[PAKT "compatibility" clarification query]

Question for Orbx: Product copy reads, "great addition to Alaska Mesh," and "Compatible with Alaska Mesh." Fine, but the question this copy should clearly answer is, does PAKT require Alaska Mesh to display correctly, as shown in the images on the PAKT product page? That is, is PAKT a standalone offering, its distinctive topography displaying the same either with or without the mesh product? 

 

Because, as I sat in front of my computer, credit card in hand, the absence of clarity on that particular point made me pause before proceeding. (Yes, it would be great to buy both, and yes, they're inexpensive, but this really shouldn't feel like a bit of a shell game.) 

[Introducing Alaska Mesh for Microsoft Flight Simulator!]

I've been holding out for Ketchikan, but I expect that it will now ship so that this mesh is a prerequisite for it to display properly. Maybe there could be a few discounted mesh/airport packages. 

[Aerosoft and Orbx announce distribution partnership]

As, between both companies, you have a long-standing reputation for producing a broad range of quality addons for the various simulation platforms, perhaps your partnership might explore producing a single, slick, carefully-vetted alternate marketplace for MSFS. This might remove the increasing chaos of the current in-game marketplace which seems to be a place for grifters who retail junk. I'm an old-timer in this hobby, but the poor noobs need someone to lead them toward the light.

[Announcing EGKA Shoreham (Brighton) Airport for Microsoft Flight Simulator]

Here's something pretty apropos, Shoreham to Wycombe, one of my favorite XP11 hops, and now I can do it in MSFS2020, just like this:

 

[Previewing EGTR Elstree Aerodrome for Microsoft Flight Simulator]

Now we're talking!!

[EGSG Stapleford Airfield coming to Microsoft Flight Simulator.]

So pleased this is one of the first small English airports to be released. Loved it in XP11. Flew into the default version this past Friday and taxied over that row of special Bing Cessnas flattened onto the grass in the parking area. Looks like this Friday will be better....And now I hope the flood gates for these Orbx English airfields will open.

[Introducing Landmarks Paris for Microsoft Flight Simulator!]

I'm another potential buyer with concerns about performance issues.

 

Because the scenery addon market (both free and payware) is exploding unlike anything we've ever seen with previous platforms, I find myself taking a very long step back from rushing into payware as it is currently not immediately clear that payware will consistently outperform (aesthetically or in terms of fps or mystery CTDs) some of the better freeware. This has become common knowledge. 

 

Is it possible to offer some sort of demo version of these sceneries or provide some sort of fps comparison with competing offerings? I have begun to realize there is an unintentional drift toward turning MSFS2020 into a walking simulator with planes. But that's not why I flightsim. 

 

How is a company like Orbx going to prove to me I should choose its products over others, especially when, in recent months, Orbx has made a number of us question its commitment to the quality that had previously distinguished it? (Reputation is meaningless when the memory of those new to the hobby extends no further than Aug 2020)

[Introducing Volanta: Your personal flight tracker]

Will this be free? I am wondering because if data is going to your servers, that would mean that we would be paying you to supply you with all the data you need to figure out pretty everything you need to know in order to direct the development of your products. I would be interested in something that is standalone and unconnected to anyone's servers, but I would steer very clear of anything where I would be paying Orbx to perform Orbx's market research.

[Correct order of Orbx TE GB entries in scenery_packs.ini]

The very existence of the series of suggested solutions since my previous post indicates how urgent is the need for a final, fail-safe, top-tier, vendor-level solution. That solutions to the dysfunction built into the XP11 scenery routines are far too ad hoc, hit or miss than should be at all acceptable for such a mature platform as XP is now. I think the entrance of ORBX into the XP world can only be a boon to Laminar and the future of their sim, so I think it behooves them to speed up a revamp of the scenery routines.

 

For many of us old hands, whether from XP or FSX, mucking about under the hood has just become part of the sim experience and cutting and pasting items in a text file is really old hat; however, the various threads here initiated by new users absolutely mystified by the process of getting their new ORBX scenery to work in this already sophisticated sim suggest it's in the interests of both ORBX and Laminar to iron out a user-friendly solution. (Part of my embrace of FSW was that it worked without having to fiddle with anything; I still think that was one of the enviable bars set by that platform)

[Correct order of Orbx TE GB entries in scenery_packs.ini]

On 10/16/2018 at 12:23 PM, andy1252 said:

Your post ends with a mention that Ben will be looking at further development of the FTXC code regarding the scenery.ini environment. For me, this whole scenery.ini environment seems to be one of the weaker points of XP, as controlling large collections of scenery and its associated libraries, mesh entries etc can get messy, especially given that any complicated manual manipulation of the scenery.ini is replaced by a pure alphabetical entry any time there is a problem with the ini file and it gets rebuilt. Perhaps something within FTXC to separate out airports and regions via a naming convention like "Airports_ORBX_KCGX_A / B / C" and "Regions_ORBX_GB_South_TE_A / B / C" would help ensuring things got placed correctly in the bigger scheme of things. Just a suggestion, and only even worthwhile if the answer to my "Global Airports" question is that the ORBX entries should be split above and below it. 

 

This is a really important observation. With XP11, Laminar are probably attracting a lot of new users to this platform, who previously would have nothing to do with largely because of a number of distinctly non-user friendly features. I'm one of them. Now however, with ORBX embracing XP11, the program's embarrassingly amateurish handling of scenery is drawing a lot of attention (particular when Microsoft had this figured out over a decade ago). I hope that either developing an appropriately 2018 scenery UI becomes a priority for Laminar or that ORBX develops a utility that will solve the problem.