ravenn22

I probably will give both a try at some point - everything I hear about VatSim and the strict rules kinda turns me off. Sometimes you need to pause a flight, or do something else and getting banned because you have a life doesn't sound like my bag Frequently if I fly over 1.5 hours enroute, I'll just AP on and go do work, laundry or dishes - then come back for ToD.

Definitely... and my understanding from some devs, is the XBox limitations aren't that bad, so most sceneries could be compatible with some tweaking. I'd be curious about the 3rd parties with Orbx Central, since Orbx takes a percentage of their sales, and then if their airports get moved to Marketplace, where MS takes a similar percentage... ? Or Orbx would just move their 'native' products over, and the partners would be responsible for their own airports on Marketplace? ( which I think is more likely )

It'd make sense to have a X-Box section on the website, that would be redundant, like the partners page. And probably add an X-Box badge to the normal product page as well, to show compatibility. But not on Central, since you buy and manage addons for PC there - it'd be confusing.

I leave it on as ambient background noise, since I'm not flying on Vatsim ...but I hate the player ATC interaction and just assign it to AI copilot. Press "1" wack-a-mole mini-game.

The only MilViz plane for MSFS on Central is the Corsair. MilViz said a few weeks ago they hadn't decided about putting the Porter up yet, but they would announce it if they did. I was waiting to buy it from Orbx, but now I'll just wait to check out the free version from Asobo in a few weeks and see if it's worth going with the payware. I feel sorry for the other 3rd party developing a Porter... coming after MilViz and a freebie from MS.

Pac Sim's prices are insane for the quality shown in the screenshots - default SDK textures everywhere? ....but Northern Sky is excellent, and would seem to be a good fit for Orbx - high quality, smaller airports.

it depends on where, and server load - but usually for me - it looks bad most of the time. I much prefer geo for skyscrapers / skyline buildings since the developer controls the LOD and they don't look like melted pyramids at distance. Photogrammetry works better for lots of small, low buildings, IMO.

I msg'd MilViz and they said they were still thinking about it.

Yeah, a lot of the bridges in the Bay Area ( and LA ) could use some love. I personally think all the major cites should have real geo for the skyscrapers or anything that constitutes a skyline. I'm not a fan of the photogrammetry, but I think it works reasonably well for low buildings, like suburbs and smaller, dense city buildings. Anything that is seen from a distance should be proper geo, as the photogrammetry looks terrible when it LODs. I'd love proper landmarks / cities for SF and LA.

will give that a quick try... I've had the cache off since SU5 - but I'll try a reset *update - yeah, that fixed the issue* Thanks Nick!

There appears to be a conflict with Frankfurt City Landmarks and WU6? - I've seen a bunch of users reporting this on various threads and they seem to have the Orbx scenery as well.

I'm seeing that - nice line of tall trees at the edge of the runway

Yeah, I'm sitting here refreshing Orbx Central every couple hours, cause I'd prefer to give Orbx my money over simmarket

Sorta this - but also payware devs, new or established can look at the Orbx back catalog from XP and P3D and use that for their own roadmap - 'rush out' their own version of an airport that Orbx had proved would be popular. I'd bought "the other version" of Vancouver and Key West, because I had no idea Orbx had a version in the works. Fortunately, it was a good dev, so I didn't waste my money, but I would have preferred to wait for the Orbx version, had I known. I did put the brakes on buying KJAC because I wasn't Orbx, and obviously Orbx has a really good P3D version - so I'll wait and see if that will be properly updated. Unfortunately, the first person out of the gate will generally "win" as most people won't pay top dollar for a different version of the same payware airport, even if the 2nd one is slightly better. Even the best freeware ( with few exceptions ) doesn't hold up to top quality payware - esp for optimization and performance, or having dependencies on other packages and the update process is easier with Central or something like it.

Also, if you miss the initial marketing push - "Throwback Thursday" products are slotted in with all the regional full quality scenery and only the "too good to be true" price tips you off to take another look at what you're getting. Personally, I have no problem waiting another 6 months, 1 year or paying $15-20 for full quality airports that are optimized for and take advantage of MSFS features, I couldn't see ever buying a "stop-gap" airport - hell, I even avoid freeware since I'm super picky about what fills up my HD and community folder. I'm really looking forward to my favorite Orbx airports from FSX/P3D making their way onto the new platform - but they really need to be properly updated and optimized and I don't mind waiting / paying for that. ( updated roadmap would be great, so we know to wait and not buy whichever dev rushed out to recreate a popular Orbx P3D airport ) Thanks @Anna Cicognani and @Jon Clarke for replies and transparency!

I usually give a like for "strongly agree" with the post. Kinda agree, neutral, and kinda disagree, but I see your point... generally no reaction.

It could be just the 787, but in general - if CTRL + E doesn't work, start looking at all the fuel settings. Another weird one I've had a few time with the Carenado C182, is that sometimes the airplane doesn't sync with my physical throttle quad position and I didn't catch it, so the prop will be feathered and that will cause the engine to stall after starting and running for a little bit. A bunch of switches ( at least on the Honeycomb Bravo ) seem to have reversed themselves after SU5 - so watch for that as well.

I don't trust ATC to put me on the right runway / approach I usually have an approach in mind when I setup the flight ( taking RW WX into consideration ) and ATC won't always put you on the best or preferred runways. They don't seem to have data on cross-runway operations for airports like KBUR and KSFO, where there are usually different runways used for takeoff and for landing.

well, simbrief + programming the CDU is the "right way" - but I use the built in flight planner for quick and dirty.... but not totally unrealistic flights, all the time. If you're doing an A320 flight, I usually do: Pick your start spot ( gate/ramp ) at the departure airport Select the arrival airport ( I don't bother selecting a specific gate, but you can ) Select IFR > High Altitude airways Edit your cruise Altitude in the NAV LOG ( MSFS will happily set you at too high an altitude for your weight and route length ) Choose your Approach and Arrival based off current weather displayed, or preferred runway.... or whatever you want to fly Choose your departure based on the appropriate direction of travel Fly. No rocket science to it - but it's super easy to forget to change altitude in the Nav Log - as it's not displayed elsewhere. Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but adding your own custom points only works in basic VFR/GPS direct? It will display in the planner, but not be added in the plane.

You mean like the upcoming Honolulu City Landmarks? I think this kind of scenery is worthwhile if it's on approach to the airport and adds value every time you fly in, but I've found ( at least for myself ) if I buy a scenery-only pack - I'll fly over it once or twice after I've bought it to check it out - then never again. So, unless it's something like Frankfurt - where you see it on every approach to FRA, then it's not worth it to me. I bought Paris, checked it out once, and have never flown over it again.

One of the 2 KAVX ( for FSX / P3D ) addons had sloped runways along with some of the altiports, but the AI traffic was unable to use them and were disabled for the airport, if I remember correctly. It was the developers choice to support AI or sorta accurate runway slope.

some of the default planes don't work with CTRL+E from cold and dark, either - it's usually something fuel related that doesn't get set correctly. The 787 requires you to manually turn on all the fuel pumps before CTRL+E works. It would be really nice to have more start options in MSFS, though. I can't see why there's not a "start at hold short" option, at the very least - they show your plane there in the cutscene if you choose the default start on the runway option. Doing the full start and taxi out does really add to the immersion and adds some anticipation for the take off and flight. Starting on the runway is just meh - plus possibly annoying other people in multiplayer.

all of them It would be nice to have an updated roadmap for some of the airports due to come over - there's been a lot of instances where another developer has rushed in and done an airport for MSFS that Orbx has a really good version for P3D / FSX... I've bought at least 2 ( and almost 3 ) airports, then found out there was an Orbx version on the way a few months later. I would have preferred to wait and get the Orbx version - but didn't know it was in the works... and I'm not going to buy 2 versions of the same airport for a slightly better version, unfortunately. KMRY, KTVL, KACK, KBHB, KEGE, KJAC, KPSP, KSAN, KSTS, KTEL, L35 would all be on my short list, and that's just the US

Really looking forward to this one! Also looking forward to seeing the Orbx Alaska airports updated for MSFS + new additions - in the meantime - Northern Sky Studios has a good Kenai, Ketchikan and Talkeetna.

Curious what your settings are - I did a test last night with leisure boats at 60% and still didn't see one. Also, a general thought - if Boats and Ships sliders require you to set 60-100% to see anything - what's the point of 0-60% ? Pretty unintuitive.