ANSWERED FTX Melbourne v2 and Brisbane

[bradley27]

I have just tonight used these 2 airports for a flight with the PMDG 737 for the first time, i do all my flights in Europe and the US normally but am wanting to venture off to Oz esp with Flytampas Sydney in the pipeline.

 

NOW im sure this subject is old and is likely to be a pain in the butt but nonetheless here goes....i have a very powerful PC that runs all scenerys i own very well with no blurries or delays in loading textures, my FSX CFG is tweaked somewhat to allow FSX to run as smooth as possible with the majority of all scenery sliders at full and having about 85% AI traffic and still get 30 frames in most spots around the FS world with a few exceptions in London and New York...

 

Anyway, i was rather surprised to find that both Brisbane and Melbourne sit on photographic bases with no painted taxiways or any obviously textures as you might find in any common payware scenery, i like many have found that when switching from one view to another there is a considerable delay in loading what is meant to be seen as a taxiway line and is viewed as a blurry.

 

I recall when you did the Cardiff Airport project with 29Palms for FTX Wales there was a rather late U-Turn in allowing them to rework the ramp and taxi way textures which made that project all the more better than it already was..im so glad you did this because Melbourne and Brisbane both suffer that edge in sharpness on the ground that Cardiff could have very well been a victim of...is there any plan to improve on this with these 2 payware airports?

 

I was also interested to know why maybe this wasn't something that was considered in the development for these 2 big airports (not in the sense of 29palms taking the leading hand but just in the sense of textures actually being made)...im sure you'll agree Cardiff looks fantastic with that 29palms touch...

[Martin Henare]

Simply put a ground poly with 7cm detail would have deemed to be too big a job. YBBN has a hand made customized ground poly apron areas which took many hundreds of hours of work to create, 

 

The principle was to use the real world 7cm imagery for YMML, and has been the bases for the vast majority of Orbx airfields. The alternative is to make synthetic textures, which seems to be a waste when we had such beautiful aerial imagery in the PR. The artistic issue we have with synthetics is that after a short time they look exactly that and become repetitive. But at the end of the day each developer at Orbx works to their own brief.

 

There is no plan at this stage to change the imagery, if so it would come at extra cost due to the huge amount of work required.

[teecee]

For those of us that have mid range and even upper mid range systems the initial YMML was a framerate killer, and Orbx spent many hundreds of hours doing a replacement of the paware version (V2) for which we were all thankful. My personal opinion of the "heavy" airports is that I would much sooner a phortoreal background that I can fly rather that a (perhaps) more detailed hand drawn job which kills my system. Teecee.