You might Appreciate this...

[JamesChams]

Virtuali/FSDT Staff,

As an FS scenery developer, I though you might appreciate this...

@Users:
Look at detail that an FSX airport can bring; down to the Jetway underbelly neon lighting and glass reflections at the parking gates.  

The Only thing that's missing here, Virtuali, is you "NEW" FSX ONLY Tool to add the necessary "Real life" that you've mentioned.

Enjoy!  

[cmpbllsjc]

Nice find.

Aside from FSDT and FlyTampa, they really put out some nice products.

For whatever reason, I haven't bought any of them since they are all in Australia, but I think I will be a buyer of their PNW product once it launches.

Hopefully, in the next few years, between FSDT, FlyTampa, and ORBX/FTX they will be able to populate the US with a lot more airports. I hope that FTX continues work in the US after the PNW product it finished.

One of these days I think I will have to buy the Australia products since they look to good to pass up.

Edit: I never would have imagined that when we had the first version on FS back in the early 80's that FS would look like this only 25 to 30 years later.

[sundance70]

Impressive without a doubt, same for me, these devellopers are making me want to fly on the Australian continent. I have nothing there at the moment but that will not last very long I am sure...

Thanks for posting this

Regards,

David

[skimmer]

Is FTX the same as ORBX ?

[JamesChams]

Is FTX the same as ORBX ?

Yes!

[newmanix]

I agree, it's very impressive. But, you most likely need have to have all sliders maxed out in order for it to look that good. Which isn't the problem, it's the framerates. Even the framerates in the video, were not as smooth as the results I get in FS9. Yes, indeed, for that level of quality with is far better than FS9, the frames were not bad. But to get even those frame rates, must be on quite an expensive system. Still waiting on a system that can yeld me 50FPS average with maxed sliders for $2000 or less.

Thanks for sharing.

[JamesChams]

...it's very impressive. But, you most likely need have to have all sliders maxed out in order for it to look that good. Which isn't the problem, it's the framerates. Even the framerates in the video, were not as smooth... the frames were not bad. But to get even those frame rates, must be on quite an expensive system. Still waiting on a system that can yeld me 50FPS average with maxed sliders for $2000 or less.

Thanks for sharing.

Mr. "Newmanix,"

Here is his system spec.'s and FPS test on his blog: http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=14930.msg129492;boardseen#new
And, this video to show you that the FPS issue is NOT much of an issue any more, even with some limited tech. spec. rigs.

Also, I'll Post my NEW system spec.'s, as you and others have requested, after Oct. '8th '09, when it gets finalized.

Enjoy!

[virtuali]

Even the framerates in the video, were not as smooth as the results I get in FS9.

The video on Youtube is encoded at 25 fps, regardless on what framerate the FSX PC was running at. Which means, on top of not being the real frame rate, it will look jumpy without perfect synchronization between the gaming frame rate and the video encoding framerate, which is the case here. And, there's probably the overhead due to fraps, or whatever they use to capture the video.

So, it's always wrong to judge smoothness from a video, both when it's good and when is not so good.

That's why, instead of spending time creating videos, we prefer to give freely downloadable Trial versions of the scenery.

[JamesChams]

Even the framerates in the video, were not as smooth as the results I get in FS9.

...That's why, instead of spending time creating videos, we prefer to give freely downloadable Trial versions of the scenery.

Virtuali,

I glad, for a change, that you decided to join this discussion and not because you are having to ask everyone to behave.
But, shameless "FSDT Plug" - Just Kidding!  I like it when developers share their knowledge and opinions about their products and how they differ or improvements in the overall methods being employed; so, come on back with more, anytime.  And, I for one, LOVE the "Trial Before You Buy" feature in your products.  It's like going to the store and playing with the toys to see if you like them before you have to pay the price of asking "Mom" to fork the bill. (Or in my case, NO one's there to argue with about it. )  

However, Mr. John V. was NOT using fraps to record the session in his blog but, his iPhone.  He ONLY used FRAPS to show the FPS counter as a demo of the scenery FPS he was getting on his rig., which was pretty impressive since most users complain about FPS with FSX.  And, really, that is NOT the case anymore with a moderately good and inexpensive hardware setup.

"You'll come on back now, you'hear!" - a (Kentucky, OH. USA) Neighbourly Expression.

Ciao!

[virtuali]

However, Mr. John V. was NOT using fraps to record the session in his blog but, his iPhone.  

Which, of course, is not what I've said.

Read again, carefully, what I've wrote: the complain about not so good fps was related to the FIRST video you posted, which is cleary captured directly from the PC, not with a camera in front of the monitor, as the SECOND video is, that is far more smooth than the first one (although is also running on a much more powerful machine).

And that simply proves my point that, video captured with fraps, like the first one, and encoded at stardard video rates, can be quite misleading about the actual smoothness.

The second video, being captured with a camera (iPhone, which still is a videocamera...) pointed at the monitor, is way smoother , both because it gets the inherent video motion blurring AND because fraps is not taxing the system too much, because it's only showing the fps counter, and not capturing.

[JamesChams]

Virtuali,

Alright, that is a more through explaination of what you were trying to say, which some users (like myself) sometimes need.  Its not always easy to read-into someone's thinking from their words.  Not at all because of language usage, in this case, but because of inference; i.e. which video you were refering to vs. Mr. Newmanix, etc. since you didn't come right out and refer to it directly.  So, don't hold that against me.  

But, at least we have your input, for a change, something which is always welcomed by me.

BTW: What are they doing in their sceneries that makes their glass textures more reflective or at least as reflective as yours?
Ciao!  

[virtuali]

Not at all because of language usage, in this case, but because of inference; i.e. which video you were refering to vs. Mr. Newmanix, etc.

Again, if you simply cared to read my message more carefully: I was replying to Newmanix, and I've also quoted part of his message, that was a reply to the FIRST video you posted so, there's no doubt which video I was referring to.

If you took more time to READ what other people say, instead of being so fast in replying, it would be best for everyone.

[JamesChams]

Virtuali,

...If you took more time to READ what other people say, instead of being so fast in replying, it would be best for everyone.

You mean you actually read all the FS9 vs. FSX "BullS@!t" that people write before you delete them?    I know you still upset with having to get up each morning to it.

But you may have missed this yourself from my earlier post; "but because of inference; i.e. which video you were refering to vs. Mr. Newmanix, etc. since you didn't come right out and refer to it directly.  So, don't hold that against me."

Now, lets tallk about the glass reflections, they seem to reflect either part of a jetway or some elements near the object, like flag poles etc.  So, it looks like it doesn't use that FSX default "vegetation/ground" map.  How are they doing that?  Is it something you are doing also?  Is it as easy thing to do?

What say you?
Ciao!

[virtuali]

What are they doing in their sceneries that makes their glass textures more reflective or at least as reflective as yours?

I don't see where the news is: we did stuff like that using advanced FSX materials since mid-2006, when FSX wasn't even released yet, and we were working on Cloud9 KMCO which is still one of our most advanced sceneries, well ahead of its time, when 3d modeling is concerned.

It's just easier to create such effects, if you don't have to take into account the fact the scenery has to be back ported to FS9. If we ported KMCO in FS9, it would look very bad, because *most* of its looks doesn't come from textures, but from material properties.

So, with later sceneries, we had to restrain ourselves a little bit using these FSX-only features, because otherwise we had to redesign a lot of the scenery for FS9, or having to offer a really bad-looking FS9 version, which is not something we want to do.

[virtuali]

But you may have missed this yourself from my earlier post; "but because of inference; i.e. which video you were refering to vs. Mr. Newmanix, etc. since you didn't come right out and refer to it directly.  So, don't hold that against me."

I really don't know if you just don't understand, or you don't WANT to understand: how could you possibly say this, when it was obvious that (let's repeat it again...), since I was quoting a message from Newmanix that was replying when only the FIRST video was present, it's clear that the only video I could refer to, was that one ?

Now, if you please, just drop it.