• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

The World According to Orbx

Status
Not open for further replies.
falcon409

falcon409

Messages
687
Country
us-texas
Having just completed a Waterdrome in SW British Columbia, it has come to my attention that this happens to be an area already covered by Orbx scenery, hence it is not compatible. Does anyone else have a concern that Orbx scenery will become so wide-spread that doing random scenery for your local airport or other airports at least in this hemisphere will be a thing of the past unless you own their scenery?

I won't get into the why's or wherefore's, but I don't support Orbx. I stopped purchasing their products a few years ago and while their products are top notch, I won't purchase any in the future. As they continue to spread across the country, the ability to simply knock out an airport here or there dwindles a bit. Even their new texture package (and pricey it is) has shown to be a problem when color correcting ground textures on another custom airport I did in the New England area. If I don't have the scenery, it makes it difficult to match a photoreal ground texture.

Just wondering if others who do scenery far better than what I produce, see this as a problem in the future.
 
That is a really good question and I too would like to hear from the industry pro's. I think I'm with you on this. In the past I have purchased a few ORBX sceneries and the entire AUS package. I've never been a big fan of the way they do things and their latest offering FTXG is a great example why.

I will not be forced into purchasing an expensive texture pack just for the sake of matching things up. It seems like they are creating an atmosphere of you're either with us or against us... in the developing community. :eek: At least, that's how it feels.

On the other hand, this developing stuff is a business and the things they are doing in the FSX world are ground breaking. They are able to get more from FSX than what the original SDK supports which is what makes this all so controversial.
 
From the outset, let's be clear, I am an ORBX published developer.

It is not necessary to match your scenery to FTX regions, or indeed FTX global. Whether you choose to do this depends on what you perceive your end-users wanting, or what they tell you they want. The final choice is yours.
I can, however, understand the annoyance of completing a project, only to have someone want it done differently. Perhaps this is what you are expressing?

I am bewildered at developer's taking a 'swipe' at another developer's pricing structure, to be honest. That has not been the tone on these forums, and I would have expected better.
The product is priced (considerably) more cheaply than another much older global texture replacement, and so, pitched at an appropriate market price.

I typically find these forums apolitical, so am a little disappointed by the premise of the opening posts and the tacit criticism implied. Perhaps we could save that sort of sentiment for Avsim, where it seems to be the preferred flavour?

.... and no, i don't receive any income from sales of ORBX region products.
 
Last edited:
hcornea said:
From the outset, let's be clear, I am an ORBX published developer.

It is not necessary to match your scenery to FTX regions, or indeed FTX global. Whether you choose to do this depends on what you perceive your end-users wanting, or what they tell you they want. The final choice is yours.

I can, however, understand the annoyance of completing a project, only to have someone want it done differently. Perhaps this is what you are expressing?

I am bewildered at developer's taking a 'swipe' at another developer's pricing structure, to be honest. That has not been the tone on these forums, and I would have expected better.

The product is priced (considerably) more cheaply than another much older global texture replacement, and so, pitched at an appropriate market price.

I typically find these forums apolitical, so am a little disappointed by the premise of the opening posts and the tacit criticism implied. Perhaps we could save that sort of sentiment for Avsim, where it seems to be the preferred flavour?

.... and no, i don't receive any income from sales of ORBX region products.
Click to expand...
I agree, this isn't the place for this, but also let me be clear, I'm hardly a "developer". . .I'm a "hack" who uses what little talent I have to do random freeware scenery that looks better than the default, so I'll criticize where I feel it's warranted. . .I'll try to keep that in check though. Have a nice day.
 
Is this a bash ORBX post or what? As far as scenery is concerned I have neither the interest or expertise to do that stuff but do aircraft modelling, gauges etc. This makes me a user or consumer of ORBX products and I think they are just fine. I spent my working career in real aeroplanes and ORBX scenery generally is sufficiently well done to get a tick from me.

As for other sceneries, yes there are differences as different people use different textures and shades, you have to live with it. For example even REX who also do really good stuff cannot produce the many infinite variations in oceans colours and reefs that exist in the real world, it is not that uniform. A coral reef in a Pacific Island looks different to a reef in the Hawaian area as does the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, so it is always a compromise.

I find ORBX works fine with all the other stuff I have without any issues whatsoever and I have a wide and varied collection of addons in this area.
 
hcornea said:
I typically find these forums apolitical, so am a little disappointed by the premise of the opening posts and the tacit criticism implied. Perhaps we could save that sort of sentiment for Avsim, where it seems to be the preferred flavour?
Click to expand...

If you find these forums apolitical, why you would poke fun at Avsim? :mad:
 
Before this gets out of control, I'm going to close the thread.

It is a problem that very comprehensive and detailed sceneries may make our additional addons difficult to manage. The fault is more with the limitations of FSX, than it is with the other developers.

Orbx in particular is very popular with enthusiasts that like to buy sceneries. If compatibility with Orbx is a design goal, then taking the difficult issues up with Orbx is the best path.

If there is a specific design method that solves a compatibility problem caused by an end-users' use of Orbx, then we'd all like to share it. Just a general complaint posted here won't do much except stir the pot... and get the thread closed.

Dick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top