Scenery : Pariah of FS ?.....

[Sieggie]

The biggest problem for freeware scenery designers is the total mess the object library system turns into. There is no standard for how to place or use library objects in the FSX file structure. This leads to people including bits and pieces of existing libs in their sceneries potentially breaking other sceneries. The other big problem is the mesh system. Everyone has different mesh and the shareware designer has no control over it like the big boys do. They install their own hi def mesh to match the airports so you don't end up in a hole or on a plateau. I create scenery for my own use all the time but because I use commercial mesh, and various lib objects, I don't really know how to wrap it into a package that could be shared. Gaiiden, from "MegaSceneryEarth Airports" had the best idea I have seen so far. He includes no library objects but tells you which Libraries to download and which site to get them from so that all the stuff at his airports shows up. This way you don't have multiple lib.bgls with the same objects and different textures that cause all kinds of problems. Even his stuff still suffers from the occasional plateau, as he does not specify what mesh to use, in additions to the priority order of all the libs sometimes bites you.

Then the last biggie is the photo scenery. I have no idea what is allowed to be distributed or not based on all the different licenses. I do not have a lawyer on retainer in case I violate Google, or M$ use licenses for the photo scenery I create for my own use should I release it as freeware.

Dave

 

[clmooring]

Maybe off topic but can anyone recommend good scenery for norfolk Virginia

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Sundog]

Just an FYI, Orbx is not moving on to other lands now that PNW is "done." They have a completely separate team working on Europe. They are going to to be making more Alaska regions, IIRC. They are also currently working on the Northern California region and are also working on the Northeast of the U.S. They also have more PNW airports coming up and SAK (Southern Alaska) airports otw as well. They also have another freeware Canadian PNW airport coming out soon, CBB7 Tipella for B.C. They haven't given up on their second biggest market. They also haven't given up on their biggest market, Oz, and will be releasing more new airports for it as well. For more information, see this Link.

 

[GaryGB]

Well it is a Flight Simulator not a Scenery Simulator!

For some of us, FS is primarily a scenery simulator in which we fly around admiring the landscape using various aircraft.


Also, via P3D we can explore the virtual 3D world with a submarine.

And perhaps before too long, it may also be possible to explore that same virtual 3D world via much-enhanced boats and vehicles with as many bells and whistles and realistic control-ability such as we now have in quality add-on aircraft.

Oh, and with further research and development on "user-pilotable craft" and scenery, we may also achieve enhanced navigation of low-earth orbit ...at altitudes up to (and even exceeding ?) the current 1 Million foot altitude limits of the FS world.

GaryGB

 

[hairyspin]

For interest, the contrast between aircraft development posts and scenery/facilities development posts at FSDeveloper is stark. It can often seem by far most development work is being done in scenery, not aircraft.

 

[vora]

btw Orbx has just released the Tipella freeware scenery here.
I'm almost in tears... what a work!

 

[Javis]

Interesting visions and thoughts, gents, thank you ! :salute:

I used the word 'pariah' because, like heywoood mentioned, i thought a bit of exaggeration wouldn't hurt. I wanted to use the evenmore dramatic 'undershoved baby' , a well known expression in my country for something that seems to be ignored unjustyfied, but i wasn't sure if that would've come across...

Sounds less remarkable when you consider that the AN-2 was released 27 days ago and FTX EU SCO only 2 days ago.

That's true of course but after 2 days of the An-2 release the thread already accumulated 150 replies. The 'FTX Scotland released' thread still stands at 3 replies.... If you don't think that's remarkable then that is what this thread is all about.

As to your philosophical question - my guess is that a scenery pack is fairly "committal" - likely a far narrower band of customers are interested in a given scenery than are in a particular aircraft.

Absolutely. But apparently scenery is selling too, otherwise devs like FTX/Orbx would've been long gone, wouldn't they. I just can't help wondering why there's always so much feedback on newly released aircraft models and just about zero feedback on newly released scenery. Afraid that if i wouldn't have taken up the honours of posting a thread about the (breathtaking!) Aerosoft Skiathos scenery with some screenies to boot it might've gone down with only 3 replies too... Atleast now it got 25 replies and 1000 views... Yiihaa!

Back in 2009 already i tried 'something else' to get attention for a new released freeware scenery.So it's not that i am wondering about the lack of 'scenery feedback' only since the release of FTX Scotland.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?23845-FSX-Art-Harbor-sights

ps - and nice screens - those deserve entry into the "screenshots" thread for sure ..

Thanks,DL, appreciated.

people are just more interested in planes really, after all these years with FSX scenery being released people have an area they like to fly around and aint really interested in other areas.

If that would be true FTX/Orbx, Aerosoft scenery dep., Megascenery, LatinVFR, Flytampa, TS, PIS, FranceVFR, to name but a few, would all have closed up shop by now. Scenery sells, probabely in good quantity too so there must be a lot of interest in it. Simmers just seem not interested in talking about it . I'm just curious to try and find out why....

Ain't it just fantastic that we can get a fair impression of what it's like to fly over area's of the world we will most probabely never get a chance to do for real. Atleast that's the main reason i am a dedicated flightsimmer from FSII onwards. I can still remember the day i bought the first ever scenery for the San Francisco Bay area and how extraordinairy enchanted i was about it. (IIRC must've been for FS5) To fly over the SF Bay Bridge which i only know from photo's, movie's.... A dream come true, even if it is only virtual.

And yes, of course i wholehearted agree with the theory that every flightsimmer's mileage may vary. It's clear though that the one common factor is that we love aircraft. The answer to why this doesn't *seem* to be case with scenery so much might well stay hidden in the realm of FS forever.

It's not like the seemingly desinterest in new released scenery packs happens only here at SOH. We can see the same thing at Avsim ( 7 replies to a 'FTX Scotland released' thread there... Although i did see someone complain about the release of this scenery not being advertised on the Avsim frontpage... So atleast i am not the only one 'worrying' about it... ), i couldn't find anything about the Scotland scenery release at Flightsim.com FSX forum...

For the time being i'll just keep on clicking the "FSX Screenshots here!" thread to satisfy my hunger for new scenery suggestions. Row with the oars at hand is the device...

Thanks again for your input,gentlemen !
cheers,
jan

 

[heywooood]

we take the world and its environs for granted...and so are only mildly stimulated by virtual reproductions of it...no matter how exact they are.

we appreciate our own constructions far more - and are very stimulated to see those reproductions...

A cloud is a cloud...a river is a river and a mountain...well no need to itemize...

A Stearman on the other hand...or a Mustang - Do they sound correct? The instruments where they should be? rivets? compound curves? dihedral?
So many facets so particular to each individual aircraft - and then to each reproduction...

Some will remark on the layout of airport X or city scape Y.... but to a far less degree...and again - those are human constructs - not naturally occurring contours...almost no one ever remarks on those -

 

[OleBoy]

For myself, scenery is what's realistic in my real world. I'm slowly learning the modeling of aircraft portion. In-sim I fly where I can based on my real lifestyle and the time I would have to do so. Which is my lure to general aviation is so strong. I'd be more apt in real life to purchase a lesser modernized type aircraft or experimental so I could get into those outlying areas. Then given the region of the USA I reside in, plot my vacations and weekend jaunts. Scenery is superficial for me anymore until a developer creates something more realistic than just airports. I take off at one, land at another. Like highways, they're all full of traffic. Not intended as a plug, but when MegaScenery updates and releases v2 of the PNW regions, I'll be investing in what I see as the best topography scenery developer around.

I moved from FSX to Prepar3D in hopes LM will fill the need through ties with developers and the advancement of my virtual experiences.

 

[greenie]

I am an aviation enthusiast and not a gamer as such .Thats why I fly FSX . Scenery is the most important part of my simulator . I have learned the basics of how and why of flying through the simulator . Now to enjoy it .

If I had only default scenery I wouldn't be simming, period . I find Orbx has given me the lease on my simmimg life I wanted .

I dont understand the military argument here . I happily fly all sorts , unless the argument is about the lack of military scenery .

 

[falcon409]

. . . . . .I dont understand the military argument here. I happily fly all sorts, unless the argument is about the lack of military scenery.

I only saw two mentions of anything related to Military scenery on the previous page and those were only mentioned in passing. The basic statement was that given the abundance of available scenery (freeware and payware) most of it is designed for Commercial and GA aircraft while the aircraft we see released almost on a monthly basis can sometimes be overwhelmingly Military in design. No argument, simply a statement of fact.

 

[falcon409]

When a new aircraft appears, people get to discuss about it: how does this or this works, how to do this or that, is that realistic or not, how is the real world aircraft, is this a bug in my gauges, etc. . .Then come the repaints, and other mods.
When a new scenery is released, there's not much to say, or mod. That doesn't mean that nobody appreciates it. There's just less stuff to be done with a scenery than with an aircraft, that's all. . . .

The debate will continue but Daube has basically answered it in a nutshell here. Aircraft will always garner more attention for the reasons he stated. Lord knows this forum has seen debates on aircraft that went on almost endlessly about trivial aspects and that was just when the first screens were released before it was even close to texturing. It's a Flight Simulator and Pilots that we are, we will lobby for every variant we've ever read about, heard about or thought we saw once in a publication. We will do side by side comparisons of wing dihedral and argue to "inth" degree that the model is off by.005 degrees. The interest in aircraft is what almost everyone is passionate about.

Release a scenery package and it can go one of two ways: "Awesome, they've finally released my favorite area to fly". . .or. . ."That's some great stuff but it's really not my cup of tea. . .yawn". End of discussion. You won't hear a debate about the fact that someone's house isn't correct, that the roads aren't the right color or that those trees don't really belong in that area. Freeware/Payware Scenery is great, wonderful, necessary and so on, but in the end. . . .it's scenery, nothing to pick apart like aircraft development. It's a replacement that makes a sometimes dull area come alive and give us something new to enjoy. Orbx and others do a very good job of that. . . .but sadly Javis. . .it's just scenery.

 

[greenie]

I only saw two mentions of anything related to Military scenery on the previous page and those were only mentioned in passing. The basic statement was that given the abundance of available scenery (freeware and payware) most of it is designed for Commercial and GA aircraft while the aircraft we see released almost on a monthly basis can sometimes be overwhelmingly Military in design. No argument, simply a statement of fact.

Your right Falcon . I tend to speed read sometimes and maybe skim through a bit too quickly .

About military airfields for scenery . I remember a discussion about this sometime ago on , the Orbx forum I think. The problem is gaining access to get the required information . Understandable I suppose .

 

[emfrat]

For some time now, I have been considering a simple tick-off sheet for those who only want to indulge in destructive criticism.
Below are the first two items - any further contributions gratefully received.

"When I decompiled the mdl, I found that the internal fuel pipes had been modelled as 25mm diameter instead of the real size of 1" (25.4mm). My Granpappy fought and died in three world wars to stop this metric system stuff. This plane and everything else this designer has ever done is pure crap."

"I installed the scenery and was able to find my brother's place, but I noticed it shows a blue car in his neighbour's driveway, and I know for a fact that the neighbour bought a red car two days ago. This scenery and everything else etc, etc, etc..."

More in sorrow than in anger
MikeW

 

[Francois]

For some time now, I have been considering a simple tick-off sheet for those who only want to indulge in destructive criticism.
Below are the first two items - any further contributions gratefully received.

"When I decompiled the mdl, I found that the internal fuel pipes had been modelled as 25mm diameter instead of the real size of 1" (25.4mm). My Granpappy fought and died in three world wars to stop this metric system stuff. This plane and everything else this designer has ever done is pure crap."

"I installed the scenery and was able to find my brother's place, but I noticed it shows a blue car in his neighbour's driveway, and I know for a fact that the neighbour bought a red car two days ago. This scenery and everything else etc, etc, etc..."

More in sorrow than in anger
MikeW

ROFLMAO !!!!

 

[FentiFlier1]

Lol

My approach to scenery is:

Highly detailed for my home area, prepared to spend quite a bit of money to achieve this. More generic sceneries such as Orbx won't do to be honest.

Less detailed payware or freeware for other areas chosen specifically to contrast with north-west Europe: Socal, Alaska & Hawaii!

All that kept to a reasonable amount of disk space, because I find it is easy to start collecting scenery (and aircraft) that are hardly ever used.


And as another poster said, if I was allowed only stock fsx scenery, I would abandon fs. So I guess scenery is very important.

Owen.

 

[clmooring]

I have not purchased scenery in the past because I assumed it would further reduce my frame rates. Am I wrong?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[mmann]

For some of us, FS is primarily a scenery simulator in which we fly around admiring the landscape using various aircraft.
...
GaryGB

Perhaps a train simulator or farming simulator would get you even closer to the land.

 

[WarHorse47]

Your right Falcon . I tend to speed read sometimes and maybe skim through a bit too quickly .

About military airfields for scenery . I remember a discussion about this sometime ago on , the Orbx forum I think. The problem is gaining access to get the required information . Understandable I suppose .

I don't buy that explanation. I don't think anyone is asking for that level of accuracy with a military airfield. Most addon scenery today is based on Google Earth anyway.

From my perspective, something is better than nothing. I have a lot of addon military scenery from different eras in FS9, but FSX is sorely lacking. Even some decent flight plans for AI would be welcome.

I have the Orbx PNW scenery and several of their airports, and just love them as they have a lot of static and AI aircraft. Yet within that same territory if you fly into McChord or Whidbey, there is nothing. I don't expect Orbx to make them come alive, but nobody has made any decent attempt to fill this areas like they've done with FS9.

BTW - if you have the same Orbx scenery and did some exploring, go to Gray AAF just South of McChord. You will find the field populated with static Blackhawks. And if you fly over the Forth Lewis training areas look for a variety of military vehicles scattered about. There are even some live practice going on late in the morning. Orbix did a grand job in that area.

 

[vora]

I don't buy that explanation. I don't think anyone is asking for that level of accuracy with a military airfield. Most addon scenery today is based on Google Earth anyway.
....

Could you remotely imagine the outcry of ORBX's customer base if they would publish airports with Google Earth or standard buildings? Probably the same if PMDG would publish a Devastator with few details . The military stuff isn't just their business.
I assume that SOH is the gathering place for military flyers in FSX and we are currently in a thread where most people say that they don't care much about sceneries. That may be a factor why there aren't so many scenery designers in that sector.