Old good FSX

[legoboyvdlp]

But I think we can criticise how it looks... And we can make it look better... Which is why it's fantastic now

[V12]

Ofcourse yes. This critic is very important, without it the developer has not informations, what he could do better.

[Thorsten]

This critic is very important, without it the developer has not informations, what he could do better.

Yeah... developers are generally stupid, incapable of comparing what they see on photographs or in reality to the screen, do not produce ideas of their own and absolutely need other people to do that for them, otherwise they're just lost.

/sarcasm off/

Reality check: When you work on the Concorde - do you need other people to tell you what needs to be tuned with the FDM? Do you need me to point out that the cockpit doesn't look photorealistic? Will you now make it photo-realistic because I gave you this crucial bit of information that you did not have?

Or do you perhaps know already? Could it be that there's other factors at play than 'information what you could do better'?

Do you honestly believe the people who do anything for, say, FG scenery do not know what a photograph looks like? I mean, seriously? Hands down, I am convinced I can tell you about 10 x more faults of FG terrain or sky rendering than you can find - because constantly comparing with reality and stress-testing is part of the development process.

So no, it's not 'information' that's missing - it's time and manpower (and sometimes know-how).

[V12]

Thorsten :
I lost interest in FG, because I found somethink much better. I invest some money, but obtain full support and developer will not say nothing like "If You dislike it, make it better yourself". And it is not M$.

[Thorsten]

I lost interest in FG, because I found somethink much better.

That would be - as I said a number of times before - good for you, but in actual fact is probably a lie because you continue to linger here and treat us to your opinion how bad FG is here and there. So there's little evidence to suggest that you 'lost interest'.

I invest some money, but obtain full support and developer will not say nothing like "If You dislike it, make it better yourself"

With a commercial product you're unlikely to ever talk to the developer - they usually have a customer service to wrap the 'thanks for your opinion but we won't do anything' in really warm words.

[Hooray]

to be fair, back when X-Plane was just a one-man show (well, pretty much) - it also wasn't all that uncommon to talk to Austin (by mail) - actually, the time frame in question overlaps with FlightGear to some degree, it's just that Austin started already in 1993

[Thorsten]

... but given that this thread features FSX, I'm not sure what Austin has to do with anything.

[Michat]

I invest some money, but obtain full support .....

By contraire They've invested in people like you, who "expend" money in a product (bussiness format) by contract & B2Ppolicy where customer support only refers to a product activation, so at first they know who you are.

Beeing the word support a haze therm itself , now the game industry fashion it. Rolling releases are now calling "support" so they promisse you futures updates, only if the money flows. Nowadays there are several cases where they run out of money (piles), game was not delivered, or just missing. Rolling releases vs new product edition vs Mnakeds Add-ons rings.

Support is mostly what you are receiving at here. Support and care. With free updates.

THE REST IS HISTORY

If Meyer with sdk productx edition did it great success was half part merit of the stupidity of MxFlS after the adquisition, launching the naked untested release. I'm still amazed how great just m s o f t done creating such big ring with such a bad hermetic tech support where many of the crashes were OS reg App errors.

Even more amazed how ms have been able to get rid of the "Old good f s x " with benefits cycles, on a master movement, by franchising the Fs backyard. Now Dev Ring belonging and depending of the franchised 3rd party msring absolved.


So V12 be carefull where to put your invest money, because there are bunch of lotters out there, the atmo doesn't perfom such as fluid.

I dare you on friendly competition.
Yours 60 $ vs my 2 cents.

Not been a programmer I did invest 2 cent's in 1996 for FG, just for the necessity to get rid of Ms9toX. Nowadays FG code has stimated value 2 millions $.

Let's say that you pay 60$ for the franchise, you'll tell us how many payers they need to reach 2millions: 33333,333333333. The happy number of the lotters.


I friendly ask you to pay 2 cents for FG 2020 .
What FG is achieved is most than 2 million or 333333.
We are super strong now.
Be part of the history or be franchised by lotters.

29.92

[GinGin]

I lost interest in FG, because I found somethink much better. I invest some money, but obtain full support and developer will not say nothing like "If You dislike it, make it better yourself". And it is not M$.

Did you find something open source much better?
There is no point to compare something for which you pay with a sim developed by volunteers who don’t have necessarily the time to take into account what others want

Of course when you pay a 90 dollars an add on , it’s better for them to not : «  nop sorry, help yourself « 

I am curious, in which payware add on did you make a bug report , and what did they changed?
Having doing that a lot in payware for dcs, it’s far from being as crystal clear as you mentionned ( even when well documented about what should be fixed )

[Bjoern]

Don't worry, guys. FG still has the best out of the box weather engine and shader tricks out there. Neither FS9/X nor X-Plane comes close and I've spent 12+ years with the former and 1.5 years with the latter.

You can still directly e-mail Austin Meyer, by the way. He even asked for it after he introduced some major updates to the flight model earlier this year. And Laminar is generally quite communicative, without all the glossed over big corporate marketing lingo BS used by bigger developers and publishers,

[V12]

I found tool for creating photoscenery. With small amout of effort, result is amazing (eaten disk space too) :

Himalaya, over the Baltoro glacier, K2's south face :



View to south :



Around Mt. Everest, photoscenery seamlessly blended into synthetic ORBX scenery :



All screenshots are from P3D, but working in FSX too. Images are very nice, but extreme disk space hungry. For complete Himalaya You will need 550 GB . Synthetic scenery like ORBX (payware) or TerraEmergency (free) uses only 2GB of textures - much less than photoreal with nice results.

[Thorsten]

Looks much better than that in FG though...

[V12]

That tool can create textures for different seasons and compile it into scenery .bgl file, if user want, it can make lightmap. For better results, You can mask water bodies for wave rendering in the sim. Very amazing and very simply. I know, almost all created photosceneries was created from Google Earth, Virtual Earth or other mapping services and this is on the edge of the law, probably behind that edge.
Another amazing tool is SceneProcessor (freeware), from GIS data can generate vegetation and buidlings for photoscenery. This thing "erase" biggest disadvantage of the photoreal scenery - absence of the autogen vegetations and buildings.

[erik]

Looks much better than that in FG though...

That blue hue on the mountains in the second image, does that actually exist in reality or is it another Disneyfication?

Erik

[V12]

Googlefiction