Ciderman
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Ciderman
-
-
What should be done completely differently than in FSX are Autogen forests or woods. It does not make sense at all to simulate seperate trees instead of green clusters for these areas. From the real air you only see them as an entitity. By the way this should save lots of computing power. Of course seperate trees make sense for airports or on the edge of fields, in cities and so on...but in forests they do not (you cannot land there anyway).
Adding more visual depth to water makes sense as well. Especially on the coastlines transparent water could cover a rising seabed.
What is most important for me is the question whether FSX sceneries will work with this new simulator. I have come a long way from FS4 to FSX and with the latest version I have eventually become tired of waiting for updated sceneries (I am still waiting for a decent version of Dusseldorf). A simulator that needs two or three years to mature (in terms of add-ons) might be prone to fall behind Microsoft's live concept.
I currently use Ultimate Traffic 2 which is an excellent traffic add-on. So please do not re-introduce a fantasy airline AI.
Just my two cents.
-
And of course I've burned the FlightXPress issue where they screwed up to test the scenery correctly!
That's the spirit!
BTW, I remember that some users here wanted to get rid of the rocks because most of the Polynesian mountain peaks are indeed forested. There are two commercial add-ons which come with an updated version of lclookup.bgl (that's the FSX file that controls the slope effects). I personally use the file from the Orbx AU Blue package but the SceneryTech World Landclass version might do as well. There is also a freeware version available but that one doesn't fix all of the rocks.
The correct and realistic Bora Bora rock will not be removed by any third party fixes because Benedikt hardcoded it into the scenery. However, if you use Tahiti X with Orbx's FTX mode I recommend you use the default tree textures instead of their brownish woods.
-
Man kann über alles diskutieren,aber bitte in einem Tonfall,der nicht ausfallend werden muss.
There is nothing rude about the idiom "to put ... where your mouth is". You can't blame Mathijs for misunderstanding an English expression.
I only helped to design and test Tahiti X so I'm neither the developer nor can I speak for Aerosoft. However, I fully agree that people should not try to damage the good reputation of a product if they haven't even tested it themselves. Why talk about something that you do not know? As Mathijs pointed out Tahiti X has only received positive feedback so far with one big exception: FlightXpress. And from what I can tell this was a less factual and rather political review.
Ich besitze diese Szenerie nicht und gedenke sie auch nicht zu kaufen,lasse mich aber über die Detailfülleund Schönheit dieses Produktes gerne aufklären.
If the Moorea comparison hasn't yet convinced you here is another one.
-
Go figure. I googled for "tahiti pine trees" and apparently there are pine trees on the French Polynesian islands.
Actually, most of them are bottlebrushes, which look very much like pine trees. Here is a photo: http://www.joetourist.ca/Polynesia/images/7805097.jpg So pine trees are good for me, too.
For those who want photoreal scenery, check out TileProxy.As Mathijs pointed out already all aerial photography available has major parts of the islands covered with clouds. That's what you'll see if you use interfaces such as TileProxy.
-
These shots could have been taken anywhere in FSX.I cannot see anything
making me think that i`m over Tahiti.
OMG, check you glasses.
The following screen captures were taken at about the same location as the seventh screenshot. They show Tahiti X and the FSX default scenery from exactly the same point of view with exactly the same settings.
-
Thanks for the update. When I visited Greenwich for the first time in 1994 my school teacher told us a lot about Gipsy Moth and her record.
-
Do you mean the pub on the corner by the Cutty Sark?
I actually meant the sailboat that used to be there, next to Cutty Sark. I saw the pub last week and remembered that there was this second ship some years ago (right in front of the entrance to the Foot Tunnel).
-
I only have Greenwich set to dense (thats where I live)
What a coincidence. I was in Greenwich last week with some students of mine. It's always a pleasure to be there. I hope the Cutty Sark will be restored soon. BTW, what happened to Gipsy Moth?
Martin
-
Thanks Mathijs for your effort. Using the 1m texture resolution they should be able to reduce the photo-realistic area decisively.
@Paul: I tried different complexity settings and BGL files and came up with a great compromise for my machine. Only Westminster has now got a scenery complexity of dense while the buildings fade out towards the outer suburbs. At a general Flight Simulator scenery complexity of dense I get around 24 fps over central London (that is with Aerosoft Heathrow Airport enabled).
I have attached a list of my London BGL files for your reference.
-
I totally agree with Paul. Cropping the photo-realsitic area so that it covers central London only would be the best solution.
In general I think that photo textures work perfectly for small areas such as inner cities, islands or coral reefs. I am not so sure about larger areas because a lot of compromises have to be made (no seasonal textures, sometimes even no night textures, little or no autogen objects).
@Paul: I will add the suburbs I erased from VFR London X in lower detail according to your description. I will let you know if/when it works out.
-
In the meantime I have also disabled the photo textures and made the scenery compatible with Ultimate Terrain Europe. Except for some minor glitches (e.g. the Millenium Bridge is too short, some buildings are not aligned with the road layout) VFR London X blends in much better that way.
(BTW, I had quite some problems with the London installer and UTX EU. The installer disabled most of the UTX topography. However, copying the folders manually fixed the issue.)
To improve the framerate at a scenery complexity level of "dense" I simply disabled the outer areas of central London (which works quite well and is hardly noticeable) but I would definitely like to hear about your method, too.
Here is a picture of VFR London X plus Ultimate Terrain Europe (although there is no autogen in the background it actually turns up as you close in). To my mind the scenery looks best that way (at least as long as the photo area is not cropped).
-
So we depend on the AutoGen of FSX for those regions.
Mathijs, that's exactly what I'm saying. BUT there is not autogen at all. The vast area surrounding the city centre is simply flat and empty. The photorealistic area should have either been reduced to the part actually covered by the custom objects or it should have been equipped with autogen objects.
Will there be a patch to fix this?
-
Hi Martin,
Is this opposite London Helipad by any chance? This is the only place I have found upto now that looks weird! Do you have a screenshot of it?
No, I was referring to outer London in general. Unfortunately there is no generic autogen at all, which creates a sharp contrast between the very detailed city centre and the outer suburbs.
-
I purchased VFR London X yesterday. First of all the scenery is stunning. I frequently visit London and feel this scenery does reflect the looks of the city very well. I've got a framerate of about 20fps at dense so the scenery runs okay on my machine considering the massive amount of data.
However, there is one thing I don't like. The photorealistic area around the inner city is totally flat without any autogen objects. Aerosoft have done a great job with the photorealistic Germany series and generic autogen so why isn't it possible for a rather small area? Just a few buildings and trees should do the trick.
Thanks, Martin.
-
Mhh, i dont like the colors. they have no saturation. everything is grey, thats not Tahiti.
No, it's Bora Bora.
Sascha, it's actually a common misconception that the Society Islands looks so bright and greenish. Most of the postcard photos are highly oversaturated as Mathijs pointed out earlier. Of course it also depends on the lighting conditions but to provide you with a different perspective here are two wikimedia shots:
You see the colours are quite different from your rendition.
-
Hi
Just 2 or 3 weeks before release? But Papeete Faa looks almost default from the air...
harpsi
Perhaps you should have your glasses checked.
I have the beta version on my computer and I can say that Tahiti X makes much of a difference:
Up to date some of the airports have been enhanced with new ground textures (such as Bora Bora). In addition all airport buildings have been rebuilt from scratch. However, the taxiway and runway layout has not been altered and will not be changed AFAIK. You cannot expect the same detail that you might be used to from single airport packages. Tahiti X is much more complex and the airports are only one part of it. Rather think of it as a scenery for exploration and VFR flying.
-
I cannot see AI traffic at the airport. it shows up in traffic explorer but is not visible in any window. I have vista 32 with 3518 mb of ram. I useUltimate Traffic
I guess you have to disable aircraft shadows. Custom airport lights seem to interfere with legacy AI aircraft.
Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview
in Aircraft General
Posted
Wonderful model but one thing is not correct IMHO. There should NOT be any vortex generators on the outer sides of the engines. They are only on the inner sides towards the fuselage. That's definitely true for N329AW and as far as I know for all A320s. The A319 is a different story though.
Hope you can fix this.