SGunard Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Having read JV's interview on FSXPage I am wondering about the future direction of OrbX airports. John says that they will be "focusing on making the airport very atmospheric inside the fence, rather than add 200+ km of photoreal imagery outside the fence". Now, don't get me wrong. I love the detail in OrbX airports but will a balance be struck between detail inside and outside of the fence? I mean how much more 'atmosphric' can these airfields get? After all we already have bugs circling round lights and leaves falling off trees. What's next? The toilets flushing?! You see most of these things I don't really give a dingo's kidney about. My flying time is limited and although I look around in the spot view before I take off and after I land and admire the supurb scenery and detail I don't go around exploring with BOB. I want flight sim, not pedestrian sim and part of the fun is the detail outside the fence. The quarries, lumber yards, school buses, etc etc we've had outside the fence give a great deal of immersion as we climb out, fly the circuit or come in on finals. In a nutshell, I'd rather the flying than the flies! (or moths?!) What do my fellow OrbXers think? Maybe JV can put my mind at rest. Will future airfields still have the outside-of-the-fence detail we have come to know and love, and you are saying that will not expand to 200+ km? or is this a change in policy in that beyond-the-fence will no longer get the attention it once did? Cheers, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanTenner Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Hi Steve, JV said something about it. Who said we are taking such things away? Who said we are not going to embellish areas around the airports? Have you seen any evidence of this in recent releases? Please do not put words into my mouth. If there are landmarks or POI's close to an airport they will be included, as they always are. I have always told my staff "include all necessary details in all approach vectors" and we have not strayed from that minimum. But the days of 200-400 km sq photoreal addons which are 1.5GB+ in size are o-v-e-r. We were beginning to make mini FTX regions it was getting so silly. Those cost twice as long (if not more) to make and they don't sell a single copy more. It is all very well to say you'll pay a little extra for large photoreal areas but the reality is that it doubles or triples development time, and that's not good for anyone. In case I have not made it clear yet, we're still not a profitable company. Yes, we pay the bills, taxes, insurances, travel and all our contractors, but our ability to invest in more R&D and grow the business with more staff is still limited. We have had to tighten our belts in late 2012 due to escalating costs in running the business. Times are tough all over, Orbx is not immune. With any business you need to constantly tune it and adapt to market forces. To keep doing the same things year after year without tweaking the model and cutting the fat is foolish. We won't compromise on quality, but at the same time I don't see the need for us to make massive photoreal airport areas; it was a direction some of our developers went which I have stopped. So blame me, the buck stops with me as CEO; but don't expect the features or quality to suffer. You can find his post here http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/54187-fsxpage-interviews-john-venema/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGunard Posted January 31, 2013 Author Share Posted January 31, 2013 Thanks Jan. You know, I read the interview as soon as it was flagged only just got around to posting. Never realised a conversation beneath the original thread had developed! How did I miss it! Must have been those damned flies (moths?!) distracting me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caaront Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I fly only low and slow VFR, and for me it is almost like my old ultralight flying days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt McGee Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Steve, I think I share your view. I fly in FSX and never use Bob. While it is great that the airport buildings are super detailed, I prefer detail that is visible from the cockpit. For instance, I find details like the mud flats and seasonal tulip fields with KBVS , the refinery and Deception Pass bridge with 74S , school and prison with W16, and the improved river between W16 and S43 add much more to the realism of the flying experience than having the correct model RV parked behind the second row of hangars. Don't get me wrong, I love the extreme detail and accuracy at the airports, but if I can't see it from the cockpit when I'm in the pattern, on the runway, or (to a lesser extent) taxiing to the fuel pits or parking, it's not that big of a deal to me. The larger, off airport, details and photo-real terrain additions add to the flying experience when at the field, in the pattern, or just flying by. I don't really care about the flies buzzing around the trash can. I know nothing about ORBX's cost considerations when making their airports, but I specifically purchased many airports that included improved terrain coverage over those that didn't. Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Attwood Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I share your opinion h3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herky1955 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Just my twopenneth, Before I tried "Orbx", I used to fly 737 NGX's and only really saw approach scenery, when the weather was clear. Now I have the feeling that Low n Slow and VFR is the preferred way to travel over this entire superb scenery. Indeed more like most folks can do in real life with a PPL, only a lot cheaper! If we buy the countries scenery, which appears to already have superior airports to many payware and certainly freeware airports, then we already have the scenery "outside the fence". I appreciate there are some enhancements to the approach that are added in certain scenery airport add ons. However, the add on airports must be further enhanced above the Orbx base level airports and give that special Orbx touch, to make them desireable. The Orbx scenery is superior to anything I have ever seen. I am spoilt for choice as to where to fly and indeed what to buy! I am on limited funds or I would buy every area Orbx do. In fact if/when I upgrade and do a re install, I would go all Orbx. Some folks hate the people flow etc., I regard it as icing on the cake and certainly enhances the feeling of "suspending disbelief". It adds to a narrative making every flight a true adventure story. However there must be a limit as to how atmospheric an airport can go. The limits being FSX Virtual Address Space. Adding appropriate scenery objects that appear in Real World can only be good. Rural strips that demonstrate slope, camber and roughness and animals, are also adding to suspension of disbelief. There is a strip in Africa that has resident Giraffes who will "pose" on the strip! Bush pilots have to "buzz" them several times to try to move them and even then they sometimes dont budge, necessitating an alternate strip.....miles away! Perfect for the Orbx Animal Flow? There are some Orbx airport sceneries now that, on video and photo, need a second ( and third) look to tell if they are real or not, thats the way to go, IMHO As for the Virtual Address Space, seemingly these Orbx wizards will be able to trick old FSX into believing it has more than 4 Gb, a feat in itself! Best Regards David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.