answered MSFS World Update 4 - Paris landmarks

[stelch]

I have purchased from you the Paris landmarks. Will it be a conflict now with the France update from MSFS? Must I uninstall it?

 

Stelios

[Badl4ndz]

We had to uninstall London landmark pack for the World Update 3 update (UK). The landmark pack was updated a week or so after. When it was reinstalled, you need to select the version compatible with MSFS with World Update 3 update installed in Orbx Central. I would imagine it will be the same with World Update 4 and Paris landmarks. I have uninstalled Paris landmarks myself prior to updating MSFS today.

[W2DR]

1 hour ago, stelch said:

I have purchased from you the Paris landmarks. Will it be a conflict now with the France update from MSFS? Must I uninstall it?

 

Stelios

I don't know the answer but I just want to say welcome to the forum(s).....

[Abriael]

Yeah. There definitely are duplicates. Guess Orbx has some work cut out for them. 

 

I'm a bit surprised that Microsoft hasn't given them early access so that the package could be ready for launch, but hopefully the process will improve going forward. 

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

I don't think that any third party developers are given early access and I am sure that

the procedure will be the same as that for the London Landmarks product.

 

[amentiba]

Asobo was supposed to... 

 

i think i have seen a communication about it, a few ago. It was written that Asobo will give to their partners the tools to update quickly their products.

 

But perhaps they give it when each update is already released 

[Abriael]

2 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

I don't think that any third party developers are given early access and I am sure that

the procedure will be the same as that for the London Landmarks product.

 

 

Well, Microsoft had promised to give partners early access, and for the previous sim update they actually did give it to aircraft developers, which is why we believed it'd happen.

[Mawson]

5 hours ago, Abriael said:

 

Well, Microsoft had promised to give partners early access, and for the previous sim update they actually did give it to aircraft developers, which is why we believed it'd happen.

You have far too much faith in MS and the contracted developer studio Asobo as they are entirely motivated by their own profit and there is no goodwill in anything they do and certainly are not like the folks at  Orbx which is a company built of the foundations of people that love and enjoy our hobby.

 

Orbx will catch up quickly like they did for London but Ms would be wise to extend more goodwill to these third party developers like the old Aces Studio did with FSX, they need Orbx and other developers so  as to catch up on the missing parts of MSFS and they need Orbx to be working with them not after them.

 

I have faith in Orbx to always do the right thing by the hobby but little faith in MS as they respond to profit forces only with zero passion for this hobby and we are lucky they have found a gaming market in X Box as without it there would be no MSFS, they never bought this franchise back for the constant simmers like me.

[Mawson]

8 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

I don't think that any third party developers are given early access and I am sure that

the procedure will be the same as that for the London Landmarks product.

 

I can put out a safe bet on Orbx following through and delivering, thanks.

[stelch]

All the products that I have purchased from Orbx (except the Paris landmarks that I will install later) are working in the sim, but in the Content manager it says that there are not installed. Anybody else has this? 

[FILOU]

26 minutes ago, stelch said:

All the products that I have purchased from Orbx (except the Paris landmarks that I will install later) are working in the sim, but in the Content manager it says that there are not installed. Anybody else has this? 

Yes it's the same in my case.A little patience, it's not too serious.

[chjohans]

45 minutes ago, FILOU said:

Yes it's the same in my case.A little patience, it's not too serious.

That is not the case for me, all my Orbx addons show up as installed. I have them installed in their own "library" (as opposed to in the community folder), maybe that makes a difference?

[stelch]

9 minutes ago, chjohans said:

That is not the case for me, all my Orbx addons show up as installed. I have them installed in their own "library" (as opposed to in the community folder), maybe that makes a difference?

So how do you install them in your own "library". Mine was installed as per Orbx option in "The Flight Simulator Library"

[chjohans]

11 minutes ago, stelch said:

So how do you install them in your own "library". Mine was installed as per Orbx option in "The Flight Simulator Library"

When you install an Orbx product through Orbx Central you have two options:

 

1) Microsoft Flight Simulator Folder

 

This installs the product to the MSFS "Community" folder directly.

 

2) Main Library 

 

This lets you create a libnrary (essensially just a folder) which then becomes the Orbx "Main Library". The products you install will end up in this folder, and the installer creates symlinks freom the MSFS "Community" folder to each of the products you install in this "library" so MSFS can find them.

 

I'm using option 2) and as I wrote all my Orbx products show up as "Installed" in Orbx Central

[stelch]

I have tried that option "Main Library" for the Moscow landmarks and still showing not installed.

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

there seems to be some confusion.

Orbx products that are installed, do of course show up in Orbx Central.

The question here is why they no longer show as installed in the MSFS Content Manager.

That is a matter for Asobo to deal with but it does not mean that the products are not installed

and they work as they did before the update.

In fact, if you use Orbx Central to manage your Orbx products, the Content Manager is redundant.

This is not limited to Orbx products but is across all the addons developers' products.

[stelch]

47 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

there seems to be some confusion.

Orbx products that are installed, do of course show up in Orbx Central.

The question here is why they no longer show as installed in the MSFS Content Manager.

That is a matter for Asobo to deal with but it does not mean that the products are not installed

and they work as they did before the update.

In fact, if you use Orbx Central to manage your Orbx products, the Content Manager is redundant.

This is not limited to Orbx products but is across all the addons developers' products.

Thank you for clarifying it Nick.

[stelch]

On another note, do I install now the Orbx Paris City pack or not?  I know for example that Arc de Triomphe  is included in both Orbx and world update 4. what will it happen ?  

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

both of those are default objects that Orbx have not replaced, so they appear as normal

with or without the WU4 and with or without the Orbx Paris addon.

I have not checked, but as the circumstances seem to be the same as the London Update,

perhaps it would be better to leave Orbx Paris uninstalled or disabled, until there has been

an update to it.

[Seanmo]

19 hours ago, Mawson said:

You have far too much faith in MS and the contracted developer studio Asobo as they are entirely motivated by their own profit and there is no goodwill in anything they do and certainly are not like the folks at  Orbx which is a company built of the foundations of people that love and enjoy our hobby.

 

Orbx will catch up quickly like they did for London but Ms would be wise to extend more goodwill to these third party developers like the old Aces Studio did with FSX, they need Orbx and other developers so  as to catch up on the missing parts of MSFS and they need Orbx to be working with them not after them.

 

I have faith in Orbx to always do the right thing by the hobby but little faith in MS as they respond to profit forces only with zero passion for this hobby and we are lucky they have found a gaming market in X Box as without it there would be no MSFS, they never bought this franchise back for the constant simmers like me.

 

Hilarious. MSFT quickly sold over a million copies of MSFS after its release and the Xbox version is nowhere to be found. Their return to flight simming has nothing whatsoever to do with the Xbox. And you do realize that all companies that stay around long enough to make products (of any kind) are motivated primarily by "their own profit," and that Orbx has promoted their "partnership" with Asobo/MSFT and the latter has made a video about it, right? And when did the beloved old Aces Studio EVER give us free new World Updates that included handcrafted (by well-known developers) airports? I have far more faith in MSFT and Asobo than you do and rightfully so. The comment about MSFT have "zero passion for this hobby" is absolutely untrue, unfair and demonstrably false. I agree with everything else you said.

[TheUKDave]

Forgetting the 'not installed' bug in the latest release, that affects ALL my 3rd party 'community' add-ons ... I'd like to purchase the pairs landmarks, but have scars from the London Landmarks vs UK world update 3, where the 'on sale' item was not compatible with the update that made it 'on sale'.

 

As at the world update 3, the London Landmarks were on sale (I already owned them anyway), and now the Paris Landmarks are also on sale (I do not yet own these).

 

Following WU3, I actually RE-purchased the London Landmarks pack through Orbx, in order to solve the incompatibility issue - which I still don't know if it's fixed or not - with the marketplace version I had already purchased.

 

Are we going to have the same pain with the Paris landmarks? Should I purchase only through Orbx and leave it uninstalled for now (to await an update)? Should I purchase through the marketplace and just expect it to work? 

 

Imagine that my goal is to get the best scenery ASAP, what's best option? 

 

Now imagine that my goal is to have all packages installed via the marketplace (so that I can easily keep a track of what I've bought in one place), how much longer will that take?

 

Finally, imagine my goal is to only spend money when I need to, to get a value-for-money upgrade ... should I install a version now, or watch this thread for updates?

 

Dave

[carlosqr]

I have the impression the show as installed only what is theirs and separated all third party stuff as non installed despite it is insatlled

I petrified at first but having tested that all is installed I just thought it might be for their use...

 

Cheers

Carlos

[carlosqr]

19 minutes ago, TheUKDave said:

Forgetting the 'not installed' bug in the latest release, that affects ALL my 3rd party 'community' add-ons ... I'd like to purchase the pairs landmarks, but have scars from the London Landmarks vs UK world update 3, where the 'on sale' item was not compatible with the update that made it 'on sale'.

 

As at the world update 3, the London Landmarks were on sale (I already owned them anyway), and now the Paris Landmarks are also on sale (I do not yet own these).

 

Following WU3, I actually RE-purchased the London Landmarks pack through Orbx, in order to solve the incompatibility issue - which I still don't know if it's fixed or not - with the marketplace version I had already purchased.

 

Are we going to have the same pain with the Paris landmarks? Should I purchase only through Orbx and leave it uninstalled for now (to await an update)? Should I purchase through the marketplace and just expect it to work? 

 

Imagine that my goal is to get the best scenery ASAP, what's best option? 

 

Now imagine that my goal is to have all packages installed via the marketplace (so that I can easily keep a track of what I've bought in one place), how much longer will that take?

 

Finally, imagine my goal is to only spend money when I need to, to get a value-for-money upgrade ... should I install a version now, or watch this thread for updates?

 

Dave

After an update some third party products get affected

This happened with London and Paris too

 

If what you want is to profit the sale go ahead and buy the landmarks but don't install them until the revised version (the update) comes out. Having already bought the product you'll have a free update when it comes out

 

Usually the products bought in the market place last longer to update. I would say that if it is in Central is the best place to buy it

 

Cheers

Carlos

 

 

[flsm (Frank)]

I received the sale offer for Paris Landmarks from Orbx almost immediately after WU4 came out.  I wondered whether or not Paris would be in the same situation as London. Because my much respected and beloved Orbx did not address the issue in their sale offer, which I thought was strange,  it left me with the impression that maybe Orbx had prior contact with the developers and that the advertised Orbx product was immediately compatible with WU4.  Now I still do not know and everyone here is guessing!  But I am buying it anyway!  Cheers.

[Nick Cooper]

8 hours ago, TheUKDave said:

I'd like to purchase the pairs landmarks, but have scars from the London Landmarks vs UK world update 3, where the 'on sale' item was not compatible with the update that made it 'on sale'.

 

Hello,

there are two differences between Orbx products purchased at the Marketplace and those purchased

through Orbx Central.

The first is that the Marketplace does not allow for a control panel and the second is that product updates

take much longer to reach the customer.

There is not and never was a need to buy any product twice and if the decision is to buy from the Marketplace,

then patience must be used while waiting for any updates.

I do not know if the Paris product needs an update but based on the London product, which was expedited in ten

days, I would guess that it does.

 

[Ed Correia]

 

[TheUKDave]

2 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

There is not and never was a need to buy any product twice

To this, I would say "Needs must when the devil drives".  And of course, all 'needs' are relative. 

 

Because with the Orbx Central version fixed and the marketplace version with no kind of expected delivery date for quite some time, and getting fed up with checking the marketplace and forums all the time for info, I decided that my time was simply not worth the £10 to 'solve the issue' by repurchasing in Orbx Central.  To this day, I don't even know if the marketplace version was ever fixed, but it no longer affects me either way since I left the Orbx Central version installed.

 

I would certainly agree that Orbx never encouraged a second purchase, and if the line had ever been "If you don't like it, go buy it on Orbx Central", I would certainly have more cause to complain.

 

But complain I shall! 

 

To be clear, I do put this on MS/Asobo (... at least, mostly), not on Orbx.  It's pretty surprising that Orbx aren't involved in, or let in on, these world updates before they land in user's laps.  And being a developer myself, I know how painful of a process it can be to get your apps reviewed and live on an app store.

 

But I would say that Orbx still have a small share of the blame for 2 reasons.  First and foremost, they put items on sale immediately after a world update, which as Frank above said:

 

6 hours ago, flsm (Frank) said:

left me with the impression that maybe Orbx had prior contact with the developers and that the advertised Orbx product was immediately compatible with WU4

Indeed, of course it would give that impression.  And this is entirely the reason for my original post, does it work with the update, who knows? Not Orbx ... but they put it on sale anyway, and the same was true with the London Pack.

 

The second reason that I hold a little blame on Orbx, is that (in my humble opinion) they are misguided on the 'need' (that word again!) for a control panel to allow the user to select which version of a pack they want, either the WU-compatible version, or the non-WU-compatible one.  I think this is a great and impressive feature for Orbx Central users, but for the marketplace, I don't think this is necessary.  Essentially users basically always divide into 2 main groups: All the updates, all the time ("gimme that sexy content"); and no updates, ever ("I don't trust and/or can't be bothered with updates").  This is anecdotal and only my opinion, but from experience I'd say I'm confident that this normal dichotomy will be much stronger in places like the MSFS Marketplace, than it is on Orbx Central.  So if a user is installing any updates from Orbx via the marketplace, you can bet that they already have the world update installed - hence the WU-compatible pack is what's needed on the marketplace.  And if they don't tend to install updates other than those forced on them, then they won't install an Orbx update on the marketplace, and they won't have the WU either - hence putting the WU-compatible update on the marketplace does no harm. 

 

It would actually be pretty fascinating to be proven wrong on this if Orbx have any data for it, I know us flight simmers can be an eclectic bunch, so we might buck the trend of the 'typical user'.  So I'm happy to be wrong ... but doubt that I am 

 

 

Anyway, rant over!

 

For now, given that as Ed posted that Orbx have said the pack is not compatible with the WU, I guess I'll pass on the sale, and check in a couple months to see if the marketplace pack has the WU-compatible update to it

 

[Mawson]

10 hours ago, Seanmo said:

 

Hilarious. MSFT quickly sold over a million copies of MSFS after its release and the Xbox version is nowhere to be found. Their return to flight simming has nothing whatsoever to do with the Xbox. And you do realize that all companies that stay around long enough to make products (of any kind) are motivated primarily by "their own profit," and that Orbx has promoted their "partnership" with Asobo/MSFT and the latter has made a video about it, right? And when did the beloved old Aces Studio EVER give us free new World Updates that included handcrafted (by well-known developers) airports? I have far more faith in MSFT and Asobo than you do and rightfully so. The comment about MSFT have "zero passion for this hobby" is absolutely untrue, unfair and demonstrably false. I agree with everything else you said.

Thanks for your opinion but  I completely disagree  especially the  concept you put forward  that we didn't pay for the "free " updates, sorry i don't buy into that type of marketing spin!  Of course we paid and they used our passion for flight simming so that we paid up front.  I would rather pay for the updated and iterations along the way like I did from the passionate creator of this whole  hobby being Aces Studio.  I prefer their model as it gives me more control as a consumer than the pay up front and get an early release software and hope they keep their promise.

 

Finally if MS had passion for flight simming why did they kill it off not once,  but twice before so in my opinion the only thing that brought it back was an ability to make a profit but if X box flops I doubt there will not be enough of us constant simmers to make it worthwhile to keep all these background servers running AI and Bing maps,  so when they stop getting paid it is inevitable  MSFS be killed off a third time. This is why I'll keep X plane as well as MSFS as X Plane is very reliable both in being a reliable constant in our hobby together with what I have said previously its a different product in that its focuses of the technical rather than the visual.

[ravenn22]

On 4/15/2021 at 2:19 PM, Mawson said:

Thanks for your opinion but  I completely disagree  especially the  concept you put forward  that we didn't pay for the "free " updates, sorry i don't buy into that type of marketing spin!  Of course we paid and they used our passion for flight simming so that we paid up front.  I would rather pay for the updated and iterations along the way like I did from the passionate creator of this whole  hobby being Aces Studio.  I prefer their model as it gives me more control as a consumer than the pay up front and get an early release software and hope they keep their promise.

 

Finally if MS had passion for flight simming why did they kill it off not once,  but twice before so in my opinion the only thing that brought it back was an ability to make a profit but if X box flops I doubt there will not be enough of us constant simmers to make it worthwhile to keep all these background servers running AI and Bing maps,  so when they stop getting paid it is inevitable  MSFS be killed off a third time. This is why I'll keep X plane as well as MSFS as X Plane is very reliable both in being a reliable constant in our hobby together with what I have said previously its a different product in that its focuses of the technical rather than the visual.

 

How did you not "pay up front" for FSX? You got one paid update/expansion and FSX required 5-6 3rd party addons running at the same time to make it palatable.

MS Flight was a mis-guided and desperate attempt to cash in on the Free to Play business model, not realizing no one was going to pay for "default" quality planes as DLC. No wonder it was gone in 6 months.

I knew a few of the ACES guys and there were some great people working the project - but it always felt like a bunch of people there that refused to learn new tricks and would just put out some incremental improvements in the next version. Quality control on the default planes was nuts as well - they had a mix of planes created from scratch and ported from FS2004 and earlier and the difference was blatant. You guys complain that bugs in MSFS aren't fixed in a month or two.... ACES had the same bugs for generations.

You paid $60 and got more on day one with MSFS than you had with years of FSX, since then - 4 world updates and 3 sim updates... call it free or included - whatever, but you didn't pay for them again.

Asobo has a long ways to go and a lot of technical issues to deal with, and a lot of improvements to make in a lot of different areas. Despite the teething problems - they're still showing a lot more promise than previous titles and a lot more transparency with where they are and what they're doing.

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,

it could be argued that MSFS is where FSX might have been if development had not been stopped and the team disbanded.

FSX did in fact have two free service packs and the payware Acceleration pack before the axe fell.

FSX is unique in that following the closure of Aces, third party developers of all kinds were given a stable platform that remained

unchanged for 13 years or so, meaning that all of the enhancements continued to work as their developers intended.

The developers were also able to unlock many features that were included but not activated, the likes of PMDG, Majestic Software,

Orbx, Steve Parsons' Direct X Fixer and FS Labs being good examples of this.

This new simulator is in contrast, very fluid, with changes to the way it works being added and then taken away with every update.

Developers are having to try and keep up with this, sometimes finding that changes made with one update are then reversed with the

next. Users and customers of both freeware and payware will need to exercise a little forbearance and patience while this process continues

and like all third party developers, Orbx is consistently doing its best to keep up and make changes as quickly as possible.

 

On the specific subject of City Packs, photogrammetry is arguably still in development itself.

Given my own relatively slow internet connection of 37mbps, I find that both the performance of the simulator and the appearance of

photogrammetry buildings are affected.

In some cases, buildings look as if they had melted or indeed just look like blocks of shapeless textures.

I have been shown that with a 100 mbps internet connection, this is far less prevalent.

However, such a connection speed is not available to me at any price, as the infrastructure is not in place.

My preference at the moment is to disable photogrammetry and use the hand made building models that the City Packs include.

I believe that I am far from alone and that this where the value of the City Packs lies.

Those who can successfully use photogrammetry find that after the London City update, both work well together and I 

would expect the same to apply to the Paris City Pack.

 

[John Mac]

Hi Nick,

Very interesting and informative post. The photogrammetry stuff is nice when it works but is in imo very much a hit and miss affair even with caching enabled. For the moment like yourself I have it off. After the last update for me the sim is a stutter fest. I was also under the impression that MSFS were working with the likes of Orbx prior to releasing updates but that does not seem to be the case. For me the city packs are works of art and long may they continue.

John.

[Mawson]

On 4/20/2021 at 6:06 PM, ravenn22 said:

 

How did you not "pay up front" for FSX? You got one paid update/expansion and FSX required 5-6 3rd party addons running at the same time to make it palatable.

MS Flight was a mis-guided and desperate attempt to cash in on the Free to Play business model, not realizing no one was going to pay for "default" quality planes as DLC. No wonder it was gone in 6 months.

I knew a few of the ACES guys and there were some great people working the project - but it always felt like a bunch of people there that refused to learn new tricks and would just put out some incremental improvements in the next version. Quality control on the default planes was nuts as well - they had a mix of planes created from scratch and ported from FS2004 and earlier and the difference was blatant. You guys complain that bugs in MSFS aren't fixed in a month or two.... ACES had the same bugs for generations.

You paid $60 and got more on day one with MSFS than you had with years of FSX, since then - 4 world updates and 3 sim updates... call it free or included - whatever, but you didn't pay for them again.

Asobo has a long ways to go and a lot of technical issues to deal with, and a lot of improvements to make in a lot of different areas. Despite the teething problems - they're still showing a lot more promise than previous titles and a lot more transparency with where they are and what they're doing.

It is simply pointless discussing any weakness with MSFS fans as you end up with your  non nonsensical argument  in trying to compare a 15 year old software with MSFS. It is not logical to judge FSX  in its original form against MSFS simply becuase of the passage of time and the massive increase in computing power and technology in terms of both graphics cards and the graphics API's makes the baseline of what we expect to be 10 times higher!

 

 Furthermore  the add on environment in FSX was a product of the time and it helped people keep adding addons they needed or  until they reached the point where FPS was no longer acceptable. It was a time of compromise much more than it is now days. Therefore  my point is an all inclusive  FSX was not only not technically possible at that time but there was no hardware to drive it as even FSX as base software could hardly run on the average computer.  If that is your way of judging the software then currently I have more addons for MSFS in my community file than I ever had for FSX,  so therefore on that basis of your point MSFS is an absolute fail, which of course it is not its revolutionary in terms of eye candy.

 

The MS Flight sim of old  offered patches on an as needed basis not termed them free upgrades and as it progressed we bought new software upgrades that were generally markedly different from the previous version and I yes was ok with that as it generally represented the improvements brought about by the huge increases in computing power from 1995 to 2007.

 

I am not complaining about anything other than the marketing hyperbole on this product and spin doctoring the concept of delivering what was promised or fixing bugs as free upgrades! 

 

I said  previously that IMHO there is no goodwill from MS or Asobo to us the constant flight simmers,  it's purely a profit based venture with little if any passion other than for the USD.  Asobo never established this genre , Aces did and all they (Asobo) have done is worked out a way to re-monetize the genre for MS .You can have your view of Aces but they were caught with a product hobbled by the fact the average machine could not run FSX.   I remember that well and all the whinging and whining of a software unable to be run on its highest sliders and it left them (aces)  with nowhere to go and MS chopped them and developed a game version of FSX and when the constant simmers didn't buy it becuase it was a game, they chopped it again.

 

I am hopeful MSFS has at least as long of a run as the old MS Flight Sim titles but if you think the money people at MS care about the passion in this hobby over money well we will have to agree to disagree and I'll be running X plane for as long as it is being developed next to MSFS just to be sure in case they chop it again.

[Mawson]

On 4/20/2021 at 6:30 PM, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,

it could be argued that MSFS is where FSX might have been if development had not been stopped and the team disbanded.

FSX did in fact have two free service packs and the payware Acceleration pack before the axe fell.

FSX is unique in that following the closure of Aces, third party developers of all kinds were given a stable platform that remained

unchanged for 13 years or so, meaning that all of the enhancements continued to work as their developers intended.

The developers were also able to unlock many features that were included but not activated, the likes of PMDG, Majestic Software,

Orbx, Steve Parsons' Direct X Fixer and FS Labs being good examples of this.

This new simulator is in contrast, very fluid, with changes to the way it works being added and then taken away with every update.

Developers are having to try and keep up with this, sometimes finding that changes made with one update are then reversed with the

next. Users and customers of both freeware and payware will need to exercise a little forbearance and patience while this process continues

and like all third party developers, Orbx is consistently doing its best to keep up and make changes as quickly as possible.

 

 

This is a very good point about a decade of stability with the  FSX platform. I guess after moving to P3D and their major and minor version releases constantly breaking my addons and having to wait for them to be fixed by the TP Developer I understand it takes time if the base software is constantly being messed with. I am now concerned if this constant base sim update churn continues the less patient developers will just give up, I know Orbx wont and its a good reason just to stick with the Orbx addons for a while.

[TimJA]

On 4/20/2021 at 11:30 AM, Nick Cooper said:

On the specific subject of City Packs, photogrammetry is arguably still in development itself.

Given my own relatively slow internet connection of 37mbps, I find that both the performance of the simulator and the appearance of

photogrammetry buildings are affected.

In some cases, buildings look as if they had melted or indeed just look like blocks of shapeless textures.

I have been shown that with a 100 mbps internet connection, this is far less prevalent.

However, such a connection speed is not available to me at any price, as the infrastructure is not in place.

My preference at the moment is to disable photogrammetry and use the hand made building models that the City Packs include.

I believe that I am far from alone and that this where the value of the City Packs lies.

Those who can successfully use photogrammetry find that after the London City update, both work well together and I 

would expect the same to apply to the Paris City Pack.

 

 

I have a 20Mbps connection and photogrammetry looks like melted buildings for me too (even when cached).  I just don't think the photogrammetry is too wonderful to begin with. I have seen Google Maps scenery 'scrapes' where the photogrammetry is far better. This is installed locally of course and it looks great,  but I have cached the photogrammetry areas where I fly in MSFS. I haven't used scraped scenery for a while as putting it into my community folder slowed loading times unacceptably. I don't know if this is still the case.

 

Of course, the other issue with Scenery Packs after a MSFS World Update is duplication of hand-made features. I remember running  with the London Scenery Pack just after WU3 and seeing two London eyes etc

 

Tim

[Mawson]

11 minutes ago, TimJA said:

 

I have a 20Mbps connection and photogrammetry looks like melted buildings for me too (even when cached).  I just don't think the photogrammetry is too wonderful to begin with. I have seen Google Maps scenery 'scrapes' where the photogrammetry is far better. This is installed locally of course and it looks great,  but I have cached the photogrammetry areas where I fly in MSFS. I haven't used scraped scenery for a while as putting it into my community folder slowed loading times unacceptably. I don't know if this is still the case.

 

Of course, the other issue with Scenery Packs after a MSFS World Update is duplication of hand-made features. I remember running  with the London Scenery Pack just after WU3 and seeing two London eyes etc

 

Tim

I have a 50 -60 MBPS connection and in a helicopter it works ok as it flys less than 90 KIAS but I think the problem is the Bing Maps photogrammetry is not that great to start with!

[TimJA]

2 minutes ago, Mawson said:

I have a 50 -60 MBPS connection and in a helicopter it works ok as it flys less than 90 KIAS but I think the problem is the Bing Maps photogrammetry is not that great to start with!

I completely agree with you. I think it was to the detriment of MSFS that Bing Maps was used. But unfortunately MS could hardly launch a flagship product like MSFS that relies so much on spatial visual data and not use their own images. For MSFS users (and many others, I suspect) it would be better if Bing Maps had never existed. Then Asobo could have sourced far higher quality photography and photogrammetry and not had to rely on MS's poor in-house offering.

[ravenn22]

54 minutes ago, Mawson said:

It is simply pointless discussing any weakness with MSFS fans as you end up with your  non nonsensical argument  in trying to compare a 15 year old software with MSFS. It is not logical to judge FSX  in its original form against MSFS simply becuase of the passage of time and the massive increase in computing power and technology in terms of both graphics cards and the graphics API's makes the baseline of what we expect to be 10 times higher!

 

 Furthermore  the add on environment in FSX was a product of the time and it helped people keep adding addons they needed or  until they reached the point where FPS was no longer acceptable. It was a time of compromise much more than it is now days. Therefore  my point is an all inclusive  FSX was not only not technically possible at that time but there was no hardware to drive it as even FSX as base software could hardly run on the average computer.  If that is your way of judging the software then currently I have more addons for MSFS in my community file than I ever had for FSX,  so therefore on that basis of your point MSFS is an absolute fail, which of course it is not its revolutionary in terms of eye candy.

 

The MS Flight sim of old  offered patches on an as needed basis not termed them free upgrades and as it progressed we bought new software upgrades that were generally markedly different from the previous version and I yes was ok with that as it generally represented the improvements brought about by the huge increases in computing power from 1995 to 2007.

 

I am not complaining about anything other than the marketing hyperbole on this product and spin doctoring the concept of delivering what was promised or fixing bugs as free upgrades! 

 

I said  previously that IMHO there is no goodwill from MS or Asobo to us the constant flight simmers,  it's purely a profit based venture with little if any passion other than for the USD.  Asobo never established this genre , Aces did and all they (Asobo) have done is worked out a way to re-monetize the genre for MS .You can have your view of Aces but they were caught with a product hobbled by the fact the average machine could not run FSX.   I remember that well and all the whinging and whining of a software unable to be run on its highest sliders and it left them (aces)  with nowhere to go and MS chopped them and developed a game version of FSX and when the constant simmers didn't buy it becuase it was a game, they chopped it again.

 

I am hopeful MSFS has at least as long of a run as the old MS Flight Sim titles but if you think the money people at MS care about the passion in this hobby over money well we will have to agree to disagree and I'll be running X plane for as long as it is being developed next to MSFS just to be sure in case they chop it again.

 

Well, marketing is flagging these updates as "free", as at some point pay add-ons ( like the ultralight... hard pass. ) will be coming... I seriously doubt the ATR will be free. I don't see this as marketing trickery or anything other than being upfront. FSX never offered patches other than 2 SPs over it's lifetime.

 

"It is simply pointless discussing any weakness with MSFS fans as you end up with your  non nonsensical argument  in trying to compare a 15 year old software with MSFS"

....and yet EVERY P3D / XP fanboy is comparing their platform ( with literally 15 + years of development ) and hundreds or thousands of dollars in addons to default MSFS content where it is now. When people say "P3D is better" - they mean P3D v4.5 with PMDG 737, Active Sky, REX textures, Ultimate Traffic, FSUIPC, EasyDok, FlyInside, 50 of their favorite addon airports, TBs of True Earth or photoscenery, custom shaders, etc.  It's in no way apples to apples. Let's see where MSFS is in 2-3 years, once we have PMDG quality aircraft and a better selection of our fav airports. ( I'm guessing P3D will be on the way out and XP will still have it's 15-20% market share ) 

 

I'm definitely not an MSFS fanboy ( despite what the P3D and XP fanboys say, I actually see very few people with MSFS 'blinders' on ) - I still have P3D and XP11 installed, and I'll probably keep XP as well. I've just gotten breaking-point sick of the legions of whinners with nonsense accusations and totally un-constructive complaints

You'll remember we saw the exact same complaints when FSX came out from the FS2004 hardcore. "I bought the latest PC and I can't run it with all the sliders up, waaaah" "the flight models are terrible" "it's just a bunch of eye-candy"  "I'm going back to FS2004"     Same guys are glassy-eyed thinking about FSX and P3D now.

 

Aces didn't establish the genre at all. subLogic and Bruce Artwick did. In 1979.....       MS bought out the IP and created Aces to move it forward - much like they did when MS bought HALO from Bungie and created 343 studios to move that IP forward.
 

How is putting out a totally new version of the game at $60 "re-monetizing" it? ( Aside from adding the in-game marketplace which will be funding the so-called next 10 years of development... worked for Steam and Unreal. )

 

Every company is out for profit. Even Orbx and Laminar - you think Austin is in it for your love and hugs?

 

Anyways - this isn't really directed at you - I've just burned out on people complaining ( about a pretty un-even comparison IMO )  with nothing constructive to offer. If I worked at Asobo and had to read their forums daily - I'd probably quit.... or unplug the internet

 

BTW - I totally agree about Bing data and photogrammetry - but even the best Google PG is still pretty meh...  maybe in a few more years with much higher detail data the melted look will be reduced to something acceptable. The worst part is it LODs down quickly so you lose any city skyline that you'd see from a hub airport.

[TimJA]

1 hour ago, ravenn22 said:

 

BTW - I totally agree about Bing data and photogrammetry - but even the best Google PG is still pretty meh...  maybe in a few more years with much higher detail data the melted look will be reduced to something acceptable. The worst part is it LODs down quickly so you lose any city skyline that you'd see from a hub airport.

 

I still see Central London from Heathrow, but until Asobo improve photogrammetry caching at least I think I'm going to turn it off. Which is a shame because if I set the showcase cam at street level in The Strand and leave it for about 5 minutes to stream all the photogrammetry on my 20MBps connection, I can (just) make out what some of the shops are.

 

I think I spend nearly as much time looking at POIs with the showcase cam and setting up nice screenshots (sundown with scattered high clouds can give some simply beautiful images) as flying! So perhaps I am wrong to grouch about the quality of  the photogrammetry, given higher quality photogrammetry right now would be a total system killer even if you are running a high end CPU and a 3080 and have 150Mbps internet.

 

I suspect the situation now is simply how FSX was when it launched as you mention. I remember back when FSX launched having a fast PC (and a fuller head of hair  ) and expected to be able to turn the sliders right up. Which of course I couldn't! I can on MSFS but that does not take into account the streaming of photogrammetry and it's quality in MSFS.  I have a particular interest in the Scottish Highlands and I can say that MSFS out of the box produces much better than I could ever get with FSX and 'photorealistic' scenery add-ons years later. What we will see in 3-5 years from MSFS may well truly astound us. I for one hope so.

[ravenn22]

13 minutes ago, TimJA said:

I still see Central London from Heathrow, but until Asobo improve photogrammetry caching at least I think I'm going to turn it off. Which is a shame because if I set the showcase cam at street level in The Strand and leave it for about 5 minutes to stream all the photogrammetry on my 20MBps connection, I can (just) make out what some of the shops are.

 

I noticed a huge difference at Chicago with the addon KORD and city scenery - I could see the complete, clear skyline from the runway. With my settings, the PG would be so mushy you wouldn't be able to see distinct buildings - just muddy-looking triangles     It does look pretty good, though, in suburbs areas where building heights are more consistent...

[TimJA]

1 hour ago, ravenn22 said:

 

I noticed a huge difference at Chicago with the addon KORD and city scenery - I could see the complete, clear skyline from the runway. With my settings, the PG would be so mushy you wouldn't be able to see distinct buildings - just muddy-looking triangles     It does look pretty good, though, in suburbs areas where building heights are more consistent...

 

I have the Chicago scenery. It's great. Such a pitty Meigs Field is no longer there for us Flight Simulator old timers but the world moves on I guess, and I could always get a scrape for the sake of nostalgia!