Beware!! WET FLOOR!!

[NicksFXHouse]

I think what is important is Alrot has taken a machine that is not designed for FSX and made it work... the reflections may not look as good on his machine as they do on others and perhaps that is a source of the criticism being displayed

However, what is important is Alrot has accomplished something and provided some very nice shots.

I for one thank him for his efforts, the great shots he provided in this and all the other threads.

I am sure the water that many seem to focus on look will change as FSX evolves.

[Lazerbeak]

This is how you act and think.

I, on the other hand, try to discern what kind of game I'm playing, instead of generalizing. If I'm playing one of the infinite clones of the ancient quake or a game where the plane I pilot only has to shoot down as many enemies it can before it's shot down itself, then I reason like you myself.

*snip*

As UNreal as it gets.

I'm totaly agree with ashaman...

*snip*

I said once THIS IS NOT A GAME.

Well, these are your opinions, and I have the utmost respect for them. All the same, FS will always be defined as a game to me, and nothing more. If I play it only to have fun, then it's a game to me. I never fly IFR, I never make flightplans, sometimes I don't even use ATC, and I only fly until I get bored. Because of that, FS feels no different to me than a Need for Speed game, only with aeroplanes. You can tack on the word "simulator" to make it sound more classy, but for me, it'll always be just a videogame. Keep in mind that this is only my opinion, and I in no way intend to speak for everyone.

My apologies for derailing the thread here, perhaps it's best to save this discussion for another time.

[vololiberista]

let someone else do a shot of a very wet rwy and see if there is a difference. Alex's pics were effectively of rivers!!!!!
Until M(qualcosa)s or some kind addon expert  sorts out the mess of London, Lukla and other places, I'll stay with FS9. For me it is better to fly over accurately created scenery displayed at medium level rather than see inaccurate scenery at high resolution!!
Those of you who think it's a game can play it so. But, it's rather daft to overdo a special effect to the point that it doesn't actually look like it is supposed to. There are many who crow about FSX but when annalysed properly it doesn't yet come up to FS9 at full throttle with super addons. There are many many pics here to prove that!!
There are so many scenery errors I think M(qualcosa)s should re release as the patch would be enormous!!!!
I can't afford to spend a lot of money on a completely new cutting edge computer just to run one item of software that doesn't yet cut it!
Vololiberista

[alrot]

You also right

[Daube]

MS will never release any patch for the scenery errors.
This is just data. If you are not happy with the way an airport or a place looks in FSX, why don't you import the FS9 addon scenery ?

With FSX, MS is providing a great platform for adding stuff on it, just like FS9 was. They cannot verify the data of every single place in the world, so if they get crappy source data (about airport facilities, or terrain elevation) they just can't do much about it.

Saying that you don't want to switch to FSX because the scenery does not look as precise as you wanted is just like saying that you don't want to go from FS2002 to FS2004 because you don't like the default planes (excepted that in FSX, MS has provided some payware quality planes, but of course nobody cares about that, the orientation of the Lukla runway is more important...)

[vololiberista]

Saying that you don't want to switch to FSX because the scenery does not look as precise as you wanted is just like saying that you don't want to go from FS2002 to FS2004 because you don't like the default planes (excepted that in FSX, MS has provided some payware quality planes, but of course nobody cares about that, the orientation of the Lukla runway is more important...)

Let's imagine that the scenery where "you" live or "have lived" is a complete mess and bears no resemblance to the quality scenery you downloaded in FS9. Would you say the same, or would you feel like me and many others on the forum?
For example I couldn't wait to download ISD Venezia because in FS9 Venezia doesn't even exist!!!
For argument's sake perhaps someone could post a pic of FSX Venezia (if it exists of course!!!)
Vololiberista
PS What upsets people is that the scenery for a particualr place or airport in FS9 is acceptable  whereas in the "upgrade" the scenery has been "downgraded!!!" And that is a lack of attention by the programmers

[Daube]

[quote]

Let's imagine that the scenery where "you" live or "have lived" is a complete mess and bears no resemblance to the quality scenery you downloaded in FS9. Would you say the same, or would you feel like me and many others on the forum?
For example I couldn't wait to download ISD Venezia because in FS9 Venezia doesn't even exist!!!
For argument's sake perhaps someone could post a pic of FSX Venezia (if it exists of course!!!)
Vololiberista
PS What upsets people is that the scenery for a particualr place or airport in FS9 is acceptable

[alrot]

[quote]

Let's imagine that the scenery where "you" live or "have lived" is a complete mess and bears no resemblance to the quality scenery you downloaded in FS9. Would you say the same, or would you feel like me and many others on the forum?
For example I couldn't wait to download ISD Venezia because in FS9 Venezia doesn't even exist!!!
For argument's sake perhaps someone could post a pic of FSX Venezia (if it exists of course!!!)
Vololiberista
PS What upsets people is that the scenery for a particualr place or airport in FS9 is acceptable

[Lazerbeak]

Let's imagine that the scenery where "you" live or "have lived" is a complete mess and bears no resemblance to the quality scenery you downloaded in FS9. Would you say the same, or would you feel like me and many others on the forum?
For example I couldn't wait to download ISD Venezia because in FS9 Venezia doesn't even exist!!!
For argument's sake perhaps someone could post a pic of FSX Venezia (if it exists of course!!!)
Vololiberista
PS What upsets people is that the scenery for a particualr place or airport in FS9 is acceptable  whereas in the "upgrade" the scenery has been "downgraded!!!" And that is a lack of attention by the programmers

I don't want to sound rude, but I can't help but see a flaw in that logic. From what I gather, you dislike FSX's default scenery, because it's not as good as an addon you downloaded for FS9?

If someone's released a better alternative for a bad (or nonexistant) FS9 scenery, it's not that far a stretch of the mind to assume that someone will eventually make an alternative to a bad FSX scenery.

I'm by no means trying to get you to like FSX, and I'd completely understand if you were to complain about a scenery that looked great in (100% default) FS9, but now looks pants in FSX (as is the case with London), but to complain about a 100% default game not looking as good as one that's been loaded with addons seems sort of silly to me. I just don't think it's fair to compare an addon-enriched FS9 to a bare-bones FSX.

Of course, this is just what I understood from your statement, I apologise in advance if I misunderstood.

[krigl]

Nice shots, Alrot! I like the water textures, and the fact that they exist means that someone will no doubt provide alternative ones in the near future which look more realistic.

I doubt if they affect the plane, but at least they look pretty. A lot of planes are hard enough to control on the ground as it is, anyway  ;)

ps. There is already a fix out for London, you can find it on this site in Scenery or Miscellaneous, forgot which. It doesn't adjust the mesh, just paints over it so it looks better... better than nothing though.

[pepper_airborne]

I think it is hypocrite of people to think that once could possible resemble the real in world into such a detail so that the local people like it. But, appareantly these people have no idea what it takes to design a software package.

[vololiberista]

I don't want to sound rude, but I can't help but see a flaw in that logic. From what I gather, you dislike FSX's default scenery, because it's not as good as an addon you downloaded for FS9?

If someone's released a better alternative for a bad (or nonexistant) FS9 scenery, it's not that far a stretch of the mind to assume that someone will eventually make an alternative to a bad FSX scenery.

I'm by no means trying to get you to like FSX, and I'd completely understand if you were to complain about a scenery that looked great in (100% default) FS9, but now looks pants in FSX (as is the case with London), but to complain about a 100% default game not looking as good as one that's been loaded with addons seems sort of silly to me. I just don't think it's fair to compare an addon-enriched FS9 to a bare-bones FSX.

Of course, this is just what I understood from your statement, I apologise in advance if I misunderstood.

My point is this, obviously one can download addons (upgrades, if you will) The default FS9 scenery for London is "acceptable" whereas in FSX it's a NO NO!!
There seem to be from what i have read more ground errors in FSX than in FS9. Why that should be I don't know.!!
I have to say that if I were an addon developer I would be somewhat miffed at having to always correct M(qualcosa)s's shortcomings. It takes a lot of work, time and effort and those people that do it especially for nothing are well congratulated!
I shall wait until I can afford to run FSX properly and hopefully by then Lukla will be on the proper mountain with proper orientation, London may look like London
For me as a real pilot the most pressing upgrade would be traffic separation and speed advisories given by ATC. If someone is clever enough to worm their way into the ATC engine and quote the ICAO regulations on separation and safety to them then I'll be well pleased. You see, for me that's a more important upgrade than the ability to see elephants at 37,000feet or as is shown at the beginning of this thread waterlogged rwy's which in real life would force me to divert!!!!
Vololiberista

[vololiberista]

I think it is hypocrite of people to think that once could possible resemble the real in world into such a detail so that the local people like it. But, appareantly these people have no idea what it takes to design a software package.

I have been involved in the computer industry since 1981 !!
I have a VERY good idea of what it takes. I actually wrote a flight sim for the old BBC computer in 1984!!!
And in recent years I wrote financial interfaces for International Banking systems
Only a public appology will be accepted!!!!!
Vololiberista

[Daube]

Public apology for what ?
I am currently working in software edition and have programmed games myself, and I perfectly agree with what pepper_airborne said.

FSX sceneries are made out of generic data assembled according to some source data collected by the dev team (like SRTM terrain elevations, etc...). Only some special places receive some manual activities for placing special landmarks.

To make a special scenery that is really close to the reality, you need to make stuff that is non generic, like for example the sceneries available at Francevfr.com. Those sceneries involve a lot of persons, a lot of time and a lot of effort, just for one little particular region. To do it for the whole world would take several years, and the final package would cost a fortune.

I'm happy about what we get for 70 euros...

[alrot]

calm down people, Hey vololiberista you been in computer since 1981 ....that's remarkable dude.. I was very young by that time , I was only 16