AU versus NZSI and NZNI - what now for AU?

[freddy]

ORBX scenery keeps getting better and better, building on experience gained from each previous release ... from AU to PNW to NZSI to NZNI, and so on.

As an Aussie, I fly mostly in AU. However, right now, I am flying in NZ (both North Island and South Island).

I am absolutely loving NZ. To see so many wonderful things "added" to NZ right out of the box is a nice touch ... power stations, huts, mud flats, landmarks, different coloured water textures, diverse range of land textures, and a plethora of static and non-static objects. These are all fantastic and greatly enhance the realism and user experience.

However, all of those kinds of goodies in NZ have almost made AU seem a little bit "bland" now. AU is lacking much of this kind of stuff.

So, it's got me wondering. With AU being the first released scenery, and with all the fantastic "added" features I see in NZ ... is there a chance that AU will get some work done on it to "bring it up to spec" (so to speak)?

I'd love AU to get a makeover and receive the benefit of some of the new skills/techniques that ORBX may have learnt along the way. I'm not suggesting that each and every airport receive the ORBX treatment, ala NZ, but certainly maybe textures, landclass, roads, static objects etc.

Don't get me wrong, AU is already fantastic. But based on the experience that ORBX has gained as they have gone on, and how good NZSI and NZNI are, I wonder if AU could do with a little bit of a "facelift"? Are there any plans to do so?

==========

Edit: I realise that the people at OZX have added many features and landmarks to AU, and that I could of course install those if I choose. NZSI and NZNI are fantastic right out of the box. No need to download or add anything. It's all there. AU would benefit from similar treatment. It's not just things such as landmarks etc. It's "everything" ... all inclusive ... ground features, terrain, hill sides, mountains, rivers, roads, swamps, quarries ... and yes, where applicable, the landmarks and other static objects as well. With the benefit of all their current experience, gained over time, ORBX could truly enhance AU and bring it up to the next (the current) level. Are there any plans to do so?

.

[Capnsully]

Oh dear, "all of those kinds of goodies in NZ have now made AU seem a little bit "bland" ". I'll just sit back with the BUCKET of popcorn and watch!

[freddy]

I have to admit the "bucket and popcorn" scenario did come to mind for me as I wrote this ...

... but I hope folks realise I am *NOT* bagging the AU scenery. Not at all. Far from it. The AU scenery is brilliant.

I am enjoying the NZ scenery so much and, in that, I can see the benefit of experience. So I wondered if perhaps AU could get a makeover and maybe receive the benefits of that experience. It is somewhat of an open-ended question ... maybe even rhetorical ... but it crossed my mind and hence I posted.

[Capnsully]

Hehe, I was hoping some would take the bait and interpret that we were saying the REAL NZ scenery was better than REAL Oz's. Which it is of course..

[Arismac]

There are of course areas of Australia equally spectacular as NZ. I am thinking the Kimberlies, north and central Queensland and Tasmania just to name a few. As much as would like to see these in Orbx, starting with Perth, we must face the economic realities. It would take many times longer than NZ just to reproduce the Kimberlies and then, be honest here, would you guys buy it and go fly the WA north west?

[mra]

There are of course areas of Australia equally spectacular as NZ. I am thinking the Kimberlies, north and central Queensland and Tasmania just to name a few. As much as would like to see these in Orbx, starting with Perth, we must face the economic realities. It would take many times longer than NZ just to reproduce the Kimberlies and then, be honest here, would you guys buy it and go fly the WA north west?

Yes I would because like freddy, I fly mostly in my own backyard despite the fact I have all the Orbx areas issued to date.

[moonman]

There are of course areas of Australia equally spectacular as NZ. I am thinking the Kimberlies, north and central Queensland and Tasmania just to name a few. As much as would like to see these in Orbx, starting with Perth, we must face the economic realities. It would take many times longer than NZ just to reproduce the Kimberlies and then, be honest here, would you guys buy it and go fly the WA north west?

I am almost 100% sure i would purchase it and fly there as i really like exploring rather remote areas (which are to be found in WA for sure, besides the densely populated urban areas)!

Just my 2 cents here though.

[Taph]

Cannot imagine flying Aus without OZx additions, agree ORBX changed the way we looked at flight sim world, but OZx added lots of additional detail and enhanced out of the way airfield well worth installing.

Also recommend Ant's airfields and the Olgas. Saying which if ORBX released a version 2 of AUS I would buy it

[John Dow]

Australia is a lot emptier than NZ so the scenery will reflect that don't forget.

[Tassie]

Cannot imagine flying Aus without OZx additions, agree ORBX changed the way we looked at flight sim world, but OZx added lots of additional detail and enhanced out of the way airfield well worth installing.

Also recommend Ant's airfields and the Olgas. Saying which if ORBX released a version 2 of AUS I would buy it

+1 Install OZx and Ants and you have AU 2, almost.

[Patrick Cox]

YBTH

[COBS]

I know the USA and NZ are more advanced , but still I prefer the AU east coast by far .

I would love to have rivers and bridges improved in AU , also another couple of higher

definition areas similar to the brilliant work done at Tamworth and its surrounds , I'm biased here

and would love to see the Yarra Valley get that treatment .

One other thing that would be awesome would be a couple of steam locomotives on the

Melbourne to Albury railway line complete with smoke and steam.

( Imagine having boilers that blew up when they are straffed by cannon fire ! )

Cheers

Karol

[macca22au]

Fair crack of the whip: all the poor guy was trying to say, in the nicest possible way, that all the progress made by Orbx in recent years means that the first cab of the rank, AU (or the preceeding regions) now looks a little tired compared to the latest productions.

It is not an unfair topic to raise. ie is it likely that AU will get a makeover to incorporate the technical advances contained in the more recent sceneries? Believe me, apparently dull desert would look real and challenging using the latest design techniques.

Now if JV and his team says no way, that's it, it is still darned good scenery.

[freddy]

... that all the progress made by Orbx in recent years means that the first cab of the rank, AU (or the preceeding regions) now looks a little tired compared to the latest productions.

Correct ... in a single sentence, this does sum up what I was trying to say/ask. The responses are good though and I can see that folks have approached the question exactly in the way I was thinking.

Yes, regions like the Kimberlies, north and central Queensland and Tasmania could use some terrain work and perhaps some texture work. Heck yeah I would fly in these regions. Right now I OFTEN fly a lot over ALL of Australia and regions such as these are regularly visited by me. Given the time and economic realities involved in doing such work (a very good point), it would be worth stating that I would certainly be happy to part with my money if ORBX was to re-work Australia and offer it as a "paid upgrade". However, that said, I cannot speak for others.

You're right, John Dow, that Australia is a lot emptier than NZ and therefore the scenery will reflect that. But then, as COBS mentioned, it's things like rivers, bridges, lakes and other similar structures (dams and local regional landmarks etc) that could pehaps use the benefit of ORBX's latest techniques. Those kinds of things are quite noticable in NZ (and I imagine PNW), but they are lacking in first-cab-off-the-rank AU. It's those kinds of things which are a big part of what I was thinking when I wrote the original post. As an example, I would suggest that the Police Academy in Victoria should definately be represented ... it is an extremely prominent landmark, at the peak of a hill, very visible from the air in Victorian skies, and is often used as a turning point for VFR aircraft. As a Victorian, I am biased when I suggest that, but something doesn't seem right as you fly in Victoria and you've got Luna Park depicted, but not the Police Academy. I am sure there would be many other local landmarks and structures in your own local regions which perhaps could be represented, just in the same way as they appear to be represented in the NZ work.

I have made a conscious choice not to install any of the OZx and Ant's stuff. Judging by the many posts I read about OZX, I am sure the work is brilliant. I make my personal decision not to install this work on the premise that I prefer to have things "consistent". I don't like the idea of having SOME areas and airports that have the FULL TREATMENT, whilst others remain original FSX. The illusion of realism gets ruined for me when this is the case. FTX AU is scenery ... hills, mountains, deserts, roads, etc ... and even though the airports remained original FSX after installing FTX AU, I am more than happy because everything is "consistent". It's a matter of opinion.

Interesting the thought of trains on rail lines. I have given that some thought myself. If cars can be represented on roads, perhaps trains can too. However, I am not sure that it is possible in FSX to "join" the cars together, one after another, to form a train. I think the way vehicles get done by FSX prevents this. I am no expert. But, yes, trains would be a great addition.

And then there's the ORBX texture flow and motion flow technologies, etc. Moving trees and grass. OK, this stuff appears at the re-worked airports ... but, with AU in mind, having the default FSX airports, can the underlying textures be modified so that when the default FSX airports sit on top, the grass and trees etc become part of that area?

Thanks for the resposes. There's plenty of food for thought. In the end it's probably only a "dream" that I had. But if ORBX did entertain the idea of "upgrading" AU to bring it "up to spec" based their current experience and knowledge, I would certainly not be complaining ... and, yes, I would part with my cash if it came down to that.

Regardless, the last sentence in macca22au's post remains true: "...if JV and his team says no way, that's it, it is still darned good scenery."

[Sundog]

I've thought the same thing. However, I think it would have to be a "payware" upgrade, to get the sort of detail like in NZ and in smaller patches (Start with Tasmania first, the borders for the update are easy to figure out. )

Afterall, Orbx is a business. That gives us plenty of awesome freeware to go with it (Thank you. ) But I have thought they could end up competing against themselves for people who haven't joined the bandwagon yet.

Oddly enough, I find myself flying around the southwest region a lot (east-south-east of Jankodot). I love those excellent dusty upgraded airfields in those regions (I'm not sure if those upgrades were Orbx, OzX, or Ant, but they're a blast to hop between.) I'm currently stuck in those low desert mountains south south west of Darwin. But I'll be "flying" back to the PNW soon. Especially since we have some more CRM airfields otw.

[macca22au]

Good discussion, and I for one would be happy to pay for a full upgrade/replacement.

It takes financial return to keep a business going. That's why I think the Uk is an inspired move. It will sell like hotcakes

[Remko]

Good discussion indeed, I was wondering this myself. I also would be prepared to pay for an upgrade. And If nothing happens I won't loose any sleep either.

[TrentBarrow]

Yep, Au would look awesome if all the airports were upgraded and brought up to NZ specs

[Jay Kae]

You're missing out if you don't have ozx and Ants stuff mate

[Capnsully]

As an example, I would suggest that the Police Academy in Victoria should definately be represented ... it is an extremely prominent landmark, at the peak of a hill, very visible from the air in Victorian skies, and is often used as a turning point for VFR aircraft. As a Victorian, I am biased when I suggest that, but something doesn't seem right as you fly in Victoria and you've got Luna Park depicted, but not the Police Academy. I am sure there would be many other local landmarks and structures in your own local regions which perhaps could be represented, just in the same way as they appear to be represented in the NZ work.

I have made a conscious choice not to install any of the OZx and Ant's stuff. Judging by the many posts I read about OZX, I am sure the work is brilliant. I make my personal decision not to install this work on the premise that I prefer to have things "consistent". I don't like the idea of having SOME areas and airports that have the FULL TREATMENT, whilst others remain original FSX. The illusion of realism gets ruined for me when this is the case. FTX AU is scenery ... hills, mountains, deserts, roads, etc ... and even though the airports remained original FSX after installing FTX AU, I am more than happy because everything is "consistent". It's a matter of opinion.

Hey Freddy, a timely post! I'm recovering from illness and between jobs, so am getting back into scenery building as a distraction. I'm in the Moorabbin area of Melb.

So I've decided to help out and do a few major Melb. VFR landmarks, to make the Orbx scenery even more perfect, sort of icing on the cake stuff. Yes I was earlier gobsmacked as well that the Academy wasn't there, nor is it in OZx (well I'm pretty sure!).

So after I prove I can do Southland, I'll do the academy next (a bit of a drive to Mt Waverley but it'll get me out). Any other major landmarks you think are worth doing? I'm thinking the Mordialloc Pier, Mt Dandenong radio towers (can't recall if they're already there?), Doncaster shoppingtown. I might even call on you to be a beta tester, as coming from X-Plane land I have to come to grips with MSFS scenery workings, and I'm SURE it won't start out pretty!

But you are mad not to install OZx. See my sig? Their work adds considerably to the immersion, and I hope to add my objects to their package, once I'm happy with the result. It takes many hours to do good scenery, even this one building, please take advantage of our generosity. It's slowlllllyyyy coming together, having to take a few shortcuts to minimise the texture filesize, quite happy with the initial results:

[Mallard]

I too would be more than happy to buy "AU 2.0". I have all the fantastic OzX, Ants and all other available (and highly appreciated) addons, and they are really putting the icing on the cake. A few days ago I tried my new C208 an a flight from Lauceston to Hobart and was literaly appaled when I approached Hobart and noticed that I had not reinstalled the freeware Hobart airport and was getting the default. It was just so... wrong.

Yesterday I hopped around NZ and - from the smaller Stratford to New Plymouth - everything was there and in incredible detail. It really led me to dream about the possibilites of a redone AU scenery.

The photoreal sceneries included around the payware and freebie ORBX airports already dramatically improve the experience - and I'll be happy stay with that if that's the way things will remain because the development of AU 2.0 is not economically viable.

Anyway - in the meantime I'm looking forward to everything ORBX has in the pipeline for AU (when will Canberra be ready again?) and will still continue to greatly enjoy what we already have!

Cheers

Mallard

[COBS]

Some here may remember the freeware VOZ AU scenery the FS9 precursor to FTX .

That had in Melbourne the Academy , Doncaster Shopping town and other significant VFR reference points , also St Kilda Rd

was populated with high rise buildings , I even had the Sydney Myer music tent structure . it was magnificent .

I puchased from memory for FS9 " Red River package" that added rivers , dams , roads , railroads , bridges , football ovals,

and golf courses , it was awesome for VFR navigation , what amazed me was it even had a tiny duck pond showing that

actually existed in front of my local Croydon library , as well as the nearby railway bridge.

I'm not saying that I want a high definition Cityscape for Melbourne as that would Kill frame rates , but it would be nice to have

some upgrade , and most definitely the Yarra river at the city center complete with Princess bridge.

I suspect that the FSX style buildings place too heavy a demand on computers to enable that level of autogen detail .

+1 , would be happy to pay for the upgrade .

Cheers

Karol

[macca22au]

Yep, I have all Ants and OZX airports installed. Great stuff from a great community.

I agree they should be used with AU SP4 as well as the standalone Orbx Addon airfields.

[ravemtech]

We paid for Tullamarine when it was upgraded and I have no doubt people would pay for AU 2, as the benefits would be outstanding. Please please please think about it. Orbx has progressed so much, it would be great to see our homeland upgraded with the latest technology, and we will pay for the upgrade!!!!!!

[jasonr71]

G'day ORBX Team

You guys have covered a lot of territory in Australia, especially the east coast of NSW and Queensland and down south in Melbourne, but there is one major airport that is situated on the east coast of NSW which would be a fantastic addition when flying from Melbourne, Alice Springs or Brisbane, and that is Sydney's Kingsford Smith International and Domestic Airport. Now I remember John was saying that his team and himself do not want to recreate add-on airports that have already been created by other scenery publishers, however the only one available of Kingsford Smith is 'CLS - Sydney Professional X' and is not at the same standard of detail as your teams add-ons.

Now I don't wish to offend the developers and designers of this scenery add-on because it's not bad, but you guys would absolutely blow them out of the water if you were to recreate Kingsford Smith, using the same skills and talent you guys used to create Brisbane and Melbourne International Airports. I wouldn't expect the Scenery around Sydney CBD to be as detailed as the up and coming Canberra add-on, but it would be great if the Harbour Bridge and a few iconic buildings in Sydney like the Westfields Tower, Opera house and some areas around Sydney Harbour were more detailed then the standard FSX scenery, it would be awesome. Even if you guys were to do a seperate add-on for Sydney Harbour, which could start from outside the heads heading into Sydney Harbour with Manly on the right down to Watsons Bay on the left (There are float plane services that taxi people from Watsons Bay to Manly,The Spit which is not far from Manly, and all the way down the Harbour Scenic Flights as well as Private Chartered Flights) and heading west down as far as the Gladesville Bridge or even to the Olympic Park at Homebush.

This could be detailed with Sydney Ferries, boats, Cruise Ships, Naval Vessels, Container Ships and as well as the landmarks mentioned above, you could add other landmarks when flying down the harbour like Luna Park, Fort Denison, Garden Island Naval docks, Sydney Botanical Gardens, Kirribilli House and the Governors House, Darling Harbour, and the Olympic Park at Homebush.

Sydney Harbour would be a fantastic place to fly float planes, helicopters and other light aircraft and later on you could build Bankstown Airport which is not far from Homebush Bay (Olympic Park) and is the one of the busiest airports in New South Wales with a lot of light aircraft traffic landing and taking off on a daily basis.

Obviously the above scenery add-ons would be a lot of work, and personally if I new how to design and build these scenery addons, I would've started a long time ago putting together these great locations to add to a brilliant collection of FTX add-ons.

Please consider ORBX team, and put those feelings aside in regards to both Sydney and Melbourne people that have a long history of bickering about which city is better, and think how great you guys will feel, knowing that this project would've only be possible because of a handful of skilled software desingers from Melbourne, and not from Sydney! What a brown nose hey! ; )

[freddy]

Well well. I see there are quite a few folks thinking along the same lines as my original post. It would be great if an "AU 2.0" was done. And, I also see that folks would be happy to pay for it. I am sure that if it were done, the ORBX team would have to carefully consider the existing work done by OZx, and ANTs as well. There'd be no point putting things in which those guys have already done.

Hey Freddy, a timely post! I'm recovering from illness and between jobs, so am getting back into scenery building as a distraction. I'm in the Moorabbin area of Melb.

So I've decided to help out and do a few major Melb. VFR landmarks, to make the Orbx scenery even more perfect, sort of icing on the cake stuff. Yes I was earlier gobsmacked as well that the Academy wasn't there, nor is it in OZx (well I'm pretty sure!).

So after I prove I can do Southland, I'll do the academy next (a bit of a drive to Mt Waverley but it'll get me out). Any other major landmarks you think are worth doing? I'm thinking the Mordialloc Pier, Mt Dandenong radio towers (can't recall if they're already there?), Doncaster shoppingtown. I might even call on you to be a beta tester, as coming from X-Plane land I have to come to grips with MSFS scenery workings, and I'm SURE it won't start out pretty!

The Dandenong radio towers are already there, done by ORBX. You've covered just about everything here in central Vic, close to the city ... except, of course, CHADSTONE shopping centre. I recently took "tourist" VFR flight over central VIC ... one where the pilot explains all the features and local landmarks etc ... the following were all mentioned (in no particular order): Police Academy, Luna Park, Chadstone shopping centre, Doncaster shopping centre, Knox City shopping centre, Caribbean Gardens (the lake is already depticted by ORBX, but not the markets), Mt Dandenong radio towers and the Sky High restaurant, the wineries to the north-east, a few large private schools are clearly visible (I cannot remember names), the Spirit of Tasmania was docking, Werribee mansion, Melbourne Zoo, and The Docklands.

Beta testing you say? Sorry, I'm not a big fan of Beta testing for people. I would decline. I do enough Beta testing in my IT job at work. And I'm pretty particular about my Flight Simulator setup; being happy to leave it in the "it aint broke" state.

[Capnsully]

No worries, you've given me & others a few yrs worth of object ideas now! Damn, forgot about the obvious, very obvious, mega-Chadstone.

Jason, no inter-city rivalry, although we are spoilt down here in little Melbourne with scenery. So many great sights that could be done in Sydney, yes it'd be great to see them all done, and whatever happened to a detailed YSSY airport scenery? Yeah, we've been to Watson's Bay a few times, a lovely part of the World, and that Doyles! Don't forget Peopleflow brawling in Kings Cross, plus a special seasonal 'Mardi-Gras' mod in early March!

[John Dow]

Been following this topic for a while and one question keeps popping up into my head: Where do you draw the line? For every feature added to an upgraded or updated version there would be dozens of candidates, equally worthy, that are missed out. Think about just about any neighbourhood in the country. They all have their own shopping centre. They also are likely to have memorials, swimming pools, parks, avenues, monuments, towers, beacons, junctions, beaches, surf clubs, mansions, council chambers, malls, parking areas, forests, speedways, race courses, prisons, railways, stations, country properties, and so on, each one just as dear to the locals as any other feature in the country, and a lot of them likely to be used as a VFR point by local aviators. For every shopping centre added someone else would want the swimming pool and the next person would lament the omission of the landmark servo down the road etc etc.

I think the ORBX scenery does exactly what it is supposed to do, and that is provide a rich authentic environment for the casual recreational desktop aviator using autogen and landclass to give a reasonably accurate representation of landscapes seen from aircraft windows. Any specific landmarks features etc that have been provided in the package should be viewed as a bonus provided by the developers based on what was seen as important within the context of the whole box and dice.

[Frank .A]

Been following this topic for a while and one question keeps popping up into my head: Where do you draw the line? For every feature added to an upgraded or updated version there would be dozens of candidates, equally worthy, that are missed out. Think about just about any neighbourhood in the country. They all have their own shopping centre. They also are likely to have memorials, swimming pools, parks, avenues, monuments, towers, beacons, junctions, beaches, surf clubs, mansions, council chambers, malls, parking areas, forests, speedways, race courses, prisons, railways, stations, country properties, and so on, each one just as dear to the locals as any other feature in the country, and a lot of them likely to be used as a VFR point by local aviators. For every shopping centre added someone else would want the swimming pool and the next person would lament the omission of the landmark servo down the road etc etc.

I think the ORBX scenery does exactly what it is supposed to do, and that is provide a rich authentic environment for the casual recreational desktop aviator using autogen and landclass to give a reasonably accurate representation of landscapes seen from aircraft windows. Any specific landmarks features etc that have been provided in the package should be viewed as a bonus provided by the developers based on what was seen as important within the context of the whole box and dice.

Well said John, I thoroughly agree with what you said.

[marith]

I agree with John Dow as well.

Much as I would welcome and happily pay for a v2 of Australia with the latest technology, one has to wonder, what happens in a few years time when Orbx have improved the technology even more. Do they then bring out a v3, then a v4 etc.?

Unfortunately it takes a lot of time and effort to provide new scenery or update existing products and they have a limited number of hours and staff to do it in. Do we want them to spend time concentrating on updating old products or developing new areas and airports? I am sure there is a balance somewhere which I am sure Orbx will pick the right amount.

[wombat]

In regards to trains try UK2000 Gatwick here's a couple of still shots of moving trains at the end of runway.

[freddy]

And I also agree with John. Where do you stop indeed? Although, that said, it is interesting to note that NZ has many landmarks depicted. So decisions were obviously made about which ones to place and which ones not to place. And that is probably all I think AU should need ... nothing too fancy. Merely a makeover of the AU scenery using the latest ORBX textures technologies and tricks, people flow technologies, object flow technologies ... etc ... and add the "main" (prominent) VFR landmarks. In other words, the same (or similar) way as NZ has been done. But I do agree it would be time consuming and not necessarily fit the ORBX "roadmap" etc. Then, throw in the economics of it. And so on and so forth. Fair enough. At this point I will reiterate it would be nice if ORBX planned to do it, but, if not, there's no harm done - AU is still awesome, just as it is right now.

With regard to shopping centres, I don't recall seeing any in the NZ scenery; shopping centres may be just a bit too much to expect ... although there are quite a few Mitre 10 Mega stores to be seen in the NZ scenery.

Cool trains, Wombat. And they move too! Ahh, so it can be done.

.

[wombat]

The trains are great but I would prefer steam trains

[Scott Harmes]

You have to give them time to cover the rest of the globe also. For one I'm really looking forward to the NorCal and other US and Canada releases. That being said I am always trying to make my own Melbourne more realistic with photo scenery etc. It would be nice to have some high def Aussie cities, although I would rather wait if doing this now would bring the sim down to a slide show, which I believe it would.

[COBS]

I agree Scott , Hi Def. cities would probably bring all but the high end computers to their knees,

and that limits the ORBX market.

Most of the posts above cover just incremental features that would not have a detrimental effect on frame rates.

I'm surprised at John's comments above , if my memory serves me correctly you were a part of the VOZ team that

created scenery with the VFR reference shopping complexes in place , however you are correct if every real world building

and institution was included the line would be taken too far , no ones suggesting that.

It's not a matter of every shopping strip , official maps and documents do specify certain specific land marks as VFR reference

points and have done so for many years , ie; the Academy .

I concentrate on Melbourne solely because I know it best and fly there mostly , my poor old previous computer handled VOZ in

FS9 easily with all those extra buildings.

Fortunately ORBX are a progressive outfit and continuously advance their scenery while trying , and generally

succeed in keeping frame rates at good levels.

I'll keep my fingers crossed and remain optimistic .

Cheers

Karol

[moonman]

Been following this topic for a while and one question keeps popping up into my head: Where do you draw the line? For every feature added to an upgraded or updated version there would be dozens of candidates, equally worthy, that are missed out. Think about just about any neighbourhood in the country. They all have their own shopping centre. They also are likely to have memorials, swimming pools, parks, avenues, monuments, towers, beacons, junctions, beaches, surf clubs, mansions, council chambers, malls, parking areas, forests, speedways, race courses, prisons, railways, stations, country properties, and so on, each one just as dear to the locals as any other feature in the country, and a lot of them likely to be used as a VFR point by local aviators. For every shopping centre added someone else would want the swimming pool and the next person would lament the omission of the landmark servo down the road etc etc.

I think the ORBX scenery does exactly what it is supposed to do, and that is provide a rich authentic environment for the casual recreational desktop aviator using autogen and landclass to give a reasonably accurate representation of landscapes seen from aircraft windows. Any specific landmarks features etc that have been provided in the package should be viewed as a bonus provided by the developers based on what was seen as important within the context of the whole box and dice.

... and that is provide a rich authentic environment for the casual recreational desktop aviator using autogen and landclass to give a reasonably accurate representation of landscapes seen from aircraft windows ...

Indeed! And i am fully hapy with that.

just - don't know:

... maybe something like a fundamental update from time to time...

I would not expect every house being replicated in all it's detail or so.

I would actually just highly welcome an update of roads - landclasses - textures - and so on ...

Sure:

Some well known landmarks represented in the sim at an "up-to-date-standard" would be nice, but not a "must have".

So what I mean is something like for instance the very latest SP which was released for Australia (SP4).

It is fantastic and really changed the previous version of ORBX's Australia dramatically - for the better!

Now if i was looking out for a newer version of ORBX' Australia, then that's overall what i would be looking forward to.

And sure: If that would really turn out to become something like a Version 2, then I will also pay for it.

So overall i'd say: Stay with what is around but really try to keep it up-to-date and improve it whenever necessary and/or possible - either continuously or via "big updates" or complete revisions that are being released from time to time then.

Cheers,

Christoph

[macca22au]

Marith, yeth of course. We don't stop in our upgrading nor would we expect Orbx to.

[John Venema]

Matt Tomkins has been discussing an AU "SP5" with me for some time, and indeed we've added a new developer to the team who has already proven to be quite adept at creating urban centres to cities and we are preparing a work schedule for that person to begin to look at adding incremental detail to cities and large regional towns.

At some point we need to draw a line in the sand however, and whilst SP5 may be an incremental free update, if we do an AU V2.0 it will be a pay-for upgrade because Matt will likely want me to invest time and $ in a whole bunch of new texture classes and landclass improvements etc.

Our FTX regions are horrendously expensive to produce, and take years to become profitable. Only AU and PNW are in the black, all the others will take years to return on their investment. I won't tell you how expensive they are to produce but it is six figures and does not begin with a '1'. There is a reason why MS did not make FS11 and/or Flight with the level of detail our regions contain - they just did not have the budget for that level of content. If MS struggles to fund it, then spare a thought for Orbx, still very much a startup company. Even Lockheed Martin are focusing on core engine improvements and aircraft and leaving detailed regions to companies like ours. They understand the cost behind what we do and that is not part of their roadmap.

So for now at least we are focusing on continuing to roll out NA regions and the first of many EU regions, because they continue to provide the sandpit for which we can release HD airports.

[RTK1972]

John,

when thinking how much developers/testers are working on every region i can imagine how expensive this is for orbx.

I really hope that the "FSX" plattform will never die and maybe LM is on their way to give this simulator a settlement in history AND future.

While experiencing hard times in europe and the US i hope everyone who names himself a flightsim enthusiasm will have the oppertunity to buy your great products, John.

I would definiatly pay for AU 2.0...

Thanks for your honesty !.

A proud Orbx customer,

Carsten

[freddy]

It is great to get John Venema's perspective on this topic.

As someone who similarly works in IT, I have a very good appreciation of product development cycles and the considerable time (and certainly the money) that it takes to keep something current and up-to-date. John has put that in to context very well.

When I wrote the original post I was thinking along the lines of an incremental revision, to add prominent VFR features missing from the original release and perhaps to update texture classes and landclass (using John's words from his post) using the new techiques and experiences gained by ORBX over time. If "extras" were to be added (people flow, motion flow) etc, then that would be a bonus. My thoughts were that such a revision would likely form a Service Pack (ie, SP5). And, my thoughts were also that if such work were to be undertaken by ORBX, then I would be happy to pay for it knowing fulwell the time and money which might be involved.

It also occured to me as I wrote my original post that, regardless of whether ORBX did have plans (or not) to perform such work, I still remain very happy with AU exactly how it is right now. Whilst it would be nice if AU could get a make-over to bring it "up to spec" ... yes, as John says (and others in this thread as well), the line needs to be drawn somewhere.