NZFF

Hi everyone, trying my hand at some scenery modifications in FSX. I have released two small files that add additional detail to both Wellington and Port Nelson, just some ships and additional scenery items.



(Nelson is not accurate but fills a gap on approach from the north)



Files on ARNZ

just tried it and it looks great, thanks Jon!

Pardon my ignorance but one question I keep asking myself is why are people raving about FSX?

From what I've seen it looks worse detail than what FS9 does currently, and it's harder on the system resources?

I mean I'm not a fan of flying around with smooth blurry hills.....

Here here I agree with Chris

When someone can actually convince me that FSX will run on my system then maybe I will get FSX. Although the Demo version did nothing to support my belief. Past FS version have had negative reviews but none have had a demo version that gave them much credit. When FS9 was released I grumbled until I upgrade the Graphics Card and performed the tweaks over the years but FSX nothing I have read convinces me that short of a major PC upgrade nothing is going to perform like FS9 is now.

System specs P4 2.8Ghz, 1024mb Ram, Geforce 6600GT 128mb ram, 2 x 240gb hardrive.

Those are awesome add on ships etc Jon!

I like the way the buildings and 'backyards of suburbia' looks in FSX but would be frustrated at the washed out hills and desert looking countryside I see so much of in screenies.

It'll get better with add-ons but for now I'll stay where I am with FS9 too.

Chris Donaldson wrote: Pardon my ignorance but one question I keep asking myself is why are people raving about FSX?

From what I've seen it looks worse detail than what FS9 does currently, and it's harder on the system resources?

you're not starting this debate again, are you?

there's a very good reason why FSX runs slower than FS9- there's more to render. for example, consider that FS9 autogen on max = FSX autogen on sparse.
on current hardware, FSX isn't as good as FS9. but there is big potential for direct x 10 (under windows vista) to create some real eye candy on future hardware... FSX is the future, without question. whether it has arrived too early is another.

As an FSX user who's experience has been very positive I'm more interested in getting on and supporting and adding to what is a very promising and expansive sim. There are issues with FSX, some big ones, lanclass is a good example, so critism of these aspects is fully justified. I have to say that FSX is more than just landclass and textures however.

I'm incredibly excited to think where we will be in 12 months time with FSX, and I want to be part of that future.

Whatever I can do to show FSX for the awesome sim it is and encourage others to join in I will. I certainly hope the work I and others, many of them members of this forum, are currently doing to make as much New Zealand specific content available as we can, is going some way to acheiving that.

Its the developers that choose to support and embark on the new FSX journey now that will ensure that when it is accepted more widely, all the add-ons we love in FS9 will be available, and enhanced to reflect the power of FSX.

So for those who have FSX and want to try this enhanced scenery, be my guest and I hope you enjoy it. This is just the beginning, the future holds with it add-ons, missions, aircraft and enhancements you will never, could never see in FS9, its as simple as that.

Sure it's harder on resources, and you'll have to turn the wick down a bit. But have you looked at my Oxford2Oxford thread in Screenshots? That's pretty much all default FSX (except where described in the text).

Agreed, default FSX is "worse" than FS9-plus-$500-worth-of-addons , but to say it's worse than default FSX? Yeah, right!

Plus, there are specific improvements: Photo scenery for one. Even without the higher resolution FSX can offer, old FS9 photo sceneries perform better in FSX, and with VIRTUALLY NO BLURRIES! Gotta be worth it!

This hasn't been my experience:
Here's a comparison using RBE "everything" plus Robin's Turangi photoreal.
In FSX I get 6fps, in FS9, around 25.


It might be peculiar to my setup, or perhaps the way FSX handles data.
What's your experience with the same sceneries loaded?

are your water effects on high or low?

Everything is max'ed, I would never settle for less.

I've just scrapped a posting here when it got to 6 paragraphs:) Stop me when I get to three... (this one doesn't count.)
If you think about it, this is one huge step forward with FSX, which has made the jump to visual realism using the default elements. You could in fact build your local port or industrial area using nothing but FSX library objects, and get a much better looking scenery than many custom-build stuff for FS2004. That's a challenge, by the way, if you live near a port I want to see some scenery in the coming months...
This raises the question -- do we still need custom scenery? I have to assume yes, otherwise I'm out of business, but it certainly raises the bar to the point where I need to extend myself so much more to compete.
I'm glad that Jon is supporting FSX so much, it certainly needs an advocate:) What Jon illustrates here, and in other posts, such as the road trip screenshots, is the sheer power of FSX to represent reality on a brand new level. Dang, need a new paragraph...

Chris Donaldson wrote: Pardon my ignorance but one question I keep asking myself is why are people raving about FSX?

From what I've seen it looks worse detail than what FS9 does currently, and it's harder on the system resources?

I mean I'm not a fan of flying around with smooth blurry hills.....

From FS2002 to FS2004 I quadrupled my processor speed to get acceptable performance. To do this again for FSX, I'd need a 10GHz processor.

I think that when MS began development of FSX, they must have assumed that we'd ALL have 10GHz processors by now. Instead we have dual-multi systems which they just didn't see coming. FSX still relies on sheer processing power -- I could add a $1500 graphics card and 4Gb of super-fast RAM to my old system, and it would still pant like a dog with FSX.

However when it runs well you certainly can't say that it looks worse than FS2004. This is a quantum leap in realism as far as visuals are concerned. Most of us may have to wait a bit to appreciated it...

toprob wrote:I've just scrapped a posting here when it got to 6 paragraphs:) Stop me when I get to three... (this one doesn't count.)
If you think about it, this is one huge step forward with FSX, which has made the jump to visual realism using the default elements. You could in fact build your local port or industrial area using nothing but FSX library objects...

Well you show a great deal of restraint - I won't stop

A passing thought: Whatever happened to Moore's Law?
Y'know, where processing power doubles every 18 months?
If you were planning a major product revamp, you'd assume this to be true.
(Dual processors do not constitute an improvement if your software doesn't use it.
I don't know enough about the guts of it, but all I see is 2.6GHz CPU's.)
DX10 capability doesn't work until you actually have DX10
VISTA was due to ship PRIOR to FSX.
FSX on single-core processing, DX9, and WINXP would not be the vision that the product was built around.
There would've been harsh words on the MS campus for sure.
And a couple of serious talks with the boys over at Intel.
Releasing FSX now was a business decision.
The FS community will vote with its wallets whether it was a good one or not.

This raises the question -- do we still need custom scenery? I have to assume yes, otherwise I'm out of business, but it certainly raises the bar to the point where I need to extend myself so much more to compete.

Yes, yes! go FSX! (By Next Year - you don't often get a learning window that size!)
But the addon scenery market as we know it belongs to FS9 for another 9 months I reckon.

I'm glad that Jon is supporting FSX so much...

Yeah me too, it's nothing less than a great service to the FS community.
I can't actually use it the way I do FS9, but it doesn't stop me looking and playing a little B)

Wow, so much discussion for two tiny tinsy weenie teeny scenery enhancements

The FS community will vote with its wallets whether it was a good one or not.

And do they get a money back guarentee if they dont like it?

I suppose it would be the same as any other game, you can get your money back if you haven't broken the seal...

Alex

Thats not what I meant Alex.

What I was trying to get across is those who purchased FSX under the illussion that it would run on what they have. Obviously broke the seal and now can not get money back so are left a $100 out of pocket. Meantime Mr Gates is sitting with that $100 (or pecentage) laughing that we have to wait for the technology to catch up.

I purchased a DVD form the Warehouse and despite not seeing obvious defects found it was slightly warped making it noisey when spun at 7000+rpm. Not good for the DVD player. So I took it back and guess what it says at the bottom of the receipt with regards to DVDs, Computer games etc.

"Due to copyright laws the warehouse can no longer offer a refund or exchange on: CDs,DVDs, Computer software, Videos or console games.
PLEASE MAKE YOUR SELECTION CAREFULLY"

All well and good when the minimum specs on the Box is what FSX runs at a crawl.

Dreamweaver wrote: All well and good when the minimum specs on the Box is what FSX runs at a crawl.

Well, it runs, and I don't think the user would have any legal ground to stand on (although I am not any type of expert on the subject) if they were unhappy with the performance and had a system at or above the minimum specifications. Such a refund would be possible (I think) if MS made some claims on the games' performance that were inaccurate, but as far as I know they have not...

Alex

This is what Web 2.0 is all about.
Forums are the Consumers' Revenge for years of misinformation from the marketing guys.
In here you get all sides of the story from all sorts of people.
You can make your informed choice from the chatter, biased or not, knowing where it's coming from.