teecee Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I am sorry, and I probably expected too much, but I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed in the Tassie part of "blue".. I know.. I know.. it's so much better than the default, but, having said that I have to add.. missing towns.. roads everywhere that do not exist.. missing rivers and lakes.. (most of them).. and all in all, not what I was expected.. almost impossible to fly by following the roads and town..Again, I say sorry.. and I guess that for $30 I really was expecting too much.. but there ya go. Ok.. you can dump me off the forum now. Teecee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio Ramones Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 It´s also for me. Performance is not good at all :'(. But I have to say, those guys are just amazing and did a very good job there. Good luck in the rest of the package Bye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Sandmann Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Hi guys, first off, no one is going to get "dumped off" the forum for expressing dissatisfaction. Moreover, it has been stated from the beginning that the FTX products are "dynamic" in that they will be expanded and improved on over time, both by the FTX team as well as additions provided by the user community. Thus, if you have specific issues, particularly in regards to current content, please work with us to help improve the project through hot fixes and service packs. Walking away from the product you spent money on isn't going to help you or us. Instead, provide us with specific feedback via forums or emails -- things you'd like to see changed, added, or removed -- and we will gladly take this into consideration. For example, we've already started working on additional enhancements for Tasmania and the Great Australian Bight. Also, we're happy to consider providing optional road files that don't include unpaved roads and/or texture replacements that make those roads less obvious. We realize that there are many possible enhancements but it's up to you to point out which of them you'd like to see and which should have priority. Cheers, Holger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwlee Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 teecee Over at VOZ, you have a Dev tag, but (almost) all we get from you is negative vibes with no Devving since the lovely little farmset you placed for VOZ YHAZ. I'm sad to see the change from your enthusiasm and positiveness of the past. I know you're going through a very tough time but would love to see some of the joy back - after all FS is an escape for all of us. Back to the sim. The idea of the FS History lesson was to remind everyone that we are always working within strict boundaries set by the software and hardware of the day. Please, teecee, can you help us to improve the FS world within these technological limitations? Maybe place some VFR objects/reporting points? - it's another way to enjoy simming. I know the roads aren't perfect. I've created over 50 strips for FTX and Holger and I have to collaborate to get good matches of photo and vector. But they're better than the default or VSX and Holger's a very patient perfectionist who uses criticism (positive or negative) to help him keep moving forward. That's why he's the best in the world. Look again at the screenies from 10 years ago. Look at those from pre-FTX and re-consider. teecee, no-one wants to get rid of you (no-one is thinking of getting rid of you) but I've been wondering for a long time: Where have you gone? (N.B. I've always been cranky) Ramonesg My brother (an A330 Captain in real life) who has NEVER been impressed with FS9 or FSX (the Sims he flies are VERY high-end) was over here yesterday. He was amazed with Tassie: its beauty, realism and frame-smoothness. The planes flew better than ever before and it was possible (not easy) to fly using water, roads and towns to navigate. I am also happier than I've ever been with appearance and smoothness. My FSX/FTX now runs way better than FS9 EVER did. I'm sorry you're not experiencing the same, but it has taken me a while to get all the tweaks/overclocking working just right - these are for FSX not just FTX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgruschow Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Teecee if anyone was to be dumped for criticisim I would be long gone. So you are still safe. Now the arguement. What the hell's wrong with Tassie? I love it. Just the way it is. It has the best bush strips in all Oz. At present I spend most of my days flying there, I can even fly from Hobart to Cambridge fron memory. No maps or roads needed. So unless you want a real arguement stop picking on Tassie Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teecee Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 To all.. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for "biting your tongues".. You are right about my losing interest in helping to "develop" the sims, and this is mainly down to a health problem (not all physical either) this and the fact that I am now an old Geyser (70) have curtailed my interest and abilities. At this point in time I am on the recovery trail, and all things being equal, I will be picking up the reins shortly, but only with EZ-library, and the landclass program. As far as "Blue" goes. I think I have spotted the reason for the problem of the roads.. if you took your info from Google or another of the satellite programs, then you were mislead, because Google tends to show "roads" in many instances (and not only in Tas, Tas is where my local knowledge is strongest) that do not exist.. they are in fact single file bush walking tracks, or abandoned logging trails, or abandoned railway lines... Look at the Cole's bay area of Tas.. an area where you cannot step off the small tracks without incurring a fine.. let alone put in roads.. Google shows a whole network of named "roads" which are not there.. but in "Blue" there they are.. If you are looking at changing this problem, I suggest that you stick with a good road map, instead of satellite images.. road maps only show navigable roads, and I believe for the purpose of this exercise, I think these are what we need to see. Again, my thanks.. and Good Luck to you all . Teecee and Jack.. if you see me as "picking" on Tas.. you are...well..I had better not follow that line.. I am trying to get it improved.. but mate it is not only Tas that had this problem of too many roads.. almost every walking track and logging road in Aus shows up as a "road", and mate, that is not good.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio Ramones Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Ramonesg My brother (an A330 Captain in real life) who has NEVER been impressed with FS9 or FSX (the Sims he flies are VERY high-end) was over here yesterday. He was amazed with Tassie: its beauty, realism and frame-smoothness. The planes flew better than ever before and it was possible (not easy) to fly using water, roads and towns to navigate. I am also happier than I've ever been with appearance and smoothness. My FSX/FTX now runs way better than FS9 EVER did. I'm sorry you're not experiencing the same, but it has taken me a while to get all the tweaks/overclocking working just right - these are for FSX not just FTX. WAIT is not the END. I downloaded the new Nhancer and seems that the new AA feature (8xSQ) is doing a great job finally What tweaks are you using? aslo my Quad is overclocked. PS. Really want to know about your tweaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
}SkOrPn--7 Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Maybe the ORBX Dev team could explain to us who are not in the know how arial images are taken and compiled from the source you used. I luv gliding and I have ran into the same issue that following ground objects that being man made along with natural terrian in many cases ends and something else is in it's place. So when these companies do arial mapping do they miss stuff? Sure the crisp and clear surface of the earth is wonderful but to fly using visuals is so hard. You maybe following a road and the road should continue but right smack bang in it's path is a dirty big industrial park which doesn't match/belong there even with the existing terrian so is arial pictures that are taken just hit and mis therefore ORBX had to fill in the gaps? I really don't know how old the source data was that you used and by the way this is all flying with all auto gen off but there are many country airstrips that have been placed on the map by someone that is incorrect size and location along with the town. So the arial images were they also not done in some of those outback locations hence these things we see as errors. Do many of the arial scans they do not display the outback airstrips so ones had to be made and inserted? Maybe if someone was to explain how all this arial mapping works and how this is then re-shuffled to work in FSX we all would have a better understanding of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holger Sandmann Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Hi guys, As far as "Blue" goes. I think I have spotted the reason for the problem of the roads.. if you took your info from Google or another of the satellite programs, then you were mislead, because Google tends to show "roads" in many instances (and not only in Tas, Tas is where my local knowledge is strongest) that do not exist.. they are in fact single file bush walking tracks, or abandoned logging trails, or abandoned railway lines... Look at the Cole's bay area of Tas.. an area where you cannot step off the small tracks without incurring a fine.. let alone put in roads.. Google shows a whole network of named "roads" which are not there.. but in "Blue" there they are.. If you are looking at changing this problem, I suggest that you stick with a good road map, instead of satellite images.. road maps only show navigable roads, and I believe for the purpose of this exercise, I think these are what we need to see. Teecee, the road data we used for the non-urban areas are from the 1:250,000 topographic map series of the Australian Government, not Google Earth. These digital files distinguish between several different types of roads and they actually separate foot trails from tracks. We have included foot trails too but good luck spotting those as they are very narrow and the textures quite dark. I would assume that the 1:100,000 data or commercial GPS road data are more accurate, both spatially and in terms of classification but we don't have the funds for the steep licensing fees for those, at least not at this point in time. The metropolitan area roads were manually digitized by yours truly using GE, Yahoo, VE, and other source material, because the 250k data simply did not show sufficient detail in terms of split highways, interchanges, etc. }SkOrPn--7, the FTX textures were made from local aerial photography but they still are "generic" textures, meaning the same texture tile will occur in many different locations. The difference to the default landscape is that the textures reflect actual locations of the areas they are placed in and that the tile (land class) placement files are much more accurate because they were made by hand by people familiar with the area. In addition, the way the FS terrain engine works is that it blends these generic tiles with the accurate geographic data, like road and railroad vectors and lake or park polygons. That's why you'll always see places where roads cut through building textures, golf courses clip subdivisions, etc. We've tried to minimize the issue, for example by reducing the density of inner city roads, but it's just the way the FS terrain engine works so there's no real solution. Maybe, hopefully, a future version of FS will generate its generic tiles for a specific location based on the accurate geographic data. The only way around issues with generic textures is to go fully photoreal but we all know the limitations of that, including source data licensing costs, lack of seasons, tedious autogen annotations, huge HD space requirements, etc. Anyone interested in learning more about the complex way of how the "generic" landscape engine works should check out ACES' documents at FSInsider: http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx Ramonesg, great to see that performance has improved for you. I'm sure others with similar systems can give additional advise on tweaking. Cheers, Holger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolter van der Spoel Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Thank you Holger for giving a cristal clear explanation and clearing this up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Henare Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Geez Holger, everytime this morning that i have written a reply, you keep beating me. I give up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Webb Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Give this a try, helped my frames heaps (though I've also turned off all weather until I upgrade my PC) http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=1256.msg9280#msg9280 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Kae Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Looks like this is a "happy end" sort of a thread in the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teecee Posted March 10, 2008 Author Share Posted March 10, 2008 Certainly is for me mate.. Thanks again fellas. Teecee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwlee Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Hey Jack The only reason you can fly from Hobart to Cambridge by memory is that they are 1NM apart and Cambridge is not far off Hobart's N runway heading! (He's going to get into me on TS this arvo about this, aren't you Jack) Really, Jack flies all over Tassie, using my doc (which he's testing for me), reverse bearings from VOR/DMEs, saved flights and VFR. The "bushies" he's talking about are the little strips bazzam and I have done for Tassie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamS Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 For my first flight in FTX I flew from Launceston, where I live, to Devonport (where I grew up) using the Bass Highway as a guide. Although Launceston isn't all that accurate in the placement of houses and trees etc and some roads in the town (which I don't have a problem with btw), I was able to pick the start of the highway from where it joins the southern outlet into Launceston, and there wasn't any roads that I wasn't able to say what they were or where they went. Seemed pretty good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwlee Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Yeh, not bad for a bunch ones and zeros Glad you enjoyed it, Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxter Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Yup, it's that 'ole glass half empty vs glass half full thing again... It all looks pretty good to me. There are many areas that can be improved upon in the longer term, but in terms of Australian simming, this was a paradigm shift. Thanks Orbx Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Private-Cowboy Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 I'm somewhat suprised at the expectations a lot of people seem to have in regard to FTX. I expected something that would greatly enhance a region that nobody seem to care for. And boy, I was overwhelmed by what I got. I know Tasmania quite well myself and I very well know that some smaller towns are not here and I also missed some roads that I used to drive on. But common, get real. FTX has a (at least I see it that way) generic approach like UTX, but mixes in many many components that are sold seperately like better textures (GEXlike), better landclass (Scenerytech like) and many small additions. All of those parts are tweaked to insanity so they work together well - better than UTX, SceneryTech and GEX ever could. For me FTX IS NOT something like Vancouver+ (fabluous region done by Holger Sandmann - like to dine on fps though so not useable for me) where every square inch is faithfully recreated. FTX covers a huge region with detail that I never though possible. If you like to see every farm road you might want to look at some sat addons like that VFR England series. What do you get there? One season only and a blurry mess if you fly low and slow. Scenery addons are always a compromise. And if you know a region well, you'll always spot things that are not right. Heck I can make an endless list of issues I saw in my hometown even with UTX. But does that make UTX a bad addon? No, it doesn't. UTX enhances north america and europe greatly. FTX does it even better for down under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxter Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Very well said mate... Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 The secret to VFR flying in Flightsim is to only pick up the details on the ground that will help you to navigate. Trying to follow every little road and geographic feature isn't going to work. It's the same in the real world. You don't follow a country road, turning and twisting with every bend. rather, you look down, see a road heading east, you know that 20 miles to the east is a town of 20,000 people with a river cutting through it, as soon as you spot that layout you can confirm from the topography and other features that it is the town you expected, and you then move on to the next landmark. I have flown VFR in every corner of Australia in the sim and used WAC charts and the good old MK1 eyeball and navigated successfully every time. Sometimes I have been a little befuddled trying to pick up the requisite details, but eventually something shows up to confirm my location and allow me to keep on navigating. In the outback, with sparse scenery, I've flown blind for half an hour waiting for confirmation of my position, it might be an intersection of five roads, it might be two towns 3 km apart, but something is always there. In the SE part of Tassie, I doubt I would need to fly more than two minutes without getting a strong visual clue as to my position. If a detail is missing, I just mentally fill it in, because I know I'm in a sim. If a detail is incorrect, such as an extra road, I just ignore it, because for every wrong detail there will be several compensating details that are correct. Eventually, perhaps by 2020, I imagine that scenery anywhere in the world will be accessible via the net, in real time, at 1m resolution, with clever software to make the flat details become 3D, but until then, with the FS engine the good lord Bill has given us, we are restricted to a compromise situation. Teecee, I feel that you have stepped off on the wrong foot in your approach to FTX. This is of course my opinion only, but if you came to me and said "How can I enjoy FTX?" I would say ignore the details and enjoy ther big picture, it's there to embrace you if you choose to let it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.