Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Forgive me if this is a little blunt, I promise it is not intended to be a provocative post but:

Have the Orbx devs just copied their sceneries and are releasing them as MSFS products? I've seen some FSElite exclusive previews this morning (on ultra quality) and I am very underwhelmed.

 

  • EGNM - if you look outside the front of the terminal building the ground textures are VERY low resolution and all of the vehicles outside the terminal and in the car parks are all misplaced. Yes I know these are outside the airport and not really seen when conducting a serious flight, but if anyone looks down during takeoff they will see those areas.
  • Both EGLC and EGNM - The taxiways and grass appear to be just blurred together and don't have a crisp edge as far I can see.
  • London POIs - Looking great in the day even with the height issues of a few buildings, but the night lighting is horrendous. Those buildings seem to have 5000 watt bulbs in every window. It looks like they've just been transplanted from the TrueEarth series which also suffer from this glowing issue. The stand out against the default night lighting like they're made of pure light.

 

I am usually a massive fan of Orbx and Orbx sceneries, and I was ready to spend on day one, but these "ultra quality" demos have left me with a bitter taste. If it's true that Orbx devs have taken to porting files from other sims then I'm very disappointed in the decision, and the decision has been reflected in the low quality we've seen in these previews.

Again, I'm not trying to be provocative and I would love to purchase these products, but with the quality issues they have at the moment, they just don't measure up to the standards that Orbx devs have set previously or those set by the scenery within the new sim (and yes I speak from first hand experience).

I hope the forum admins / devs view these comments as constructive and not just a negative rant, but it's difficult to remain objective when you feel passionately about a companies products and feel let down this close to the finish line.

 

Edit/Additional: I do not expect 100% perfect replicas of the real world for the reasonable prices Orbx are offering, but these issues are nothing that cannot be solved with a little more care and attention to detail. Also, if the decision is motivated by an early cash flow from the sim, I'd rather spend more money on the higher quality that we've come to expect from Orbx.

Thanks for reading.

 

Phill

Edited by Phill Morgan
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not provocative in the least,...simply your take after viewing the content.  Simply so!  I don't think that mine, or your viewpoints on this or any current MSFS topic will truly sway or affect another's this or that.  We all come to this sim from all different usage and expectation vectors...

 

I hope your constructive critique might be looked at...and if deemed by Orbx, to be 'missed that'...they will attend to it.

 

Looking forward to my above mandate this coming Tuesday!  My vector...not necessarily yours..(large smile).

 

Cheers,

Edited by Orbx Flyer
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not privy to the products in question but I can tell you Orbx doesn't have access to unlimited imagery quality, and compromises have to be made for most airports.  In a very few situations high quality imagery still leaves the shirt on the developer's back, but for most, the cost of the highest resolution imagery is prohibitive so often lower qualities have to be included.

 

Not to mention wherever textures can be set to improve frame rates without reducing the overall experience of a 'flight simulator' they will be.  Note the use of the term flight simulator, in which the overall simulation of an aviation experience is the primary objective, rather than an architectural or engineering simulation.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, John Dow said:

Not privy to the products in question but I can tell you Orbx doesn't have access to unlimited imagery quality, and compromises have to be made for most airports.  In a very few situations high quality imagery still leaves the shirt on the developer's back, but for most, the cost of the highest resolution imagery is prohibitive so often lower qualities have to be included.

 

Not to mention wherever textures can be set to improve frame rates without reducing the overall experience of a 'flight simulator' they will be.  Note the use of the term flight simulator, in which the overall simulation of an aviation experience is the primary objective, rather than an architectural or engineering simulation.

 

Thanks for the reply and I can appreciate your view point. However, if Orbx does not have access to very high ortho image quality, wouldn't it be better to create your own texture of what is displayed on the ortho rather than use low resolution ortho imagery directly? I'm not as skilled as any of the devs that are part of Orbx, but even I could take a satellite view of car park and create a high resolution texture using default/standard materials that would look better than the attempt to use low res Ortho directly.

If I'm being perfectly honest, the products feel like they're being rushed. I know there is no public release date yet, but given these issues are on the screenshots which have been placed on the marketing pages on the Orbx store, it's safe to say we're near. It's just my opinion of course and I'm very open to reading everyone's thoughts and adjusting my own expectations based on those thoughts, but reading some comments on FSElite, my viewpoint is shared by a fair few customers.

Edited by Phill Morgan
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John Dow said:

Not privy to the products in question but I can tell you Orbx doesn't have access to unlimited imagery quality, and compromises have to be made for most airports.  In a very few situations high quality imagery still leaves the shirt on the developer's back, but for most, the cost of the highest resolution imagery is prohibitive so often lower qualities have to be included.

 

Not to mention wherever textures can be set to improve frame rates without reducing the overall experience of a 'flight simulator' they will be.  Note the use of the term flight simulator, in which the overall simulation of an aviation experience is the primary objective, rather than an architectural or engineering simulation.

 

In this case if you look at FS2020 EGNM in the FSElite video and compare with the topdown EGNM view for the X-Plane scenery from OrbxDirect website the car parks in X-Plane are very crisp, the textures are fantastic. Which ever way you cut it, the FS2020 version is not only a poor port, but the ground texture quality, some models and asset placement here has taken a significant nose dive. Just saying what I'm seeing.

https://orbxdirect.com/product/egnm-xp11

 

 

Edited by dtrjones
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BradB said:

I dunno , LOWI looks pretty good to these old tired eyes ......:):(:D

 

Cheers

 

John

I also see, what the other two chaps are seeing, as well as the mountain faces are very low res surrounding the port.  Just sayin',  from what I see...and I agree with his Xplane assessment and comparison.

Edited by Orbx Flyer
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BradB said:

I dunno , LOWI looks pretty good to these old tired eyes ......:):(:D

 

Cheers

 

John

 

Yes, the airport itself does look superb (as expected from Jarrad). But what I have been able to see of the surrounding area in preview videos looked inferior to the already released LOWI versions from Orbx. Remember those versions, especially the P3d and the more the XP version cover hundreds of square kilometres of high resolution terrain, not only the airport itself. Some of the mountains (well inside the P3d and XP coverage) I have seen in a MSFS preview did not look overwhelmingly good, low res mesh and low res rextures, at least from the distance. Also the streets and roads in the airport vicinity which can be seen in one of the YouTube videos look inferior to XP, P3d and Aerofly. I have a hunch that the MSFS version of Orbx' LOWI will only cover the airport itself, leaving the surrounding to default MSFS.

 

Edited by wolfko
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2020 at 8:50 AM, John Dow said:

 Note the use of the term flight simulator, in which the overall simulation of an aviation experience is the primary objective, rather than an architectural or engineering simulation.

Well, in that case, there really wouldn’t be any need for Orbx products at all.  Orbx exists to make our simulation environment more realistic.  When developers mention the extraordinary new features a new sim will bring, I expect said products to be at least at or above the quality of the older sim, not sub-par.  Again, I am very happy to purchase Orbx addons for this new sim.  But... I do expect a quality job to be done, especially from a company such as Orbx that prides itself on the quality of it’s scenery products, and also for having worked with MSFS in development of the new simulator.

 

Now the good news... These issues are fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.  Nothing that can’t be ironed out with a bit of TLC.  

Edited by KORDATC
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a little worried about this - I was extremely excited for KSBA since I fly in and out of it pretty often and the KSBA pack for the other simulators comes with Santa Barbara modeled as well. Looking at their "coming soon" page, you can see the MSFS version is missing a number of bullet points about the mountains being modeled in high res, the cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta having high res imagery and with points of interest, and the Channel Islands having been modeled well with 1 or 2 bush runways...

 

They're rushing these and it may hold me off on the purchase. I'm curious if it's a rush to sell or something to do with the SDK not being fully released. Surely a mix?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real world you would never be flying so close to a building. Why therefore does the building need to be more accurate? A view of the building from at least 500 feet would be more realistic for VFR flyers and at least two to three thousand feet for big tin jockeys.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, flyingfish55 said:

In the real world you would never be flying so close to a building. Why therefore does the building need to be more accurate? A view of the building from at least 500 feet would be more realistic for VFR flyers and at least two to three thousand feet for big tin jockeys.

It feels like part of the issue is that people are expecting to be able to be at ground level and still have high detail. As far as being a sim is concerned I'll never get close enough to see low resolution textures away from airports and they look fine from any sensible height you'd be flying. From a realism point of view we wouldn't be flying that low over London anyway. Microsoft look like they're going to be attracting a new gamer based audience with this title who will be less likely to care about following any rules and expect everything to be high resolution close up. It's a new platform and both developers and customers may take some time to work out what's expected.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like coming in to an addon high quality airport.. Looks great as you approach but things like car parking looks bad at a certain height then once you land and taxi the buildings look great and the car park don't matter because you can't see it.. I like it to look great or realistic and a sensible flight height..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Wonderbadger said:

It feels like part of the issue is that people are expecting to be able to be at ground level and still have high detail. As far as being a sim is concerned I'll never get close enough to see low resolution textures away from airports and they look fine from any sensible height you'd be flying. From a realism point of view we wouldn't be flying that low over London anyway. Microsoft look like they're going to be attracting a new gamer based audience with this title who will be less likely to care about following any rules and expect everything to be high resolution close up. It's a new platform and both developers and customers may take some time to work out what's expected.

 

I'll leave it there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...