FTX England Versus UK 2000 and Generation X , A personal view

[britfrog 180]

I have been a great follower of FTX having started with their free Tasmanian airport and then going on to Australia and the Pacific north west.
 
Like most people I was blown away by the detail they managed to embody in their products and could not really find a cause to criticise anything they produced as they were so much better than anything else available at the time.
 
When FTX announced the UK project, I immediately felt sorry for some of the makers of existing scenery (as I know some of them) and didn't really feel that the ftx offering would be substantially better than that that was already on the market (as I was perfectly happy with it) and that FTX was going to be taking away the livelyhood of some of my friends in what appeared to be purely corporate greed. This of course tempered my judgement and my wallet, so that when the England scenery was released with such howling errors and complaints I felt my urge to keep my wallet in my pocket as well justified.
 
They then released Goodwood and this further reinforced my opinion that although it was slightly better detailed than the existing offerings it was not enough for me to become a traitor to my cause. However all that changed when I saw the Stapleford release, which I immediately bought but although it worked well enough with generation x photographic scenery it was missing the bells and whistles that make ftx products what they are. So after much humming and harring I succumbed and bought the England scenery and in a moment I could see and agree with all the criticism that I had seen on various sites around the internet . It just didn't represent what we all knew as the UK , well it did sort of, but it lacked the detail of generation X , and this made me wonder if the product had been dummed down in comparison to their earlier efforts as I had never seen a single word of criticism of Australia or the PNW by even people that lived there.
 
But at least I had a very good Stapleford, so maybe others would follow in course to make it worthwhile. It left me with a problem as I run one hard drive with a VFR only Flight Sim and another drive with an IFR Flight Sim, where did FTX fit in best? I had already noted the when cruising around in ftx at 3000 feet i was getting 20-24 fps, in generation x I was getting 30fps! Ftx was hardly accurate at all for ground scenery but it did give a reasonable general impression of the area where one was flying, whereas generation x gave a very accurate representation but it lacked the ambiance that ftx somehow created. So I felt the only way I could make up my mind as to what product fitted what purpose was to fly the same route using the 2 systems and make a direct comparison. I therefore started at Shoreham and flew a simple flight to Goodwood a route I have flown many times in my own airplane so I could make a direct comparison between flying in reality and the simulator.


  

 
Starting with the UK2000/ Gen X version of Shoreham I started the sim. parked in front of the terminal building which was well reproduced and unmistakeable as were the surrounding buildings and hangars the apron was a bit blocky but OK the only let down really being the various a/c parked about which were pretty poor but they added to the reality of the simulation. In comparison The ftx offering was much better the terminal building had more detail as did the surrounding hangars etc even the firengine was more detailed and the aircraft parked nearbye are a revelation, ftx have made huge improvements in these over the years. Begrudgingly i had to admit that the ftx offering was better than the uk2000 although in fairness the uk2000 version was made a few years ago and was not made to the same remit as the ftx version.
 

 

 
I then taxied out to runway 02 and looked ahead to a view I knew well with the cement factory and chimney in the hills ahead and have to admit the FTX version looks closer to what I remember in reality with the college on the hill to the left , somehow the generation X scenery lacked something. After departing Shoreham and turning onto a westerly heading I climbed up to 3000 feet and looked seaward whilst passing Worthing,
 

 

 
it was at this point the generation x scenery came into its own, it was very realistic much more so than FTX I could follow a good representation of the M27 toward Tangmere where the FTX version just gave a general impression of a winding road and the villages and forests of generation x were accurately portrayed whereas FTX gave a general impression of countryside.
 

 

 
Upon arriving overhead Tangmere again Generation X was the better but the lower one descended toward Goodwood FTX again came into its own and although the UK 2000 version of Goodwood was perfectly acceptable the FTX version had a few more bells and whistles


 

 
It was at this point I had to stop and question myself what did it matter? In real life when one flies this route one is occupied with flying the a/c , holding a course, altitude, perhaps navigating toward the Goodwood VOR , keeping an eye out for other a/c , one only occasionally glanced outside to take in the view, perhaps notice the distant sea being rough or the amount of traffic on some roads, one had precious little time for anything else, the one thing any pilot will tell you is how different an area looks from the air compared to the ground, even when you take the rare opportunity to gawp outside at somewhere you know well. In reality 90% of the land below on any flight passes as a blur !

So having made a comparison which product did I prefer ? which was better for VFR/IFR? in Honesty I am more confused now than before I started this comparison each product shows different merits at different times of a flight, the generation X with its photographic scenery is accurate something which FTX lacks, but there again do we really need this accuracy if one is flying like a pro?
 
 
What is more important, a general impression of passing pretty countryside or an accurate representation of something you hardly look at?
 
If pushed I would probably say that in general terms FTX would better suit small VFR aircraft whilst uk2000/gen x would suit the airliner group but it isn't that simple it is really down to the individual simmer and how they derive pleasure from their simulator.. For me the jury is still out , and will remain so for some time until perhaps FTX produces more airfields, however if they did make a corporate U turn and produce major airfields as they have in the past the decision would be much easier. Time will tell!!

[mutley 4,495]

Hi BF,

 

A well written and balanced appraisal.   

When the first Orbx AUS sceneries were released, did they have the same coverage of VFR photo scenery that we have? I don't think so, but happy to be corrected. After all, Australia is over 31 times bigger than the UK and most if it un-populated therefore not as "detailed" as the UK.

 

You may then have to ask how much do Ozzies know their own topography? Like Americans, I would imagine they are a little parochial so most assimilations would be acceptable.  On the other hand, we (Not you obviously!) live on a densely, highly built up island. We are very aware of what is where and can easily spot an item out of place in our locality.

 

My other concerns are what is expected LOD wise from the Sim720 studios in the UK? If they are producing a product for Orbx, do the same stringent controls exist?. Sim720 comprise of some established Orbx developers but mainly a whole lot of new talent too. I can only see their output getting better and their existing work improved with service packs. (Those finnial errors on Lancing College annoy the Sh*t out of me!)

Anywho my   have been said, thanks again.

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

[rob16584 42]

I think it all boils down to personal preference. I use FTX England and am very happy doing so. It does have some fairly major errors but nothing which can't be fixed. It's not photoscenery but it is accurate enough to allow to follow the major roads and rivers. The England release was always going to get slammed because its easy to spot the errors.

[allardjd 1,853]

Bf,

 

First, thanks for a very analytical and well written comparison.  I don't have a dog in this fight but I can appreciate the time and effort and dedictation it took to crank out a piece like that.  Well done. 

 

John

[britfrog 180]

Gee guys thanks for the plaudits

[Christopher Low 63]

I think you already know my opinion on this debate. Whilst I would love realistic autogen buildings in GenX, I still prefer it to any kind of landclass scenery. Urban textures don't look great at low resolution in any product, but they look worse in generic scenery because they are repetitive. My brain can identify that trick in a microsecond, and suddenly I am looking at a false representation of the real world. GenX certainly isn't perfect (not by a long shot), but it is better than any landclass scenery (IMO), particularly with ES TreeScapes added.

 

Of course, it all boils down to individual requirements. I am not trying to replicate real world flying techniques or procedures to the letter. The scenery is very important to me in all of my flights, so I like to be able to see what is really there in the real world. If I see a golf course, I expect it to be a real golf course, not a generic representation of one. This is true for all of my planes, because I also fly "low and slow" in an airliner

[dogtrack 346]

Been using ORBX scenery since its original birth as VOZ.  Can't think of anything negative with regard to NA and NZ/AU, love flying those areas. Looking forward to the forthcoming SAK and No Cal.

 

Europe, however, I have left well alone, at this point in time. Why ?... For a start I have most of it covered by Photo Scenery from Poland down to Spain. The prospect of having to stop a flight and use FTX Central as I transfer from one coverage area to another is not something I would relish. Then their is the AG interference between some European sceneries and ORBX EU. Perhaps in a year or two when developers have ironed out present software conflicts I MAY have another look. Time will tell.

[GHAO 0]

The problem for me is photoscenery - it looks flat, low-detailed, and the wrong colour... that's down to the limitations of cost for a small company. Somewhere like LAX looks great with PS though - because it is flat (although that depends on age - modern stuff is so much better!)

It's of course down to the person, and location, in the end. But here I prefer FTX by miles, although I know that if I flew out of RNAS Yeovilton I would be disappointed.