Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About JimmiG

  • Rank
    Life Member
  • Birthday 06/03/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender:
  • Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I remember. In fact I kept playing FU3 well into the 00's, until better scenery started coming out for FS. Early landclass-based scenery for FS looked too crude and inaccurate to me, but with the Holger meshes and Megascenery, it started looking more attractive and realistic. Then with the OrbX regions I thought we'd reached the peak of realistic scenery in flight sims. The regions still look great, but TrueEarth is once again on another level. It's just a shame we can't also have AI traffic and ATC around all the smaller airports like in FU3 and FSX/P3D. I always miss the Cessnas and Pipers calling out their positions in X-Plane.
  2. Film isn't 24 discrete still pictures per second. Each frame has a certain exposure time, and it captures everything that happened in the time span that the shutter was open (ie. motion blur), so the brain gets tricked into perceiving it as fluid motion. The limit of diminishing returns is probably somewhere closer to 180 - 200 FPS when talking discrete, digitally generated images. However 60 FPS is usually satisfactory on a regular screen, while 90 FPS is required in VR to avoid headaches and other ill effects.
  3. As someone who also bought the original AFS, this development (or lack thereof) unfortunately doesn't surprise me. It's pretty typical Ipacs to promise lots of stuff and then gradually abandon the product without implementing most of its promises. Basic things that were hinted during Early Access still haven't been implemented, like a better weather system and water masks, let alone more advanced features like ATC. It wouldn't surprise me if they were to announce AFS3 and once again promise all those features. That said I enjoy AFS2 for what it is. It loads quickly, you can go up and fly immediately without worrying about any realistic procedures, and it looks decent and performs well without tweaking config files or shaders. It's like a mobile, casual flight sim, but on PC.
  4. That was quick and just in time for the weekend! The download and installation went a lot quicker than Washington too, thanks to the new OrbX Central. Is KVUO compatible with this out of the box?
  5. Speaking of "internal experiments", have you looked at other options than JPG for the lossy compression stage? For example, WebP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP) can produce similar quality to JPG at half the file size, and consequently better quality at anything over half the file size. There's also pngcrush, that can optimize PNG images without losing any quality. The file size would still be larger than the current JPG's, but much smaller than raw DDS's.
  6. I agree about the compression artifacts. It's one of my few complaints with TrueEarth. It's not super-noticeable, but when you take ~200 GB of textures and compress them down to ~30 GB for download, compression artifacts are inevitable. In some cases, you can clearly see the JPEG-like artifacts while flying. Right now, it looks good enough, but if the resolution is also reduced, on top of the already existing compression artifacts, it would be a devastating blow to my enjoyment of "low and slow" flying within the region. Of course it's understandable that OrbX want to reduce the download size, both to keep their own costs down and to offer manageable download sizes for their customers. Again, one solution might be to offer a paid downloads for customers who want the uncompressed, highest quality version, and who have the bandwidth to download hundreds of gigabytes...
  7. Since the Z16 images are half the size, it's not a fair comparison. Here they are at the same size: Z16: Z17: I suggest downloading them in separate tabs and switching between them. I think the sharpened Z16 version looks noticeably worse, and it's going to look even worse at 500 - 2500 feet in a high-wing aircraft. There's less detail overall, and the sharpening adds noticeable noise and ghosting to the image to the point where just a resized texture with no processing would look more natural. Also, I don't spend 95% of my time in urban areas. It's more like 5%, with the other 95% in the mountains and plains. If you're going to downgrade the quality, it's essential that you still provide the original product I paid for as an option. If hosting fees are the problem, at least allow us to pay for the download and keep it backed up ourselves.
  8. Indeed I remember your custom airports from the FU3 days I have to say though, that even without the GA AI traffic, XP11+TE is the closest I've come to recreating the "magic" of that sim back in the day.
  9. I've seen that before, but I think it's mostly airliner traffic? What I really miss are the Cessnas etc. doing touch n go's, correctly calling out their positions on the radio etc. like you get with the FTX NA airports and the NA GA traffic pack.
  10. It's the same here, X-Plane just seems to run better and has fewer issues these days. What I really miss from P3D/FSX is the AI traffic and ATC. Yes, it's flawed and not very realistic, but it just feels so immersive when you can see other aircraft flying around the pattern, hopping between airports etc. and hearing them call out their positions. X-Plane feels kind of lonely sometimes. Don't know if it would be possible to develop some kind of dynamic, animated AI traffic like the FTX GA package for P3D, maybe using a plugin and scripts, but that would probably be too complex to implement. Expanded multiplayer might be an option, but then you depend on there actually being people in the area you're flying (and on them not behaving like massive tools).
  11. My guess is that it's not as easy as pressing the "Convert to X-Plane" button
  12. My second flight in TE WA. I have a feeling it's not going to be the last
  13. Just a couple from my first experience of TE WA.
  14. Glad to see this finally happening. The default 2005-era autogen buildings in P3D/FSX sure are in dire need of a refresh.
  15. Many airports already look pretty good, but some, mostly smaller ones, don't align with the photographic scenery due to slightly wrong runway position or heading. Since TE is based on actual photos, the problem is clearly the airports, not the base scenery. I think the best thing to do is contact the authors of any problematic airports at https://gateway.x-plane.com/. Any fixes then get automatically included for everyone in future X-Plane updates so you don't have to keep track of and manually download dozens or hundreds of fixed airports. Of course, full-blown airport packages from OrbX and other third parties are nice to have, but the "lego brick" airports in X-Plane look really good as long as they align with the photographic textures.
  • Create New...