjusting the VASI/PAPI/APAPI style and the glide angle to match the real life.

    Currently there's only 1 kind of PAPI and the glide slope seems to be stuck to 3 degrees.

    Cheers

    Antoine


    I really had rather not post any screen shots of that area while it is still in work. It is a large area and will make a nice place to fly around Chicago for sure.


    Er... sorry Ray, but I cannot more disagree. If IPACS or Orbx feels uncomfortable with this scenery while more is supposed to come later it should simply not have been released and sold yet.

    Potential customers deserve to know what they're purchasing before they do it. Advertising screenshots are lying by omission, strictly showing only the few highly detailed square meters. No single displayed screenshot shows the reality of more than 95% of the product.

    I don't regret my purchase because I wanted to see what Orbx can propose and how it's developping, but I would sure not encourage other AFS users to get it now, or at least they have to know what they get before paying.
    Orbx advertising is purely dishonnest in this case.

    My 2 cents
    Antoine

    Looking good there Ray, nice shots. How is the surrounding area do you think? OrbX said something like 12000km2 of photoreal imagery -some are raving about it, some are saying they are disappointed. Is it more just flat photoreal for now, or is there much by way of autogen? Some posts have said it isn't quite as good as the IPACS terrain. It seems the Chicago city autogen is coming shortly as an update rather than being in the initial release. I'll get it anyway at the weekend from steam, but I wanted to have realistic expectations.

    All empty and medium resolution (maybe 5m/pixel) flat photo. The scenery could be 5 sq. km wide it would be quite the same IMO.

    A "service pack" is supposed to come any time later with an autogen coverage, but currently it's very empty and quite ugly... I'm afraid an autogen coverage won't make up for the coarse resolution, unless they deliver new photo coverage with their SP...

    Cheers
    Antoine

    Yes, the Meigs "scenery" is terrible... There are just a few buildings close to the airfield, a lot of small useless details at the airfield (BTW is it supposed to be an airport simulator or a Flight Simulator ?).
    95% of the so-called scenery is raw coarse quality flat photo ground with nothing on it. Even worse than the IPACS nude DLC's...

    LOWI is much better since there's an autogen coverage over the whole patch of ground. The vegetation coverage in LOWI is really nice and convincing. Buildings autogen is nice too, but much flickering. I reckon textures far away keep too high a resolution.

    Too bad it's only a tiny island in the middle of nothing - it doesn't make a flight region, you cannot even cross the Brenner Pass or join Switzerland via the Vorarlberg, you're stuck in the middle of nowhere... Once again, too many useless and heavy-on-frame-rate details at LOWI airport instead of concentrating on the scenery.

    At least this tiny patch of Austrian Alps shows how it could be if the whole country and the Swiss DLC were done with this level of detail. Once you have this base everywhere you can think of adding hand-placed details to airports for those who fancy it, not the opposite.

    Well, strongly disappointed by Meigs, even if the whole FS saga started there (the only reason to buy this DLC).
    LOWI is pretty much what I expected.

    Cheers
    Antoine

    If users do convert FSX/P3D aircraft by themselves then yes, it violates copyrights.

    But saying it's more work than starting from scratch seems very unlikely. For instance the IPACS A320 visual model is a conversion of Aerosoft's good looking FSX airframe. It means it was easier for IPACS to purchase an existing 3D model and convert it than starting from scratch.
    If the opposite was the case it would mean a huge drawback for Aerofly FS2, with no way 3rd party editors to think of stepping in.

    But do not expect aircraft conversions to come for free as an update. It's definitely a heavy job and the result will be a different product.
    No way you could see an aircraft version to be simultaneoulsy compatible for both FSX and AFS2...

    Cheers
    Antoine

    My question is what use would all that detailed scenery be if we can't takeoff and land in it?

    Well, there's Meigs Field, that's a perfect place to perform local flights, just like in the good old early days of Flight Simulator.

    For the first time there will be a flight region with a global autogen coverage, and not only tiny local eye candies like a city center or aerodrome with naked photo ground and coarsely sprayed trees all around.

    The concept of modular platform is still unclear to me in Aerofly FS2, especially due to the "all in one project" approach.
    I don't understand yet how several add-ons are supposed to cohabit in a same region, how to handle priorities, create excludes, genetate vectors, etc.

    It would be interesting to have somebody else releasing for instance O'hare with its own ground photo coverage and 3D features (buildings, streets, vegetation, power lines, lights, ground traffic, etc.), totally ìndependant from the Orbx Illinois scenery, and see how they are supposed to cohabit when both are installed simultaneously.

    Cheers
    Antoine

    Q1 How are priorities managed in contiguous and overlapping zones?
    For instance the Swiss DLC is cut around the Swiss border, in some places exactly, approximately in other places. It looks pretty much difficult to attach a neighbouring zone without overlapping. Geneva area can be seen as a typical example of difficult integration without a clear priority setting.

    Q2 How is blending managed by the GeoConvert tool, is it similar to the FSX resample tool ?

    Thanks in advance for your replies
    Cheers
    Antoine

    UP... any answer please?

    Cheers
    Antoine

    Q1 How are priorities managed in contiguous and overlapping zones?
    For instance the Swiss DLC is cut around the Swiss border, in some places exactly, approximately in other places. It looks pretty much difficult to attach a neighbouring zone without overlapping. Geneva area can be seen as a typical example of difficult integration without a clear priority setting.

    Q2 How is blending managed by the GeoConvert tool, is it similar to the FSX resample tool ?

    Thanks in advance for your replies
    Cheers
    Antoine

    I won't disagree, HiFlyer.

    There are anyway some add-on providers' forum that keep open to other products, especially when they're not direct competitors.

    And there are also some general discussion forums where you don't dare talking negatively about (i.e. not finding absolute genius) some add-on provider's latest product, or write positively about some other add-on you tested and enjoyed, without your post to get closed and/or deleted, because it's an obvious competitor of the first and everything that goes against him is being censored.

    That's also why I find the banner is not the ideal communication tool.

    Cheers
    Antoine

    Well, you've got an example here of what you can get, it's a nice entertainment for a while...

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote

    I'll put a tenner on a flight sim based on this tech within the next five years.

    What, a flight simulator working with streaming sceneries? This already exists with Tileproxy, thus if Google was wanting, it would be technically possible to feed in such sceneries (it's only an extruded mesh and textures), but you rely on available detailed zones only and connection speed. I have optic fiber connection at home, and Google Earth is by far not fast enough to enjoy flying above, and still the many drawbacks from Google Earth come with it.
    Moreover, such a scenario could lead to get users paying a regular wage to keep flying...

    Purchasing from Google local spots of terrain with consistent quality and integrate them to a sim world engine would make more sense IMO. Local places like airports could be reworked in order to remove disturbing features and straighten-up buildings.

    Cheers
    Antoine

    Well, as already stated I'm afraid this is a wrong good idea.

    We all agree that the current scenrey depiction in Aerofly FS 2 is poor. The base photos are beautiful, the elevation mesh is quite good, but current sceneries totally lack of 3D buildings and vegetation placement is poor.

    Google Earth is locally beautiful when flying approx 2-5'000 ft AGL, typical VFR altitudes, the involved technology is great, but there are currently only tiny places featured, mainly centered around cities and abruptly switching to conventional raw photo projection over a very poor elevation mesh, with a very variable quality depending on the places. It will continue to grow up, but it'll take time.

    Examples of nice results when optimal
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/Images/googleearth%202013-05-20%2022-18-18-84.jpg]
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/Images/googleearth%202013-05-20%2022-24-44-22.jpg]


    However, the picture below is typically what you'll get in most places, with probably >95% of Earth not featured with this technology.
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/Images/ScreenShot1116.jpg]

    That's also what wou may get when making your own scenery based on FSET-grabbed material, depending on the scenery location and the web service where you grabbed the orthophotos, and if you do it fully automatically without manually reworking the photos.

    The big, big work load when doing photoscenery (either when purchasing lawfully orthophotos from official sources or grabbing from the web) is harmonizing the raw material in order to get a consistent and high quality product over a flight region. Most people don't do this essential job, that's why home-made photoscenery quality is usually poor.
    Getting the pictures and compiling them for your sim is jelly bean.

    Back to Google Earth technology, here it is explained.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    But when you go down to the ground (Jan mentionned hoovering in an helico) it gets totally distorted.
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/Images/googleearth%202013-05-20%2016-49-41-56.jpg]

    You will have also side effects like aircraft on tarmacs or even on runways depending on local situation at the time the zone was overflown.
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/Images/googleearth%202013-05-20%2016-52-24-91.jpg]

    Abrupt technology border
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/Images/googleearth%202013-05-20%2018-16-24-87.jpg]

    Currently, you can fly in Google Earth with existing FSX, or use the in-built simulator mode (GE 8 and earlier), I'd prefer see IPACS working on tools to cover our sceneries with 3D buildings and vegetation based on existing databases, allowing homogeneous scenery quality rendering over a consistent flight region, and not only tiny patches of high details in the middel of nothing.

    Cheers
    Antoine

    Well, I'm not sure a banner is a way to positively change people's opinion. I think the opposite is the case, it just tends to segregate simmers into categories : either you love or you hate it, and nothing in between...

    My 2 cents
    Cheers
    Antoine


    Luckily JV posted on the forum that the regions will be photoreal but he also posted they won't be using the Geoconvert tool and that they will use source material that can be sold legally. So no crappy online stuff with odd colors but quality photoreal! I can't wait to see what they come up with!!!

    Do not mix tools. GeoConvert is to compile any photomaterial for AFS2, also legal and high qualiy stuff.

    Ah, thanks for the clarification, I was thinking along the lines of what Ortho4XP does, as it creates a mesh from the OSM data I think. I only partly understand all this stuff, but I'm enthusiastic to learn more, so apologies for the slightly clumsy questions.

    As mentioned above, the ability to customise some terrain that might be dear to ones heart, but otherwise of little interest to anyone else and have little commercial clout, would be a great feature.

    Every sim has a crack at Manhattan or London, but to get convincing versions of some of the small towns near where I live would be great (but obviously of zero interest to anyone else). XP11+Ortho4XP does a pretty good job of replicating my home town area, and I can recognise all the roads, rivers and railway lines clearly at 1000ft and the autogen does a good job of inserting roughly the right type of buildings in the right places. If there is a chance to go beyond that it would be very attractive to many people to have their own little high detail mini regions.


    That's exactly the idea John. The key of a good SDK is to provide easy access enabling tools.

    Eventually, users can do what they want :
    - build themselves their own local place,
    - purchase ready-to-fly third party add-ons,
    - or keep enjoying default sceneries maybe adding some features

    Cheers
    Antoine

    I Delfin, forgive me, but that's no news. You can already "Fly in Google Earth" with FSX/P3D and it is of very limited interest.
    Of course you can locally enjoy the landscape, but it's all that you'll have. No airports, no weather, no traffic, no ATC, no interaction, and no possible near development in this direction.
    BTW there is an integrated flight simulator in Google Earth for this purpose. I think it was removed from version 9, but if you take an earlier release you should be able to enjoy it still...

    LOWI is only a first step that obviously pushed IPACS developping scenery design tools, that's the good news.
    Another good news is it will make an one-to-one comparison point with P3Dv4...

    Cheers
    Antoine