ftx global

[britfrog 180]

seems strangely quiet on this software has anyone bought it and tried it? compared to the loud cries of foul on the uk launch I dont see many comments here, is anyone using it? after all it promises great things.

[mutley 4,498]

I have got it BF and have had a couple of brief flights and it looked much better than the default.

Not really had enough time to give it a good going over.

[brett 2,316]

Was wondering the same thing Nigel. I'm still a little confused on whether or not you can still add some addons like a state from MegaSceneryEarth and other smaller scenery addons and still have it running. I hate having to switch things on and off. Otherwise I'm tempted.

[Kevin Firth 114]

I just read a post by NickN on another forum which was not particularly positive about the way FTXG has been implemented.

Now I have a great deal of respect for NickN having followed his guides before and had good results, so when he says something I take notice. Don't forget OrbX have sort of form for deliberately engineering non compatibility with their products...(GenX anyone?)...so it doesn't appear impossible that FTXG was deliberately created in such a way as to give Orbx control over what addons we use and how. I don't think JV is a daft bloke, so the only conclusion I can reach is that Orbx are well aware of the effect FTXG allegedly has on the ability of other devs and addons to work with it.

As it happens I don't very often fly in default areas so I wasn't in the market for this anyway, but I would be a little sceptical about giving up such control to any developer. The one thing that could have tempted me was the improved night lighting, if I could have used it to annotate photo scenery, but that apparently isn't possible as its a vector based solution.

However, on the other hand I applaud any effort to improve our sim, and the idea of integrating autogen definitions from all devs in one place to ensure greater compatibility of addons.

What I fear though is that Orbx will exercise active or passive control over devs and addons in such a way as to make them only compatible with Orbx products, meaning they potentially won't work at all, or in a less than perfect way, with MY choice of sceneries.

I hope I'm being paranoid, but JV's negative reply to my request for UK airfields to be made compatible with GenX earlier this year does not exactly fill me with confidence.....

Cheers

K

[mutley 4,498]

For most of our viewers not willing to tweak or re-install FSX, I would say watch this space and see what comes out in the wash.

 

Nick N is no fool but he does has an axe to grind being that he developed GEX who are most likely to get hurt by FTX-G. However, I have seen the posts in Aerosoft too http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/70414-ftx-global-and-paderborn/?p=503415 so who knows? I sure as don't.

 

All developers adding autogen are going to mess with the default autogen files so I agree with there being a global repository for the essential files with versions being updated as developers change the existing definitions.

 

If only all the major developers could get together and agree an industry standard that takes the SDK to the next level, many people would be be a lot happier.

 

/2 cents 

[Bruce (a.k.a. brian747) 142]

Well I haven't taken the plunge yet, but (as I always do before parting with the cash) I have been doing quite a lot of research into FTXG in preparation for incorporating it into my fsx world, which is beginning to look distinctly possible.  

 

So these few simple comments are entirely unbiased; in fact untroubled by any direct experience of FTXG at all. But for what they might be worth, here they are anyway.  

 

This isn't photorealistic scenery, or anything remotely like it. It is purely textures (not landclass, not vector, not mesh — unlike Orbx regions, for example, which are comprised of all four types). So until the Open_LC landclass series are released, they will need something else, such as UTX, perhaps. But what they do not need is competing textures such as NickN's GEX, in fact Orbx have said very explicitly that GEX must be uninstalled first before UTXG can even be installed. NickN's ill-tempered remarks can therefore be understood better in that context. As to whether his more paranoid comments about Orbx's alleged attempts at simming world domination have any basis in reality, only time will tell.....

 

As I understand it, that's the bottom line, really. Except that you don't have to switch things on and off any more, Brett — switching on "Hybrid mode" means that you can fly from England to France without having to change Orbx area en route, and "3D lighting" means that you don't have to tell Orbx to switch the street lights on, either.      One final snippet — a small demonstration area of their forthcoming Open_LC is included in the FTXG package.

 

Incidentally, you may be amused by the fact that my own interest in FTXG has been ignited by the imminent release of the PMDG 777. You see, for over a decade now I have flown exclusively within Europe, but (especially in view of the 777's intelligent time acceleration mode, which is superb news for cruise-haters like me) I am now thinking of some longhaul flights to areas of the globe where, unlike Europe, I currently have no scenery. So FTX Global, along with some global mesh and landclass, could be a good investment to alleviate some of the blandness of default fsx and open up the rest of the world. Early reports from those who have installed FTXG seem to indicate that the improvements are significant. And anyway, my scenery areas are in need of a clean-up and a weed-out. (See how I'm talking myself into this?). So for me, no reinstall of fsx will be required, just a consolidation/extension of my landclass and mesh.

 

Naturally, Orbx are already working on version 1.1, but when you're dealing with scenery on a global basis, that will hardly be a shock to anyone.

 

And that's as far as I've got so far. E & OE / YMMV / the Editor takes no responsibility for the comments etc etc etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Brian

 

[Kevin Firth 114]

Thanks Brian I guess the world domination stuff could be a red herring for me, I don't have any LC alternative products and am not really in the market for them either. But your comment on the 777 and where to go with it is spot on, so I shall reconsider whether FTXG is something I should invest in in time. I do like the lights I just wish they were hackable so they could be incorporated into photo scenery as well, if that were possible I would buy FTXG yesterday

[jaydor 345]

Some FTXG

 

British Virgin Islands

 

 

 

US Virgins

 

 

It is far superior to flat FSX.. 

[brett 2,316]

Thanks for piping in fellas, I understand that Global is textures only and they have a mesh in the works. My biggest question is will something like OZx Grand Canyon scenery, freeware scenery airports and a state or two of photo scenery from MegaScenery still work along with it. Or will I just be able to run Global along with their regions and airports. I guess I'm just confused. Right now with default textures I can add all of the above stuff. If global is just textures why would it affect anything else that goes on top.

There are some things that are hard to get my head around, I guess I will just keep following along until I figure it out. Thanks for trying.    

[jaydor 345]

Brett, it's only landclass textures replacing the original FSX landclass texture, so it still works as normal.  Add-on's, photoscenery etc., work as normal..

 

There is a added component to FTXG called hybrid which allows continuous flow between FTX Regions and FTXG.  So you can now fly from PNW into California seamlessly.

 

Photoscenery still takes the top route so as you leave Ph/scenery you just enter into FTXG just like normal FSX borders

[brett 2,316]

Kool beans, just what I wanted to hear.    I think that statement by Nick N was throwing me off.

[britfrog 180]

well I have to say i hardened my heart and got it.

currently I have only installed it on the hard drive where i experiment with new installations   and?   welll I am not blown away by it certainly the textures they have used in my region here in the south of france are terrible GEX was much better but having said that it was pretty grim as well, in fact they are pretty well on a par of awfulness with the stock fsx stuff, I do stress , in my region.

 

So I thought I would try another region of France , around Annecy where i had been flying recently taking pics for the valleys competition on mutleys using FVFR. To bee honest having seen my region I was not expecting much but hey to be honest it wasnt bad at all, certainly more realistic than  GEX but not the same as FVFR but one would expect that , No it was pretty good and miles better than the default stuff.

 

Then in the same location I went to night flying and although I only flew around for 15 minutes or so and shot a few approaches I have to say I was blown away !!! the 3d lighting is first class !! this alone makes an enormous difference especially when landing because the lower you go on short final the street lights start to be higher than you , really really cool, if you want that kind of thing. I now want to shoot some approaches at a large airport ,say one of aerosofts, because photoscenery at night is a waste.

 

I then went to Popham in stock mode however i had activated the ftx scenery  of popham but not england and although the airport looked ok from high upon landing there were hills and weird scenery making the airfield unuseable, I must admit I did get popham to work properly by either ticking the hybrid mode or by activating the uk scenery I cant recall how as i was getting tired , so more experimenting on this is required before I can give a definitive solution, but it appears that flying from a non ftx scenery to an ftx scenery may require more than just using the hybrid mode .

 

As I have only spent an hour or so in total there is still a lot to discover but I am already starting to form the idea that the future of each individual sim will be either ftx orientated or photoscenery orientated as the 2 ideas are poles apart, there will be those that like the 3d scenery effect and lovely atmospheric airfields that only ftx can make or the other camp which prefers the reality thing.

Like Kevin I find it sad they have chosen not to allow their products to work independently from the ftx regions because I think they are losing sales because of this.

When they started making Australian stuff and we had to get the regions  as well it was not a problem because no-one else made scenery for aussie so all we had was the stock ms offering so anything ftx was the nuts, however the US and Europe are different , as we have so much choice here .

I do not see myself buying another ftx airport , as good as they are, as I do not use NZ or PNW (anymore) or Aus for that matter  as i now mostly fly in europe or the caribbean , I think global is undoubtably an improvement over the default scenery but the complication of using it may well turn people off .

 

[Andrew Godden 945]

I then went to Popham in stock mode however i had activated the ftx scenery  of popham but not england and although the airport looked ok from high upon landing there were hills and weird scenery making the airfield unuseable, I must admit I did get popham to work properly by either ticking the hybrid mode or by activating the uk scenery I cant recall how as i was getting tired

 

Britfrog,

 

If I read you post corectly, you had activated FTX Popham but not FTX England.  You obviously did this manually, as opposed to using FTX Central.  If my assumption is correct, then the "unuseable situation" you had at Popham was caused by this.  Each of the FTX airport series are designed to work with the underlying region, as the corresponding FTX region scenery has the mesh that the FTX airport series are matched too.  In the case of FTX England, it includes a 10m mesh scenery.  I would say you finally got it to work by activating FTX England.

 

Cheers

Andrew

[britfrog 180]

Andrew you are undoubtably right m8 by this time my head was spinning , certainly a case of finger trouble or lack of understanding

see my latest post about simming losing its attraction 

[Andrew Godden 945]

Already have. 

[Christopher Low 63]

I have no interest in FTXG, since I only fly in the UK at the moment. That may extend to France if (or when) France VFR release versions of their full 3D packages for the northern coastal regions. However, the FTX airports are a different matter. Like Brit has just mentioned, ORBx have made (IMO) a big mistake in not making their individual airfield packages fully compatible with GenX photoscenery. I would be very interested in them if I didn't also have to purchase FTX England to use them! It's a ridiculous situation, and one more tick in the "ORBx seem to want the entire cake shop" department.

[Andrew Godden 945]

....However, the FTX airports are a different matter. Like Brit has just mentioned, ORBx have made (IMO) a big mistake in not making their individual airfield packages fully compatible with GenX photoscenery...

 

It's a simple matter of business and economics!!!  Why make your product compatible with a competitor's product?.  It doesn't make sense (cents) and, therefore, it doesn't make money.

 

In this case, the UK-centric view of the world neither applies nor appeals to everyone.  For example, I fly globally, including the UK and Europe, in all seasons and weather conditions.  Strangely enough, so do others, and therefore Horizon VFR Gen-X and France VFR photo scenery (for example) and all their fine detail and lack of seasonal textures have absolutely no attraction.  However, Orbx FTX England, Scotland, Wales and the associated airport series are a perfect compliment to the way I and others fly - but strangely, for that "...Orbx have made...a big mistake in not making...airfield packages fully compatible with Gen-X...".  Hmmm, go figure.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I am very open minded and objective and I think the Horizon Gen-X series and France VFR are excellent products in their own right, they just don't appeal to me, simply because of the way I fly.  However, I won't criticise their business logic just because of that (though I do wish my French was better).  Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with a company, Orbx, developing a product, FTX, that fills a niche in the FS market and making a quid out of it - it's called free enterprise or free market capitalism, to put a finer point on it, it is not wanting "...the entire cake shop...".  Orbx have been very public about areas they aren't developing in because there is an existing / complimentary landclass / texture based product - see NL2000 / Tongass Fjords / Misty Moorings.  Hell, they are even working with the developers of these other geographical areas to deliver a holistic product.  Maybe people just can't see the "forest for the trees" in their VFR photo scenery packages.

 

When all is said and done, an FS add-on product (and any associated series) either compliments your style of flying and therefore suits your needs, or it doesn't.  On that basis, you decide to buy it or not.  That's as simple as it gets.

[Kevin Firth 114]

....However, the FTX airports are a different matter. Like Brit has just mentioned, ORBx have made (IMO) a big mistake in not making their individual airfield packages fully compatible with GenX photoscenery...

It's a simple matter of business and economics!!! Why make your product compatible with a competitor's product?. It doesn't make sense (cents) and, therefore, it doesn't make money.

In this case, the UK-centric view of the world neither applies nor appeals to everyone. For example, I fly globally, including the UK and Europe, in all seasons and weather conditions. Strangely enough, so do others, and therefore Horizon VFR Gen-X and France VFR photo scenery (for example) and all their fine detail and lack of seasonal textures have absolutely no attraction. However, Orbx FTX England, Scotland, Wales and the associated airport series are a perfect compliment to the way I and others fly - but strangely, for that "...Orbx have made...a big mistake in not making...airfield packages fully compatible with Gen-X...". Hmmm, go figure.

It's dead simple Andrew. IMHO, there is no loss by making Orbx airfields compatible with GenX. People who favour Orbx, inc seasons and full autogen etc are extremely unlikely to ditch Orbx for GenX, esp when to do so would cost them hundreds of pounds extra. Conversely however, there is a gain to be made by making them compatible, as existing photoscenery users would purchase additional copies if they were compatible, but are far less likely to do so if airfields are not compatible. It would therefore make economic sense (cents) to do so, I would have thought?

I have explicitly exchanged views with JV on the OrbX forum about how (easily!) the OrbX airfields could be made nearly 100% compatible, (and thus provide for all different types of simmer). His decision was simply not to do so, which is his right and I respect that. However, I don't claim to understand it, because by that course of action he protects nothing, but potentially loses a market segment as customers.

The only conclusion I can therefore reach, is that OrbX have made a judgement, that they are better served by maintaining strict compatibility with only their own products, and that outweighs any additional revenue they would gain. that's their decision *shrugs* but I'd hardly say it was in the best interests of the community sadly....

K

[britfrog 180]

I have no interest in FTXG, since I only fly in the UK at the moment. That may extend to France if (or when) France VFR release versions of their full 3D packages for the northern coastal regions. However, the FTX airports are a different matter. Like Brit has just mentioned, ORBx have made (IMO) a big mistake in not making their individual airfield packages fully compatible with GenX photoscenery. I would be very interested in them if I didn't also have to purchase FTX England to use them! It's a ridiculous situation, and one more tick in the "ORBx seem to want the entire cake shop" department.

 

FYI you can nearly get all the north coast of France now in 3d

those available are

nord pas de calais

haute normandie

Bretagne

 

all that is missing is Picardie and Basse Normandie which are due shortly Personally I can hardly wait because combined with horizon stuff in the UK VFR flying from the UK to France is going to be really good.

[Mistwalker 3]

I have to agree with Kevin, here. It doesn't make sense to me, either. Don't forget GenX isn't the only photoreal scenery. As already mentioned there is also VFR France, Germany and I believe even Holland but more importantly, from a market point of view, there is now the huge amount of Megascenery Earth covering more States of the US almost weekly. I would have thought the number of customers of the megascenery packages alone would justify making ORBX airfields compatible with photoreal. I have no idea about the technicalities of doing so but if, as has been stated above, it isn't that difficult to do, simply NOT doing it and cutting yourself off from that large market share doesn't make a whole lot of sense to my rather humble mind.

[Andrew Godden 945]

It's just a plain business and economics decision based on supplying to a known market demand, probably with a bit of maths thrown in - 126,000 sq mi (UK and Ireland, if we assume that is roughly the area covered by Gen-X) out of 56,560,000 sq mi. - which probably just doesn't add (stack) up.

 

I don't profess to understand how the respective scenery products are made, I just enjoy them and whilst it might well be "easy" to "nearly" make it 100% compatible, there is, in that statement, a margin for which no-one can neither qualify or quantify with empirical data and, more importantly, what that means to Orbx's plan for FTX Global.  All I know is, the "easy" and "nearly" statement wouldn't have passed any business case ROI and NPV scrutiny in companies I worked for.

 

Some are always never going to be satisfied, but that's JV's point, you cannot satisfy everyone, he's not trying to, and he just states that in no uncertain terms.  For one reason or another, some people don't like that or the fact he is straight forward enough to tell it like it is, and so, for them, it's as if all objectivity about FTX Global is lost.  This isn't about global domination, half the cake, the entire cake or cake shops, but let's not allow fact or the truth get in the way of the argument where disappointment or dissatisfaction prevail.

 

Orbx is producing a product that doesn't appeal to a group because of decisions those individuals have made about the type of flying they do and the investment in scenery add-ons they have made, but because there is no compatibility options to support those individual's decisions, the product is vilified.  The choice is there to be made, but let's be clear, fair and realistic, it is an individual's choice and nobody else is responsible for it, least of all a third party scenery developer that, on all first accounts, appears to be producing a quality product that will revolutionize FSX, globally, as it is today.

[brett 2,316]

Well said Andrew, I agree with your point of view that it is simple economics. Who knows what the future will bring too, maybe after ORBX completes all their work in progress and they figure out their true sales limits they might revisit the airfield compatibility issue. In the mean time why help a competitor out when the likely sales would not justify their long term business plan.

 

This does not mean I do not feel your pain GenX and VFR users.

[Kevin Firth 114]

It's just a plain business and economics decision based on supplying to a known market demand, probably with a bit of maths thrown in - 126,000 sq mi (UK and Ireland, if we assume that is roughly the area covered by Gen-X) out of 56,560,000 sq mi. - which probably just doesn't add (stack) up.

I don't profess to understand how the respective scenery products are made, I just enjoy them and whilst it might well be "easy" to "nearly" make it 100% compatible, there is, in that statement, a margin for which no-one can neither qualify or quantify with empirical data and, more importantly, what that means to Orbx's plan for FTX Global. All I know is, the "easy" and "nearly" statement wouldn't have passed any business case ROI and NPV scrutiny in companies I worked for.

I don't think the uk airfields issue is anything to do with FTXG, certainly it in my mind anyway

I confess I used the words easy and nearly as a deliberate qualification due to my relative lack of development experience. I have managed to make two airfields compatible (with the exception of matching the photoreal colours, which can only be easily done with access to the source material. OrbX has that, I don't, but the time involved is fairly negligible as it involves altering in photoshop and then running the image through resample a second time.) The time it took me to do so was approximately 1hr so I don't buy the argument that it is economically unsound - after all how many sales do you need to make to recoup that investment of time and effort?

I accept there's more to it than that, in terms of rewriting an installer to manage it etc and I don't honestly know what that even involves, but on the face of it the costs involved don't appear so out of scale to the potential market to render it uneconomic to do so. I also remind myself of JV's comment, which was not that it was an economic decision, he merely stated it was essentially a design and architecture decision. (Not his exact words)

I'll continue to try to integrate Orbx scenery with what I use right now, and to be honest I'm more and more coming round to using their scenery. I think at some point I will move to using the terrain mesh that comes with the OrbX regions to minimise the work I need to do there. I do like the idea of the FTXG night lighting very much, so I'll very likely move to using photoscenery for day flying so I can see the accurate ground detail, and OrbX scenery at night so I can get the night lighting when it's probably more important than accurate photoscenery

I agree that any developer will be in control of what their products do and don't do, I think being honest that my reaction to the lack of compatibility offered out of the box is down to a feeling that I am being excluded in a sense from my own community - I want to buy and fly the airfields but it feels as though I'm being told I can't unless I become a fully paid up member of the only ever use OrbX fanclub. . In that sense it is very much about cake shops and global domination!

Cheers k

[Christopher Low 63]

It's a simple matter of business and economics!!! Why make your product compatible with a competitor's product?. It doesn't make sense (cents) and, therefore, it doesn't make money.

 

You are assuming that existing UK photoscenery users will come flocking to the FTX banner. That's quite an assumption. I suspect that they are actually losing money by not making the FTX airfields fully compatible with UK photoscenery. I don't have any figures to prove or disprove that, but I get the feeling that sales of the FTX airfields would be significantly higher if photoscenery owners could use them "straight out of the box".

[britfrog 180]

Lets keep this an open and intelligent debate and not let things flare there are clearly two camps,

 

the ftx global scenery replacement is by and large an improvement on the stock fsx offering so from that point of view it is a winner especially with the massive improvement of night lighting, that is what this thread was really about,

 

but getting back to the FTX  compatibility with other parties material , well they (FTX) have made their bed and they now have to lie in it, whether it was a good corporate decision (as it was put to me by JV) time will tell, personally I think they are letting down a certain percentage of the simmers who prefer photoreal scenery , and IMHO those simmers are slowly but surely becoming the largest group using fsx , it would be nice to see JV do another U turn and indeed take up our thoughts that if they can easily make their product compatible with photoscenery then they should do so , I think this would be for them a win/win situ for them, personally I prefer to use photoreal scenery it would be a win /win situ for me if I could buy their airports without having to use their regional; scenery which as interesting/good as it is , is not a patch on the photoreal scenery that is now being produced.