GAME OVER for detailed airport ground ? UPDATE 5

Post Reply
skydvdan
Posts: 2121

Post by skydvdan » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:49 pm

Apparently we need to quit our crying. Read about it here.
martin[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 5195

Post by martin[flytampa] » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:23 pm

skydvdan wrote:Apparently we need to quit our crying. Read about it here.
The only thing I see happening at Cloud9 and a few other developers is that they have "come to terms" with the limitations and issues I described in this thread and moved on with working under the new simplified FSX SDK tools/enviroment. From a business perspective (we are "commercial" developers after all) that makes total sense and is probably what we should all be doing, rather then posting threads such as this.

See, these new standardized and simplified methods for FSX are making a whole bunch of addon developers very happy. First it is great from a business perspective as it means quicker development and more releases. Second it takes care of "your addon isn't as good as FlyTampa" Fanboys (which for the record don't give me any satisfaction) because we may all be producing the same standard stuff from now on, and that includes freeware as well. They say it themselves in their post: The major value of an addon scenery is in the buildings and other 3D structures. That seems to be 100% correct for future because the buildings are all what is left for us to apply any major customization.
martin[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 5195

Post by martin[flytampa] » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:00 pm

To add to my last post: In case anyone wonders why I am making a fuzz out of this instead of accepting the facts and moving on as other do.

It is because I have a remote hope that Mircrosoft can give us a more powerful SDK update. The ability to use custom textures and precise UV mapping in XML would be the very least to ask for. Thats not the solution I am looking forward btw, but it would be acceptable.

If such changes cannot be made without updating the end-user FSX runtime, I have a remote hope of that happening as well because I am quite certain that FSX has been "rushed out the door" (release deadline) and that Microsoft engineers have a number of things (already done) that could be put into a update/patch.

Again this is just my hope and reasoning for making these issues public. If we don't tell them what we need loud and clear, then whats the point.
Manny
Posts: 113

Post by Manny » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:05 pm

Martin,

I am not technical... but how about using the general texture..like how Aerosoft uses for their sloped runways. They don't use the standard airport flattening runways. They use regular textures. If you look at their german scenery 4 (Wasserkupe EDER) and Lukla.

With FSX and its provision for high resolution textures... Can/t you use regular non airport textures for the airport. This way.. you can even have slopped runways if required.

Am I way over my head here? :)

Manny
martin[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 5195

Post by martin[flytampa] » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:16 pm

Manny wrote:I am not technical... but how about using the general texture..like how Aerosoft uses for their sloped runways. They don't use the standard airport flattening runways. They use regular textures. If you look at their german scenery 4 (Wasserkupe EDER) and Lukla.

With FSX and its provision for high resolution textures... Can/t you use regular non airport textures for the airport. This way.. you can even have slopped runways if required.
I think I know what you mean, however these sloped runways (non-flat ground texture) only work at very exotic "special" airfields. AI traffic won't land/behave correctly within such sceneries so that renders this method useles for large airports. That is how it was in FS9 and I don't believe it changed in FSX. AI aircraft follow the AFCAD elevation which is "flat" for the whole airport, while the shadow of an AI airfraft appear to be rendered at Mesh elevation. User aircraft on the other hand don't have to follow the AFCAD elevation, they can "land" on platforms (also sloped ones) and their shadows render correctly at the platform level.

Sorry this got a so technical :)
Mike K
Posts: 2

Post by Mike K » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:36 am

Mike: I edited/removed your post. Don't be mad :) I usually never do this, but in this rare instance I decided that I do not want this particular thread to escalte into a personal debate. If you want to re-post it as a separate thread feel free to do so.

Martin
Jacek
Posts: 319

Post by Jacek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:52 am

martin[flytampa] wrote: Not to mention Vauchez's work, which is a true piece of art in its current form.

Wow, I never even know this scenery existed? :shock:
How is the performance of Portland? Any good? Similar to FT's Seattle?
george[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 3472

Post by george[flytampa] » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:01 pm

Jacek wrote:
martin[flytampa] wrote: Not to mention Vauchez's work, which is a true piece of art in its current form.

Wow, I never even know this scenery existed? :shock:
How is the performance of Portland? Any good? Similar to FT's Seattle?
Way better than crappy seattle :)
go get it.
Jacek
Posts: 319

Post by Jacek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:45 pm

george[flytampa] wrote:
Way better than crappy seattle :)
go get it.
I love your sense of humor George. LOL
I'll get it tonight, especially since it's recommended by you. :wink:


Ps. This forum is missing the laughing or LOL emoticon. :)
jgreth123
Posts: 16

Post by jgreth123 » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:12 pm

Jacek wrote:
martin[flytampa] wrote: Not to mention Vauchez's work, which is a true piece of art in its current form.

Wow, I never even know this scenery existed? :shock:
How is the performance of Portland? Any good? Similar to FT's Seattle?
George, rofl! :P

Anyhow, the performance is pretty amazing... I don't think you'll be disappointed.

If you want a good idea of how it is in motion, check my video out. ( The first 1.5 min are of the real startup procedures so fast-forward if that part is boring, music + action starts after engine start :) )

Edit
I hope my posting this isn't held in bad form George/Martin... if you want, edit the post and remove please. I'm not here to advertise for Stephane.
End of Edit


Jeff Greth
Last edited by jgreth123 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Jacek
Posts: 319

Post by Jacek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:28 pm

jgreth123 wrote: Anyhow, the performance is pretty amazing... I don't think you'll be disappointed.

If you want a good idea of how it is in motion, check my video out. ( The first 1.5 min are of the real startup procedures so fast-forward if that part is boring, music + action starts after engine start :) )

Jeff Greth
I've seen this video earlier today but I thought it was FSX and thought IMPOSIBLE! . Ha ha! :D

I'll get it tonight for sure.
OSS-J.Nielsen
Posts: 51

Post by OSS-J.Nielsen » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:18 pm

FS's PDX is awesome, been flying it non stop, however, FT's Vienna got me really addicted for some reason.

I never used to fly overseas until I got Vienna. You guys need to get that one if you dont' have it already. 8)
Jacek
Posts: 319

Post by Jacek » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:39 pm

I'm sure most of you have seen this video on Avsim, the landclass in the US looks like Sahara. I think it's hilarious, what a succesfull release this is, someone at MS will get the medal for sure. :twisted:

http://members.shaw.ca/sjdickson1968/fs ... lass2a.avi
windshear
Posts: 157

Post by windshear » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:39 pm

OSS-J.Nielsen wrote:FS's PDX is awesome, been flying it non stop, however, FT's Vienna got me really addicted for some reason.

I never used to fly overseas until I got Vienna. You guys need to get that one if you dont' have it already. 8)
Vienna does have some sort of life to it I agree, it is amazing what can (could) be done in FS :)

Boaz.
Post Reply