Scenery : Pariah of FS ?.....

[WarHorse47]

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.

Nothing negative about ORBX, nor do I want them to change.

My context is to say that in general there seems to be an imbalance between the military aircraft available for FSX and the "active" (e.g., static objects, ai, etc) military airbases available.

Let me explain it another way. Most of us like to take screenshots. My preference is to take a screenshot with good background scenery that is in concert with the type of aircraft in the screenshot. A WWII fighter screenshot (to me) looks best at an WWII airfield. Modern military aircraft look great at a current military airfield, along with other vehicles and aircraft to make the screenshot look as realistic as possible. Just sayin'

 

[vora]

Nothing negative about ORBX, nor do I want them to change.

My context is to say that in general there seems to be an imbalance between the military aircraft available for FSX and the "active" (e.g., static objects, ai, etc) military airbases available.

Let me explain it another way. Most of us like to take screenshots. My preference is to take a screenshot with good background scenery that is in concert with the type of aircraft in the screenshot. A WWII fighter screenshot (to me) looks best at an WWII airfield. Modern military aircraft look great at a current military airfield, along with other vehicles and aircraft to make the screenshot look as realistic as possible. Just sayin'

Ah, ok, since I now get your angle let me give you my assumption: it might be just a case of perception. The number of civilian types is somewhat limited. All the Cessnas, Pipers, Boeings, Airbuses etc. of the last decades are already covered, partly two or three times. So when Carenado publishes his umpteenth Cessna or some designer group the 20th B737-xxx we hardly take notice. Only exotic types like An-2 or Staggerwing raise some eyebrows here.

On the other hand, "thanks" to two world wars and the cold war, we have an almost unlimited pool of aircraft types. Just take the early Pacific War: Mitchell, Buffalo, Devastator, Marauder, Kate, Val, Betty.... these would get be talked over in this very place.

With airport scenery it's the other way around. There is a limited number of airbases versus an almost unlimited number of civilian airports/-fields/-strips which are yet to be covered in detail. And we military simmers are a minority. SOH is a cozy place because we know each other, and that's because we are a few.

PS: For Whidbey try this at simviation

 

[greenie]

I went to that AF base Warhorse and saw the statics . Also tried to check out the live action at the Fort Lewis training area . I couldn't see anything at all - no action no statics . I must be looking in the wrong area . I looked at about 11am in the morning . I'm looking to the north east from the air base to the river , would that be correct.

All this surprises me . I have been an Orbx customer since day one . I have all their regions and most airfields - a large area to cover . Its the first time I have realised they have military statics and ai . I haven't heard a thing about it before.

Getting back to the scenery - theres been many times that they have said they cant do this one or that one because they cannot get proper access for someone to take the photos they need . Also. of course , they need to be sure of its commercial viability . Whether military fields are viable or not I wouldn't know.

 

[WarHorse47]

@vora

Thanks for the Whidbey link. Unfortunately, it was not compatible with PNW in that the roadway traffic was running right through the planes and hangars.

@greenie

I'm pretty sure it's ORBX that added some excitement to the Ft. Lewis gunnery range.

Take off from McChord on Rwy 16, and bear to 147 degrees. About 3 to 5 minutes out look for an open patch that has a small airfireld. If you look closely there are two vehicles and people standing at the turn around.

Another perspective

If you find this field, turn to 270 degrees and fly towards another open area. You have to look around, mainly on the roads to see the static vehicles.

It's this second area which is a little Southwest of Gray AAF that I encountered the firing practice.

Now I just took the two Blackhawk shots, so everything is there on my install. I have the ORBX PNS, their latest patch and library, their freeware fields and ai flightplans.

EDIT - Here is a link to the ORBX forums that discusses some of the Ft. Lewis objects as part of one of the PNW patches.

 

[anthony31]

You will almost never see a payware military airfield. Any payware developer will have to ask permission to take photos of a military field and you can pretty much guarantee that they will simply say no (security and all that hush hush secret business don't you know).

A few years ago I did scenery for RAAF Tindal. This is a military airfield but with a civilian apron attached. I emailed a company on the civilian apron about a photo of their office and they simply said no as they were on a military base (even though they were civilian operating in a civilian area).

I've done a couple of freeware military fields (ie RAAF Tindal and Darwin) but mostly used generic buildings as the imagery for more detail is simply not available.

On the other hand old warbirds are relatively easy to photograph.

 

[ShawnG]

A couple points from my perspective:

I recently bought both the Antonov An-2 AND Orbx's Scotland. I consider both to be great purchases. I probably viewed the antonov thread here about 587 times over a two week period, and the orbx thread once. why? Repaints. The only thing that can be discussed on a scenery release is whether or not it sucks. Airplane releases, I'm looking to greedily devour the work of many of our fine repainters, and now I have an entire airfield full of antonovs. nobody is going to be repainting autogen buildings in ORBX's scotland or making any meaningful additions to it (Although if you visit Return to Misty Moorings you can see a fine argument why they should.) so not much to do than enjoy the scenery. for the record, my FSX purchases in scenery by far outweigh aircraft, so obviously I consider scenery very important and not a pariah at all.

I would love to see more Military airfields, but doing them to the level we expect payware addons to be these days involves access to the field that cannot be had due to security concerns.

 

[WarHorse47]

I would love to see more Military airfields, but doing them to the level we expect payware addons to be these days involves access to the field that cannot be had due to security concerns.

I could not tell you if an addon military fields was accurate or not. In fact I never question the layout of the military fields in FSX.

What is missing for me are: the AFCAD files for parking, static objects, and flight plans that make the fields come alive. I can fly in and out of McChord all day with the Area51 C-17, but it's kinda boring when the field is empty or the ATC has no option for parking. I would just settle for those addons.

Now before someone mentions it, I'm aware of the process to convert MAIW packages to FSX. I just finished reading that manual for the 4th time, and I definitely do not have the skills nor time to convert those packages. If someone were to do it for me so I just run an executable file, then I can handle that. But right now it seems that only a few people have the expertise to do just that.

And speaking of the An-2...

..the scenery is a little old, but it works for me..

 

[Timbohobo]

I am working on a World War II airbase, based on original plans and blueprints and camo patterns, with hand crafted baked textures etc.., its something I have always wanted to do since a kid and have been collecting/harvesting data for two years, it will be payware and I have a lot of work ahead of me still!

I expect to get a complete colonic inspection from the many veterans here, so I am paying a lot of attention to accuracy

 

[greenie]

LOL ... Timbohobo


@ Anthony - thanks for your fantastic scenery Its a pity your not making more . How about some payware ? ...anyway , even if you don't your aircraft are more than worth it . Please do not stop producing either !!

Warhorse. I'm surprised again !..I took your directions . Dont know about 3 or 4 mins to get there . I flew the Sea Fury and by the time I had taken off I had to slow down !
I could see a bit of military as shown in the screen shots . This has to be Orbx work . Mine were static . My ordinary traffic cars are working . No military action though .
Curious , unless you downloaded another file from somewhere or an obscure Orbx easter egg . Anyway , a good little mission for me . Had fun screaming across the skyline 300kts @ 150 ft.

..and heres one for the scenery lovers , such as myself . It makes a WORLD of difference.

 

[WarHorse47]

Yes, ORBX. Never saw the tents in your first pic. Have to go look for those.

And yes, on my system there is firing practice late in the morning. Usually between 11:00 am and noon.

My standard flight is a cold start at my home field, KOLM. Before startup I can actually hear the cannons going off at the fort. When I first installed ORBX PNW, I thought there was a problem with the aircraft sounds or my sound card, then later realized what I was hearing. Very cool.

EDIT - Found the command center tents and a few other goodies.