ANSWERED Vector without Mesh won´t work - mesh is mandatory

[mdeisenr]

Hi,

I was trying various Airports with Vector and ORBX Global activated and UTX Europe deactivated, only using the LC data of it (well I didn´t try any European Airports though).

For example: KGCN, UT25, VNLK

Each of them had major bugs like peaks, obstacles, elevation issues all over the place. Right from the start, I didn´t even have to fly around.

After deactivating and deleting Vector and reactivating UTX, all was fine.

So, despite what we were told, mesh seems to be mandatory and not optional.

Just to let you guys know.

So I´d suggest, "the officials" make a clear statement, that mesh is needed and offer a noticable reduction for FS Global for all, that bought the product before that announcement.

Just my 2 cents - BS or not.

 

[John Venema]

Mesh is not need, but recommended. Read the user guide for clarification on this. Also read the post from Stefan from PILOT'S here: http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/70640-mesh-clarification/

 

We would recommend mesh for anyone who enjoys flight simulation as a hobby, regardless of whether they use Orbx or VECTOR addons, it just makes sense to enhance the world with better terrain definition than the default which ships with FSX/P3D.

 

We are working on a number of solutions to reduce the impact of VECTOR when used without mesh, but in all honesty, please consider purchasing mesh from any number of vendors which conform to a minimum of SRTM resolution.

[MikeT707]

I got into flight simulation in 2001, and the first product that I purchased was a mesh product.  To me, a quality mesh product is just a basic add-on.  Thanks JV and company for the work you put into this.

[katsa]

 

I would say that mesh is mandatory if you are going to USE Vector, although it will RUN without it. Just get one. Period.

 

I haven't ever used 3rd party mesh until now, because I hadn't realised it's real worth. Luckily I purchased FS Global 2010 mesh just before getting FTX Vector. So I don't have anything to complain (if not talking about minor bugs that will hopefully be fixed eventually). Actually I was getting somewhat pissed off because of so many airports having wrong elevation and ruining things both visually and for flying IFR approaches. For me FTX Vector was very welcome.

 

FTX Vector is flawed without accurate mesh with it, just like FS Global is flawed without accurate coastlines and correct elevations. I am very pleased to have finally correct airport elevations. For example, I can fly now approaches to LPMA Madeira as described in charts. (Just try to do that with vanilla FSX and realize at the most critical phase of approach that you are almost below airport altitude..)

 

But everything is not allright yet. My combination screams for proper landclass. I only have LC for Europe (UTX) so I don't bother to fly anywhere else. I think that 3rd party landclass is as mandatory as every other layer of creating proper scenery.

 

Cheers,

Kati H

 

 

Sorry for these little thumbnails. I just don't know how to post larger images. But maybe you can see from these, what you will get when you have all that "mandatory" stuff.

 

Chili coast - FTX Global + Vector + FS Global 2010 Mesh:

 

 

Chili coast - FSX Vanilla:

 

[Miksu77]

Yes, the difference can be seen, looks more real with mesh installed

[High Iron]

Thanks for those comparison shots Kati!

 

I've always wanted to cruise around South America but the default mesh was so bad.

 

I agree that a 3rd party terrain mesh is truly a base add-on requirement, just like we do with weather and AI traffic. We in the community have never balked at these type of add-ons and their associated costs, but instead people get upset about purchasing probably one of the most important foundations of the simulation experience. I agree with J.V., I believe people have gotten spoiled with the FTX Regions because a good high resolution mesh is included with the product. If Orbx did not do this, nobody would be purchasing these regions. They do so because of the huge degree of improvement they provide over stock data. I'm not sure why folks would not want the rest of the globe to look as good as a FTX Region, even if it is covered in crappy default textures. Of course that's what FTX Global is for isn't it. I agree, if one spends the money on lots of add-ons and wants a very realistic simulator experience, ante up and get a good mesh, you will get lots of mileage out of it and never regret doing so. How many of these people would ditch their weather add on products and go back to default? Answer, none. Everyone here would swear by them regardless of brand loyalty. Get a good mesh, and one too could never go back to default after the experience, it's far too much of an upgrade. Just like weather and custom airports.

 

Cheers,

Thad

[Jayson Ng]

I was never a mesh buyer because of all the problems it brings. Large installation footprint, potential performance issues, airport plateaus. I am not too keen in getting real world contours in full detail and happy with just textures and land class and default contours that resemble reality.

So now with Vector, I am forced to buy. But it looks like vector also introduces a lot complications to scenery compatibility just like mesh add-ons. It was all simple and carefree with default mesh and vectors.

Now I'm torn whether to dump vector for more simpler trouble free experience. Or invest in mesh and vector which brings a lot of headaches in the process of getting things right.

[rockliffe]

.

[High Iron]

I was never a mesh buyer because of all the problems it brings. Large installation footprint, potential performance issues, airport plateaus. I am not too keen in getting real world contours in full detail and happy with just textures and land class and default contours that resemble reality.

So now with Vector, I am forced to buy. But it looks like vector also introduces a lot complications to scenery compatibility just like mesh add-ons. It was all simple and carefree with default mesh and vectors.

Now I'm torn whether to dump vector for more simpler trouble free experience. Or invest in mesh and vector which brings a lot of headaches in the process of getting things right.

Airport plateaus occur with a good mesh because the airport elevations are incorrect. FS Global Vector will fix a lot of these by placing the airport at the proper elevation, allowing it to blend in with the now corrected terrain elevation that a add-on mesh provides. Performance should not be too much of an issue as you can control the settings with P3D/FSX with the mesh resolution slider. It will not mess up elevations in the data, just average out more polygons to reduce the count. 24 gigs of data would have been a large installation footprint years ago, but today is it really too big? Problem airports do exist already with default data, so the simulation is still far from perfect. Orbx and PILOT's have set out to correct this faulty data which is a monumental challenge that even Microsoft or L.M. have not re-tackled it.

I believe that this next step is a necessary one. In the end after all the aches and pains are dealt with will render a very large re-do to how the simulator looks. It will also make development easier for others as it attempt to move everyone's simulator to at least a minimum standard in regards to terrain. As you have stated, it's a real pain at the moment, but given time, it will allow for more standardization in terrain data that is currently lacking at the moment. Of course you can just wait for Orbx to complete the globe with their FTX regions, but I fear that would take many, many years.

I would recommend to use VECTOR, it's an investment you have already made and will continue to provide dividends in the form of updates, and get yourself a reasonable third party mesh, ideally FS Global 2010X as it's made to go hand in glove with VECTOR. You will never have to purchase a mesh again and you will be giving yourself less headaches when it comes to somewhat future proofing your installation to future add-on conflicts.

 

Cheers,

Thad

[Tony_A]

The problem with airports sitting on plateaus or down in valleys comes about because MS decided on completely flat runways for all airports. The main runway at Toowoomba in Queensland is on the top of a hill. Elevation at N end is 2077 ft. in the middle 2086 ft. and at S end 2069 ft. The airport chart has a warning that aircraft at either end of the runway may not be able to see each other.  No matter how good a mesh is it still has to be flattened to fit MS runways. Better, more accurate mesh could even make some of these plateaus more pronounced.

 

Cheers Tony 

[High Iron]

Yes, this is a long time known problem, however, sloped runways will not usually create runways on 60' plateaus or trenches, and some of these occurrences I have seen of fairly flat terrain. The continental United States and parts of Canada and Europe are pretty good, but step outside into other regions and these problems are prolific, and are not attributed to sloped runways. I suppose it really all depends on where you fly to see how often it occurs. I good mesh is still always going to yield better results. L.M. has stated they may be looking into the sloped runway problem in the future if there is demand and benefit for it. Let's hope they do.

 

Cheers,

Thad