VERY low altitude flying!

Yeah, I am a smart-arse. F1 2011 by Codemasters is a very impressive ‘game’ for the PC. You can even fly if you get your braking points wrong.

In researching it, I almost accidentally bought the PS3 version, however fortunately for me I came across some scathing reviews of it, there are some shocking jaggies due to very poor anti-aliasing in the PS3 version.

The pc version is getting excellent reviews though, and even better, it was only $49 on steam, compared to the usual overpriced 70-80 for the consoles. Come on Sony, wake up to yourselves! It ain’t the 1980’s anymore. Oh and as I’ve said before, kill that Vita portable crap before it kills YOU. Between Android PS2 emulators and iPad/iPhone domination, you just won’t succeed. I digress…

Below are some pictures of my local Formula One track down in Albert Park, Melbourne, including close ups of one of our favourite haunts, the Melb. Sports and Aquatic Centre, stunningly realised in 3D behind all the rain.

The video shows you how well this game runs on my (now) slightly above average PC. I have all its settings MAXED out, and it still runs at 90fps without fraps! If I didnt use my PS3 for hd video recording, I might scrap it. No wonder pc gaming is starting to take off again, these consoles are getting very long in the tooth nowadays. The only thing the console is really good for is its controllers, which I’ve been able to connect to the pc and use for driving.

Oh well, another diversion again. This WILL keep me addicted for a fair while, I’ll be posting any good videos or photos of the most spectacular tracks/crashes along the way

Seeya soon

Simon

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertisements

Manhattan X, VRS F-18E and some ships..

Pardon me for an absence of posts lately – I’ve been a little distracted!

The VRS  F-18E, available here, is verily marvellous, deep, complex and has an excellent flight model/feel, as verified by real pilots. I’m in love, so have neglected you all!

I bought the Manhattan X scenery from Aerosoft, as well as the FSDreamteam KJFK airport, which is situated nearby. Thought I’d really test my i7 920 system to the max. Pleasantly pleased with the results, with the airport allowing over 20-25 fps and the dense city 25-28 fps. At night it gets lower, and just as you take off you get a second or two at 18, but it’s hardly noticeable.  The FSDT airport is pretty good, I think overpriced for the relative lack of detail compared to Orbx’s efforts, but it’s still worth it for anyone like me who will make this a regular destination. The Traffic X traffic works very well with it to boot.

I’ve never been to NYC, always wanted to, so I’m flying around the area a great deal, enjoying the dawn/dusk and marvelling at how dense this area of humanity is, let alone the confusing array of airports. Manhattan X is famous, and justifiably so. Never seen so many scenery objects in my life. And now we modern PC users can get more than 10fps – Maybe I should have said Manhattan X is ‘infamous’ for that reason.

With the F-18 being carrier capable, I did my research and found this amazing freeware carrier package by Javier Fernandez. Dare I say better than the payware Xplane version? Only problem is that it does not have a rolling deck, so landings are too easy..sort of. A handy free ship placement addon,  AICARRIERS,  makes things even nicer, you can have 10 ships all around you, brilliant.

These are the best of the shots I took along the way. I had taken some video, but wasn’t happy with the stuttering result, which I’ve now fixed by using Nvidia Inspector to force my GPU to control antialiasing rather than FSX.

I’m finding the F18 deep, with landings and takeoffs a challenge to perfect. I still miss the feel of a moving mass of air under you in Xplane, but that loss is negated by the other good stuff, like the scenery and the stupidly detailed reflections on the livery of that 18!  All a great diversion while waiting for Xplane10 to get out.

Simon

 

 

 

 

X+S+R 015: PMDG and AEROSOFT panel images

Mateus has passed along the following imagery from the PMDG x737 and Aerosoft’s Airbus A320, and after flying the two for a while leans toward the Airbus as the more engaging ACF of the two. Let’s take a look at his images now.

  • In his first image, the panel feels expansive and accurate, and even the floor/rudder pedal area is cleanly modeled, and with no rough edges between meshes evident;
  • Hard to say from this angle, but the top edge of the front windshield should line up with that of the side glass, unless interior details makes the lines not match up;
  • The slotted Fowler flaps seem to reach a full 40 degrees. By contrast, the EADT x737 in X-Plane seems to have flaps that on extend to about 20-25 degrees, visually anyway;
  • And the interior aspect of the leading edge slats is remarkably well detailed;
  • While the night panel images look quite muted and dim, this is more in line with real world cockpits than some of the garishly lit versions of the 737 we’ve seen in XP,
  • and the center quadrant just appears about perfect in this light.

Now let’s compare the 737 to some Airbus images:

  • In dim exterior light even details snap to, and shadowing around the throttle is just very nice indeed;
  • The slide out laptop desk is well done, textures very subtle;
  • Overhead? Too muted?

  • Exterior shadowing excellent;
  • Note the beacon illuminating the interior aspect of the right landing gear in the second image.

LIT panels seem well provided for too, but there’s a fair amount of difference seen between this 320 and Peter Hager/Ramzzess’s effort for the A380, with color and clarity the two big differences I see.

Mateus also included these images of an F16, which look decent, and with a nice sense of 3D “space” in the working environment. Text in the HUD is legible too, which is not always the case.

Very nice LIT panel too.

One thing again strikes me: the efficiency of large teams making ACF. One or two vs five or six, or more. How many people are working on an ACF at PMDG? With development cycles of three to four years now looking more and more like the norm, especially with smaller teams working on ultra complex ACF, if the ACF is less than well received developers will have no product depth to fall back on. That’s a very risky development model.

Well, more next time. Fly safe, and we’ll see ya soon.

X+S+R 012: Aerosoft and XPFR take-on LFPO Paris Orly

Aerosoft’s Mega-Airport Scenery Packs provides some of the best scenery options for enthusiasts flying in MsFS based SIMs, and will soon be available (or so it’s rumored) for users in X-Plane. These efforts have a tremendous reputation for providing ultra-high quality, very immersive ground environments, while X-Plane has garnered a reputation for less than stellar scenery files – generally speaking. This disparity of “opinion” got us thinking: Is this situation real, or simply overblown hype? We’ve heard a lot from people on “both sides” of this debate, so much so that we wondered how one of Aerosoft’s current offerings might compare to an airport X-Plane users regularly cite as “one of the best”.

We chose LFPO Paris Orly for this comparison, and used Aerosoft’s payware LFPO Orly and French-based freeware developer XPFR’s LFPO scenery file, but on the surface this appears an unfair match-up.

Why?

Well, obviously Aerosoft is a large, very successful corporate venture and the file is payware, and relatively expensive payware at that, while XPFR is a group of dedicated freeware developers making all the airports in France available to users in X-Plane. Furthermore, not only is this file is freeware (as are, indeed, all their products), it’s also several years old. Still, XPFR’s LFPO has until quite recently been their most popular download, and even if only subjectively speaking, this file has long been regarded as one of the very best airports in X-Plane – and still is by quite a few people. My guess is that there are really very few add-ons in XP that are held in higher regard, at least by most users, so we’re looking at these two files with only one thought in mind: how does one of the best airports in FsX stack up against one of the best in X-Plane?

And that’s it! No hidden agenda…no ulterior motive. No “this one is better because”, or “that one could use x,y, and z improvements.” Let’s just look and see what they ARE, not what they “should be”, or “might have been” – so let’s look at both without all the noise that attends the usual snarky political infighting that commonly follows such a look.

Okay? Let’s walk through this slowly and take a look around and one step at a time, and just a reminder: most images in this post are quite large, so just click to enlarge!

+++++

Getting Acquainted

And as is our custom around Chaos Manor, we’ll start by looking over the available ground charts and overhead imagery from Google Earth, as this lends valuable reference points and some context for discussion. Charts first:

And Google’s imagery:

A few early comments are in order here. First, this is indeed a huge and very complex airport. The roadways and parking structures by themselves form an impossibly complex maze of visual chaos, and this is a good thing for SIM developers to try and replicate in their work. As we’ve harped on this topic often at XP+10-Reviews there’s little need to mention more than this: visual chaos is good to include in-SIM as it produces distractions that all pilots need to be able to deal with. A SIM is the perfect environment to learn to deal with this often confusing pandemonium, and ALL recreational SIM platforms have in the past failed miserably in this regard. Real airports are simply full of moving objects and confusing lights, while SIM airports tend to be static constructs that are placid and dull in comparison.

Second, concerning the last image just above with the EasyJet A319, this is from Google Earth’s Street View, and LFPO is completely covered in this regard. You can go into GE and simply travel all around the grounds and terminals, rotating your view and checking out all the detail you could ever wish for. If you’d like a more detailed look at the buildings than we can provide here, Street View is where you need to go next.

And now, let’s look at the airports from overhead, in each SIM.

  1. Aerosoft in FsX with default scenery around the airport visible:

And X-Plane, with XPFR’s LFPO and with default scenery elements visible:

Observations? FsX looks very similar to Google’s imagery; XP’s rendering looks like a 90s vintage video game. Aerosoft’s file has included the all important visual context that surround the immediate airport, thereby enhancing immersive realism. Ignoring issues of flight models and framerates, just ask yourself this: which would you rather use as a training aid?

Now, let’s look at the main terminal building in each SIM, looking from east to west. First up, Aerosoft’s version:

And here’s the comparable view rendered by XPFR’s file from within X-Plane 9.70:

Next, let’s run through some daylight images around the main terminal area in Aerosoft’s creation (again, click to enlarge images):

A couple of quick comments come to mind right off the bat:

Aerosoft’s –

  • buildings are accurately scaled, and appear to have excellent textures;
  • roadways are a combination of ortho texture and 3D objects, and are expertly shadowed. Only a few small areas in the parking lots look like unconvincing “ortho” textures;
  • ramps and parking lots are otherwise realistically filled with static aircraft and other objects.

In the sequence just above, the multi-tiered roadways are quite obviously not simple textures. The effect is striking, and gives the main terminal building total visual credibility. It looks and feels like a congested urban airport. The Dodo Bell Jetranger was getting 30+ FPS, BTW.

Alright, let’s take a quick look around XPFR’s main terminal area, working our way in from the surrounding cityscape, which is very well rendered indeed:

A few observations concerning this scenery for X-Plane:

XPFR’s –

  • buildings are reasonable recreations of the originals, but not exactly so;
  • the textures suffer from stretching and are quite blurry in places, especially when you move in close;
  • the roadways included do not reflect what is on the ground – Period – and detract from the overall success of this effort;
  • ramps and aprons are very well done.
  • With XPs object render settings at maximum levels, the city around the airport is rendered very well, and provides a nice context, albeit with an extreme performance hit on even newer PCs.

And with these comments in mind, a few more images from XP to consider, especially texture clarity and scale of buildings and roadways:

The Night Landscape

Now let’s turn our attention to the facility at night. Aerosoft first:

Still the overall first impression holds: this looks like a congested urban airport on a hot August night! Some more thoughts and observations?

Aerosoft’s –

  • ramps a perfectly rendered, their LIT textures a work of art;
  • buildings and Jetways produce multiple shadows from numerous light sources, and pools of light are evenly tapered, producing realistic shaded effects that enhance realism;
  • roofs are shadowed and textured to accurately reflect point light sources, but some are too dark while others appear well lit.

Now, some night shots in X-Plane:

Impressions? XPFR’s scenery file is just too dark, and:

  • the ramps aren’t LIT and are rendered black,
  • buildings are inadequately LIT and details are lost as a result,
  • the LIT textures that are employed are uniform and show little directional variety or variation in light intensity
  • light fall-off on roof-tops is limited to just a few small textures, hence the buildings appear almost black from above, and ground objects are almost invisible, lost in darkness.
Yet even so XPFR’s file has a certain utilitarian minimalist feel about it. It gets the job done with little fuss and is certainly useable, but taxiing around the ramps in all that darkness is a bit of a challenge!

One key element of both these scenery files lies just beyond the airport boundaries: the City of Lights… Paris itself… and both platforms offer a similar approach to the subject. Again, let’s look at FsX’s rendition of Paris first, using default textures and whatever the Aerosoft file has thrown into the mix:

There are some auto-gen structures on the ground, a few extras like Notre Dame, but overall the city is sparsely rendered, rather lackluster and dull. What about after the sun goes down?

Note the view just above, and compare to a similar vantage from XP you’ll find a few images down. Some impressions? This is after all the default landscape in FsX, and yet the city has a bombed-out look, with flattened sections of glowing landscape next to standing buildings. The net effect is not very good.

And so let’s be charitable and say that the default LIT landscape in FsX is somewhat innocuous, and could be improved.

Okay, let’s look at XPFR’s Paris:

Above, the image you should compare to the FsX version, an oft overlooked relationship between monuments in Paris, seen in the highlighted box above, from the new pyramid at the Louvre’s entry court to the Grand Arch de la Defense, passing through the smaller Arch, the Place de la Concorde, and the main Arch…and all perfectly rendered in X-Plane.

And another image to consider: the major architectural triumphs of Paris (above), including the Grand Palais (right), the Eiffel Tower, the Pont Alexander III, and les Invalides with Napoleon’s tomb far left beyond, and again, perfectly executed, and the city a well rendered and complex urban environment.

XPFR’s Paris is a peerless tour de force, and a stunning achievement in any SIM. I simply can’t imagine X-Plane without this file. Looking around this cityscape you can simply see and understand that with proper add-on development XP COULD BE the equal of FsX in this regard.

CONCLUSIONS?

The images tell the story and there’s very little we can add about the comparison between the two platforms that hasn’t been said before. It’s like a match-up between a professional sports team and a talented local school squad…comparing landscapes and airport files in FsX to version 9.xx of X-Plane is almost a pointless exercise – except that XP wants to be taken seriously as a viable platform in the SIM marketplace. It remains competitive as a SIM platform simply because it has a demonstrably more accurate flight model, yet it remains at a competitive disadvantage because third-party add-on developers have been slow to embrace the platform and create the scenery files needed to make the environment a viable option for gamers who crave a more immersive experience. It’s almost a Catch-22 situation, but…

…Laminar’s X-Plane has one good chance just ahead to capture market share: the release of X-Plane 10, which promises to build on previous strengths and address acknowledged weaknesses, namely deficient scenery elements. The new version is slated for release this Christmas (2011), and a lot hinges on a successful product introduction.

So… The real valid comparison between these two airports has yet to be made, and won’t be made until XP10 is up and running, but will XP10 address scenery deficiencies well enough to take on FsX? Will third-party add-on developers cross over to XP in the numbers needed? Well Carenado has crossed over, and successfully too, and Aerosoft’s pending foray into XP is a highly anticipated affair!

And while time will tell, Laminar has simply got to get it right this time out.

Why?

Because the question here that is most germane, and that has not been asked yet, concerns MicroSoft. Let’s ignore that FsX and groups like Aerosoft have developed huge market momentum, because MicroSoft has shelved further development of MsFS. Third-party add-on developers are now stuck with FsX as it is, and they can tweak it and manipulate it’s basic architecture all they want, but the basic problem of a less than optimal flight physics/model will remain. That’s the program’s Achille’s heel, where FsX will always remain weak compared to X-Plane.

So…the Big Question? What impact will MicroSoft’s new MsFlight have on this dynamic, and will the multi-player, gaming oriented new kid on the block somehow make these concerns irrelevant?

The tertiary concerns? Will MsFS developers be able to get in on this new action, and will they in effect have to start from scratch? Or will MsFlight be a closed platform, not open to third party development in a way and to the degree that previous MS platforms have been? If that’s the case, these developers might find that developing for X-Plane is a viable way forward for them. Product innovation and development for a new platform? That equals expansion, and that equals new markets to explore, more money to be made.

Now there’s some food for thought.

We’ll end this little exercise with a little bit of a teaser. Simon is working on tweaking the Paris landscape in FsX with a very powerful scenery enhancement program. We’ll post additions to this article soon. In the meantime, if you have anything you’d like to share just drop us a comment.

Thanks for coming along, and we’ll see you again soon. Chip

+++++

The Aerosoft LFPO file is available here: http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd480!0,5920563760,10885

System requirements for FSX:
Microsoft Flight Simulator X (SP2, Acceleration or Gold Edition)
Windows 7, Vista, XP
Processor with 3.0 GHz (Core2Duo Intel recommended)
2 GB RAM
3D graphic card with 256 MB, recommended 512 MB
Download-Size: 300 MB
Installations-Size: 540 MB

Current download price, in USD: 29.87

+++++

XPFR’s freeware version of LFPO for X-Plane is available here:

http://xpfr.org/index.php?body=scene_accueil&sc=106

The freeware Paris scenery files are here:

http://xpfr.org/index.php?body=scene_accueil&sc=110

X+S+R 010: The Rock

Simon has downloaded a very affordable AEROsoft Gibraltar – and he’s impressed. Framerates with the PMDG 737 were very good, in the high 20s and 30 range, and other ACF even higher. Detail impressive, the night LIT landscape immersive and dynamic. There’s good building variety and waterfront development looks very accurate. The only downside? The Rock doesn’t look all that impressive to Simon.

Also noted and worth mentioning now, Orbx is changing scenery development tactics. Read this update and be sure to take in the images in this post as they’ll give you a fine indication of where this development group is headed.

Now, let’s look at Simon’s images over The Rock!

So, what does the Orbx announcement tell us about things in general? Are there things we need to sit up and take note of as a result of this notice? Is this cause for alarm?

Well… If it takes two devs 12 to 18 months to crank out a huge airport like KSEA or KPDX, and the same two devs can make three smaller airports in a similar time frame, what tactic do you think is going to generate the most revenue?

Does this signal a shift in FsX away from big airport development? Well, one dev making the move is a business strategy, not a trend, but if other devs follow suit? We’ll be watching the scene, keeping an eye out!

Simon will have more soon, so stay tuned. ‘Til then, fly safe… and we’ll seeya next time: Chip

Battle of the Helicopters – FSX Versus Xplane

Ok, I’ve had time to survey the new world of FsX helicopters for awhile now, and feel confident in reporting back to you all with a moderate level of experience.

Searching through the various flightsim retailers, I can certainly appreciate the huge variety of helos available for FsX. Many look great, but when you dig deeper and go searching for opinions in the forums, it seems that there’s not many truly great helos.

Funny about that, it’s probably similar in Xplane land. What does it have? Well of course, the high achiever is Nils Danielsson’s BK-117, a seriously detailed work of art, with an excellent flight model/feel. Then we have the Dreamfoil 206, which is quite well-regarded. Then what else? Mainly just high quality freewares. Nicola, one of Xplane’s recognised helo specialists did a great post just today, recommending the best helos to a newcomer, here.

In the first week of my FSX exploration, I bought the Nemeth Designs MD500. Why? Well I’m an avid listener of the Fsbreak podcast, and recalled Mark Stewart being very impressed with their models.

Not sure if I picked the wrong model, but as you’ll see from the pictures below, the 500 is not that visually impressive for a $26 payware. Ok the commandos look cool, but the 3D pit is almost 2D compared to Xplane’s average models, and Nils’ 117 virtually pokes your eyes out with it’s beautifully constructed gauges.

I also found the flight model very disappointing. Far too easy to fly, I did some perfect takeoffs and landings straight away. Helos are MEANT to be frustrating, like learning to ride a bike or drive a car for the first time. You are meant to jump with glee IF you actually land without leaving a 2 ft crater where your $2million craft used to be. Reading some of the review of the other helos from Nemeth, I’m afraid everyone is complimenting them on how easy their models are to fly. Maybe I’m wrong? I’ll never know if you don’t chime in..

Here’s a quick video I just did of the MD500. Watch how smooth the takeoff is – I can tell you, it’s not coz of my skillz!

Before I gave up on FSX for helo flying, I posted a request for good quality recommendations over at the Avsim forums. Success, I received a few consistent recommendations (Wow, they’re really helpful over there). One recommendation that stood out was the ‘Dodosim’ (gotta love that name) Bell 206, available here.

Another that was well-respected was the Seahawk/Jayhawk from Aerosoft, as well as the Bell 412 from Cera Simaircraft.

Ha, well I might eventually try those 2 but I also hear that Dodo is working on a Huey to be released this year…

Due to the common acclaim for the Dodosim, I went for that, and did not regret it. For a taste of how deep this sim is, here’s a link to their publicly available manual:

http://www.dodosim.com/img/x206/mandraftx206.zip

Let’s just say that I’m yet to start manually, indeed progress from sim mode 1, ‘baby bottle suck mode’, to 2, 3, 4 and 5! I feel like I never need to buy another helicopter, this is something I can slowly grow into and appreciate all its subtleties. Sheesh, it feels real enough at level 1, god knows what it’s like at full sim level 5.

Below is a video featuring the helicopter. I hope it captures some of the ‘feel’ and randomness for you.

As a comparison, here’s an earlier video of the BK-117:

For the Dodosim, I can tell you that I had an absolute ball doing little ferry trips from Diamond Point to across the bay and back. I had multiple ‘pinch me’ moments, where it just felt so real, with the sound, the control, the views, the sky, all combining to make it feel so wonderful and just ‘right’. I can also tell you that I have NEVER felt such a buzz and air of reality with Xplane 9. I hear that Xp10’s weather and cloud simulation is going to be something really special – it’ll have to be for me to stick with it.

And the sound, oh the sound! As one of my YouTube commenters said, that rotor slap is so cool! I find the sound superior to even the Dream Engine enhanced sound of the BK117.

I had the most manic grin you can imagine flying this 206 baby! I’m in luurrrrve.

But what about the video and pictures below? Isn’t the BK-117 just so much better looking? Look at those gauges, a work of art! The night lighting is so much better! Well, the xplane model does look heaps better, and it has more complex systems. However I never really got into it, having ended up trying so many other aircraft later down the track. I NEVER went for long flights in it. So it turns out that the most perfect 3D modelling does not count when it comes to immersion. If the flight model is spot on, combined with great eye-candy scenery, weather and clouds, a slightly simpler, but still 3D cockpit, is quickly forgiven, or frankly, hardly noticed! You’re too busy flying…

The Dark Horses – Conex’s 206 and R22

I’d all but written off Xplane, with my newfound joy at the Dodosim flightmodel. Then I came across the incredible Hovercontrol forum, one that is chock full of VERY SERIOUS helicopter sim enthusiasts, many doing real life training.

I’ll be hanging out there every now and then, especially given their multiplayer facilities (free) and obvious expertise.

It’s interesting that many of them love the Dodosim, in fact from what I can see, it appears to be the only decent model for FSX in their opinion. The good news for Xplane fans though, is that a number of real life pilots swear by Xplane’s ability to accurately model real life flight characteristics very well.

I fell across THIS THREAD, where very nice comments about Conex’s new R22 project are being made.

And THIS ONE has people raving about his fantastic Bell 206. Many say the Dodosim is the better procedures sim, with the xplane model having the higher fidelity flightmodel.

My own initial opinion

As I hoped, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the Dodo’s flight model. I’ve always criticised FSX for its flight model, with Xplane generally having a much more satisfying feel of flight/randomness. I can officially retract my criticisms. As ever, FSX addon developers have proven to be expert at circumventing FSX’s shortcomings, creating wonderful programs to add nuances to the bland flightmodel, to turn it into something thrilling. It’s a pity that it means that the addons seem to be more expensive than Xplane, but in the end it’s all worth it. We can all marvel at the quality of simming we are doing now compared to, heck, 3-5 yrs ago. What is that quality worth?

As I am not doing real-world training, and I see that most of the gurus are happy with the FSX Dodo, I shall be too.  I may buy Conex’s 206 for xplane soon, just to get a true taste of what a real one feels like! Fantastic references Fred!!

VERDICT

  • Both sims have their dross, bulk quantities of blandware. FSX may be more dangerous for those with deep pockets.
  • Both sims have very select, elite quality helos, you need to pick carefully. Don’t hesitate to seek opinions!
  • I’ve always said xplane has the better flight model, with FSX just being a ‘game’. I have to retract that, for certain products at least..
  • Therefore, to me, the combo of a very good flight model and superior scenery makes the FSX solution compelling, ‘Immersion City’.
  • For pure authenticity of handling, apparently the Hovercontrol gurus say that Xplane is the best. If I was spending thousands on training, I’d certainly be spending time with Conex’s creations and Xplane.
  • With such deep and quality simulation, fewer helo addons are needed – this one will keep me busy for 6 months at least.

I now formally open up this blog to a hailstorm of debate and conjecture. Please be aware that I may not reply right away, as I’m very busy ferrying more tourists around PNW, while progressing to level 2 on the Dodo…

Simon

Below are some comparison pics – you can definitely observe the superior presentation of the Xplane models. The first 9 shots are the Dodo, the latter being the BK-117.


X+S+R 009.1: Carenado + FsX Lighting

Tonight we have Simon’s Part II look at setting up lights and cameras in FsX, taken in a flight over Melbourne with ORBX’s scenery as a backdrop, so turn down the lights and buckle up!

Just my two cents here, but the textures on this parking garage are perfect. This seemingly innocuous structure here lends a good feeling of immersive realism instead of being a black hole, and it helps the overall success of the scenery package. Next time you look at a similar structure in XP or another package for FsX note how structures like this get ignored…and end up detracting from the overall success of the effort.

Orbx obviously “gets it”, don’t they? Everything from parking structures to sports stadia to skyscrapers…they’re all there, all modeled and rendered quite nicely. This is what dynamic, immersive SIMS should be all about, in any platform!

We’ll be back with Part III of this series tomorrow, so fly safe ’til then! Chip