GAME OVER for detailed airport ground ? UPDATE 5

Post Reply
Mortuary
Posts: 2

Post by Mortuary » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:22 pm

aarskringspier wrote:
martin[flytampa] wrote:I've been looking into collecting stamps, that is about as exciting as FSX airport scenery at the moment :D
Well I tried World of Warcraft and thats about as much fun as punching myself in the face over and over while hosting 30 8 year olds for a Bday party. Maybe Ill get into RC planes or somethin.....

LOL - Looks like that game or wither BF2- lmao..... Tho RC planes really dose sound nice, problem is i would want to jump into the realistic ones, and just end up probably crashing alot of money into the ground- hahahaha
Mortuary
Posts: 2

Post by Mortuary » Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:27 pm

bob.bernstein wrote:New learning here, I've just learned that the sampling method used to display imagry on shape files may render them not-useful as the "new age" ground polygons I was hoping for.

Perhaps I'll return to my drawing board.

:-(

Bob

Heya bob, I'm leanring things new here also..... tho looks like were both going to have to go back to teh drawing board, or find a nice tech school- I was really getting into things with FS9, and everything you could do.... but looks like with FSX, i'll have to either give up, or find someone to bug with ALOT of quetions... LOL

Tobey~
Manny
Posts: 133

Post by Manny » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:29 pm

Now, I know why FSX doesn't need those extra FPS. There aint going to be any decent addon airports.


And I can't believe reading those idiots who posted about how this is not important. They sound like hicks who spit on Picasso. :)


Mediocrity Rules. Woo hoo!


Manny :x
paavo
Posts: 1612

Post by paavo » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:30 pm

skydvdan wrote:This totally brings all my scenery design plans for FSX to a screeching halt. I guess I wait to see what comes of it.
I guess I should get BF 2142 since we now have extra free time that is not spent on scenery design.
martin[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 5196

Post by martin[flytampa] » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:49 pm

skydvdan wrote:This totally brings all my scenery design plans for FSX to a screeching halt. I guess I wait to see what comes of it.
If your plans involve Photoscenery, Autogen, Mesh.... Those 3 areas have been greatly enhanced in the FSX SDK and work like a charm based on what I have tested. The new Autogen Annotator tool in particular is a blessing compared to the old Annotator that felt like medieval torture after loading the 5th texture tile with the prospect of just 495 to go :D
UPS523
Posts: 127

Post by UPS523 » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:34 pm

FlySanJose wrote:I wouldnt be opposed to seeing more FS9 airports come out. I'm content keeping FS9 and all my aircraft and sceneries.
Absolutley!!!!
I will never buy FSX with no Flytampa or Vauchez sceneries
and besides with FSG,UT and Birds eye view FS9 looks better than FSX imo
paavo
Posts: 1612

Post by paavo » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:28 am

martin[flytampa] wrote: the old Annotator that felt like medieval torture after loading the 5th texture tile with the prospect of just 495 to go :D

ImageImage
dizzyduck
Posts: 3

Post by dizzyduck » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:51 pm

I have all of your scenery's and I plan to stay with FS9 (2004) until you folks can hash this out. (If at all possible) Perhaps if all of us stay with the old we can keep enjoying your fine crafts. Heck Im fiftyfour years old and Ill settle for what we have now. If you guys beat this thing Ill gladly purchase the new from old friends... Jim
altstiff
Posts: 220

Post by altstiff » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:42 pm

I too would love to see another FT FS9 scenery.
CX 747-400
Posts: 129

Post by CX 747-400 » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:12 am

I had ordered FSX with PC Aviator. I just cancelled my order after reading about all the issues that people are having with it. I will be staying with FS9 for at least a year or more. I will not be upgrading until FlyTampa, and some of the others can figure out how to make it work. I was so excited about Cloud9 doing Orlando; but I am so dissapointed that it will be default ground texture. I guess that i can live with Simflyers MCO for a little bit longer.
Dimon
Posts: 316

Post by Dimon » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:54 am

Let's be realistic. If we're planning to stay in the hobby, we have NO alternative but to switch to FSX eventually. From the standpoint of simmer (not a designer), it's pretty good release with tons of features. The only problem so far is terrible performance on high-end machines. It's the same old song that I have heard since FS98 - nothing is new under the Moon :D

For now - I'll obviuosly stay with FS2004 until Fall 2007, but this decision was made prior to FSX release and it wasn't affected by my personal opionion of FSX. The obly thing I'm planning to do with FSX for now is tweaking my AI.
skydvdan
Posts: 2121

Post by skydvdan » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:49 am

Dimon wrote:The only problem so far is terrible performance on high-end machines. :D
But that's actually not true. You, like me, have come to expect a certain quality of addon. But as of right now that's just not possible. So there is another issue.
MD11Forever
Posts: 305

Post by MD11Forever » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:30 pm

Dimon wrote:Let's be realistic. If we're planning to stay in the hobby, we have NO alternative but to switch to FSX eventually.
I disagree completely with that statement- I'm sure there are a sizable amount of people still flying FS8 or even earlier. The only reason someone would have "no alternative" to move to FSX is if there is some type of add-on released that they simply cannot do without. For as long as I am satisfied with my current setup and performance, I can keep going with it indefinitely.
martin[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 5196

Post by martin[flytampa] » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:40 pm

CX 747-400 wrote:I had ordered FSX with PC Aviator. I just cancelled my order after reading about all the issues that people are having with it. I will be staying with FS9 for at least a year or more. I will not be upgrading until FlyTampa, and some of the others can figure out how to make it work. I was so excited about Cloud9 doing Orlando; but I am so dissapointed that it will be default ground texture. I guess that i can live with Simflyers MCO for a little bit longer.
Without taking sides for either developer, I am quite certain that the new MCO by Cloud9 will be miles ahead of Simflyer's MCO simply because it is very aged (just like my original KTPA and KMIA are now very aged).

I am also sure that many people will be very pleased when the new MCO is released and even come back here to question what "nonsense" this thread was about.

Since MCO is likely going to be the first major airport release for FSX, it will look different, fresh and new. After a dozen more airport addons get released however, people may start to question how standardized and default-ish they all look in terms of runways, aprons and overall groundwork.

The prospect I am facing with updating/re-doing my own sceneries using the new (default) methods come down to the following:

Very old works like KTPA and KMIA are possibly going to end up looking better then in their original/current versions (from FS2002)

Our latest releases however (LOWW, KMDW, KSEA), which have a much higher quality then our old sceneries, are likely going to feel like castrated updates compared to their FS2004 versions. Not to mention Vauchez's work, which is a true piece of art in its current form.
Post Reply