-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
ORBX England is released
- Thread starter jetstreamsky
- Start date
res non verba
Charter Member
affirm, put it on the top of the scenery library it should work
i tested so far from ACG:
IWM Duxford
RAF Coningsby
RAF Bentwaters & RAF Woodbridge
RAF Waddington
RAF Marham
i noted some light unlevel at the limits of scenery landclass but is perfectly usable and duplicate shelters and tower only in coningsby don´t know why, but i exclude the FTX_ENG_EGXC_objects.bgl at orbx scenery and it do the trick, is perfect now.
I really hope the problems with photobucket are solved soon as I would love to see some screenies from this......
Oops forgot top look at the second page..... thanks for the screenies guys!
Huub
res non verba
Charter Member
and IanP ww2 airfields scenery as someone tried it with orbx?
bits are broken due to the way orbx does its scenery, he knows about it, weather or not i can hit him hard enough to fix all of em is another matter, but i'm trying
res non verba
Charter Member
he did an awesome job, i really miss all that airfields.
:ernae:
:ernae:
There are two issues with my airfields and Orbx - both of which I can fix by using messy work-arounds for the fact that Orbx don't use standards (and then claim that everyone should do it their way anyway).
The first is that something they do in the background blocks SDK flatten/exclude files from working where an airfield background is placed over a landclass that includes autogen trees. The workaround is to put a grass polygon behind all my airfields. Messy and time consuming, for something that someone else broke on the other side of the planet (NA and AU cause this as well, not just EU).
The second is that they don't put airfield objects in the AFD BGL, at least some of their developers insist on placing structures as a second BGL - something that the FSX SDK specifically is designed to avoid. Again, fixable by placing FS9 format legacy excludes over all my airfields to remove their structures, but again something I - or any other designer - shouldn't have to do. Mr Venema's response to this is "all our airfields have exclude rectangles"... Well, yes. You're fixing what you broke with the base packages.
Anyway. I'm currently working on trying to make a half decent AFD file for someone else, but once I've done that, I guess I'll have to go and patch all my own because I bothered to play by the rules. Impressed, I am not. Do I expect anyone to care? No, not really.
Cheers,
Ian P.
The first is that something they do in the background blocks SDK flatten/exclude files from working where an airfield background is placed over a landclass that includes autogen trees. The workaround is to put a grass polygon behind all my airfields. Messy and time consuming, for something that someone else broke on the other side of the planet (NA and AU cause this as well, not just EU).
The second is that they don't put airfield objects in the AFD BGL, at least some of their developers insist on placing structures as a second BGL - something that the FSX SDK specifically is designed to avoid. Again, fixable by placing FS9 format legacy excludes over all my airfields to remove their structures, but again something I - or any other designer - shouldn't have to do. Mr Venema's response to this is "all our airfields have exclude rectangles"... Well, yes. You're fixing what you broke with the base packages.
Anyway. I'm currently working on trying to make a half decent AFD file for someone else, but once I've done that, I guess I'll have to go and patch all my own because I bothered to play by the rules. Impressed, I am not. Do I expect anyone to care? No, not really.
Cheers,
Ian P.
Ian Warren
Charter Member
I have found levels altitudes and many other things that don't work with the ORBX New Zealand scenery , ground based photo data will work , autogen collapes's with horrid roof textures . I did create a flatten using AFX to level the airfield just down the road and that is what is required , any previous payware need mod's to suit the ORBX mesh .
With people who cannot afford a scenery coverage due to the they own other packages could be at a loss .
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input jscode="leoInternalChangeDone()" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Basically, what I need to do is to go to every airfield I've done, find all the problems, put linear object excludes through any modern road that is added (this happens with UTX as well, not just Orbx), create a grass landclass poly under every airfield to avoid trees showing through where Orbx have broken the default AB_xxx polygon, put one or more legacy "exclude everything" boxes over the top, upversion, edit the text file, rezip, re-upload, lather, rinse, repeat for every airfield.
...or just put up a post that says "Not compatible with Orbx scenery."
It looks from their forum like some of the England team want to do WW2 airfields anyway. I'd rather they fix the (not insignificant) issues with England first, but hey. If they want to create better airfields than me, it's not hard and they're very much more than welcome to do so. I only do what I do because no-one else did!
Ian P.
...or just put up a post that says "Not compatible with Orbx scenery."
It looks from their forum like some of the England team want to do WW2 airfields anyway. I'd rather they fix the (not insignificant) issues with England first, but hey. If they want to create better airfields than me, it's not hard and they're very much more than welcome to do so. I only do what I do because no-one else did!
Ian P.
That's a blow Ian - as you know, I have several of your airfields and most of them I have tweaked over the years (changing ATC frequencies etc). If you do decide to patch them to work with FTX ENG, can that be done with an additional BGL file, or will you have to change the base AFX ? In which case I would have to go in and redo all my tweaks over again too.
This might just stop me buying FTX ENG. I mainly fly WW2, and I'm finding UTX (with all main roads disabled) and (the latest) GEX EU gives me a pretty reasonable rendition of 1940s English countryside. No White Cliffs Of Dover, but I can live without that !
This might just stop me buying FTX ENG. I mainly fly WW2, and I'm finding UTX (with all main roads disabled) and (the latest) GEX EU gives me a pretty reasonable rendition of 1940s English countryside. No White Cliffs Of Dover, but I can live without that !
I'm basically a WWII flyer and I've spent a great deal of time enjoying what you've created! Thank you!
res non verba
Charter Member
Hello all,
I took the plunge yesterday and purchased this, its my first Orbx product.
When I unwrapped it and went to start it up I get this message when opening "FTX Central" (what ever that is....).
Any ideas what the problem may be? I am awaiting a response / help from their Forums but thought I would ask here too in case anyone had any ideas. Do you think it may be part of an incomplete download?
Hope some one can help.
Cheers,
Sketchy.
I took the plunge yesterday and purchased this, its my first Orbx product.
When I unwrapped it and went to start it up I get this message when opening "FTX Central" (what ever that is....).
Any ideas what the problem may be? I am awaiting a response / help from their Forums but thought I would ask here too in case anyone had any ideas. Do you think it may be part of an incomplete download?
Hope some one can help.
Cheers,
Sketchy.
IanHenry
Charter Member
Hello all,
I took the plunge yesterday and purchased this, its my first Orbx product.
When I unwrapped it and went to start it up I get this message when opening "FTX Central" (what ever that is....).
Any ideas what the problem may be? I am awaiting a response / help from their Forums but thought I would ask here too in case anyone had any ideas. Do you think it may be part of an incomplete download?
Hope some one can help.
Cheers,
Sketchy.
Hi Sketchy,
I'm no expert, but did you download and install the latest Orbx librery?
Regards,
Ian.
Can you replicate it and click on the "Details" button to get the details of the issue.
Object reference not set to an instance of an object, might mean it's trying to read something that's not there. Could be Orbx library, could be VC++ runtime, could be anything without knowing the details.
How big was the installer/wrapper does it match to what you thought you were downloading from the Orbx site?
Object reference not set to an instance of an object, might mean it's trying to read something that's not there. Could be Orbx library, could be VC++ runtime, could be anything without knowing the details.
How big was the installer/wrapper does it match to what you thought you were downloading from the Orbx site?
Bruce Thompson
Charter Member
Dissapointed with ORBX England.
Well I bought it , installed it , ran it, found loads of problems with it , complained in the ORBX forum along with others only to have the thread locked by Jon Venema. It appears that yet again a developer can take your money, provide you with a product that is not as you were led to expect, and then expect you to find all the faults and report them to the Support Forum along with photo's. I am sorry but this is something that has become the norm with this type of developer, the attitude is now we'll develop it but you all help us finish it. Nothing should be released until it is finished, even the instruction to set FTX to default before installing is missing from the "Important read me notice". Now I have had my rant and hopefully it will become the scenery we know that ORBX is able to produce, but for now it will not be on my system until update are provided, and no I will not waste my time trying to find the problems I am the paying customer after all.
Well I bought it , installed it , ran it, found loads of problems with it , complained in the ORBX forum along with others only to have the thread locked by Jon Venema. It appears that yet again a developer can take your money, provide you with a product that is not as you were led to expect, and then expect you to find all the faults and report them to the Support Forum along with photo's. I am sorry but this is something that has become the norm with this type of developer, the attitude is now we'll develop it but you all help us finish it. Nothing should be released until it is finished, even the instruction to set FTX to default before installing is missing from the "Important read me notice". Now I have had my rant and hopefully it will become the scenery we know that ORBX is able to produce, but for now it will not be on my system until update are provided, and no I will not waste my time trying to find the problems I am the paying customer after all.