Two new add-ons out in the last few days:
The first is AlpilotX’s New Zealand Pro scenery. This is a recut of all of NZ using higher quality global data, the global scenery algorithms run at higher settings (no need to tone them down if the whole world doesn’t have to fit on 8 DVDs) and some custom GIS algorithms Andras came up with to handle various features.
For me it’s exciting to see what the engine can do when someone let’s it a bit off of its leash; the global scenery is always a compromise between the possible and what can be done for all users over the entire planet – it’s a compromise to make a base layer.
NZP is donation-ware. Andras* is not a Laminar Research employee – he is an X-Plane user who has gone so far with his scenery work that he works directly with us on the global scenery; we are very lucky to have his help — his contributions make X-Plane so much better, both when he works on the global scenery and on his custom work.
* Albert, who does the textures, is in this same category – they are two of a number of X-Plane users who have made outsized contributions to the sim!
Second, the McPhat ATR-72 is out. I had a chance to meet these guys in Mallorca, and see some of their work-in-progress and the stuff on their laptops was really phenomenal. I always enjoy seeing people push the envelope; it gives us an idea of where we need to provide more ‘headroom’ inside X-Plane.
On the subject of betas: I don’t know when beta six will come out – I think sometime next week but I don’t know if it will be early or late in the week. We do have a potential fix for the library problems with autogen (the 10.20b5 drop with new autogen is missing some library definitions) so that should help people using custom scenery who are getting the dreaded “could not load forest/facade/beach” message. (We changed our tools for the new autogen and accidentally lost some library paths which we are putting back.)
The old library did accidentally have a lot of library paths with the word “test” in them; I really hope no one is using them in their add-ons. As a general rule, if the word “test”, “temporary”/”temp” or “hack” is in a library path don’t use it!
I see the main focus these days are autogen and textures. This is great and something that would impacts the end user in a more visable way. I therefore hope with fingers crossed for new mountain textures or at least an modification.
Why?
There are way to much greenish stuff within the rock textures and the pattern is recursive.. http://www.tknudsen.com/xp/nvfr/nvfr95.png is a great example!
If there ever is a hope Ben, I dream of the day where X-Plane mountain textures is a bit more like Outerra’s http://www.outerra.com/ but I see there is a huge difference in graphics engines and purhaps some SRTM mesh data and texture quality?
I am still wondering how a needed switch to 64-Bit can work if absolutely required Plug-Ins such as Visual Altimeter and Simple Pushback (not to mention Plug-Ins for planes that have not been updated since 2008) have long been abandoned by their authors. There are no alternatives and it looks like there won’t be an update. It is also quite sobering how slow .org is to adapt to the new situation. There is no 64-Bit category within downloads, and it is tiring to search for every plug in on a day to day basis to see if it has been updated. Something should be done to take the community with you on this journey.
I don’t know what’s going on at the org, but seeing as there is no final version of x-plane that can do 64 bit plugins and the ABI is still in flux, it’s premature to expect any released 64-bit plugins from anyone.
I know this is not the place to report bugs (or errors) but… this excellent NZ scenery serves to put the roads in stark contrast; namely that the cars drive on the wrong side of the roads. I filed a bug report right after XP10 was released, but no change. Perhaps Ben you could look into this, to really make NZ look right?
Regards,
PC
You are correct: this is NOT the place to report bugs!
So – I should report the bug AGAIN?
No.
Here’s is to expecting some proper free/donate-ware sceneries for all major cities (something that I KEEP SAYING should be in STOCK X-Plane… I can’t think of a single reason simulators 15 years older show a more “proper” New York than top-notch X-Plane… if LR couldn’t do it, they should license some “lite” version from major scenery provider or make a deal with Google and its 3D objects or something – I am sure everyone would love it even if it meant an extra DVD).
No I am not opening this can of worms. Just saying (post it and let it be).
NZ looks great.
Could be a business opportunity for you, NLS!
I am not in the field.
Here is what I observe to be the holdup with XP scenery. If you want to sell it, it has to be better than lego bricks…which means you need to be able to model and texture. Right now, the modelers and texturers are where the money is right now…planes. The market supports planes better because they aren’t geographically bound (anyone anywhere can like a plane, but a scenery is more likely to be purchased by someone from that area). Scenery comes from folks who either have the passion and want to make some money (Tom Curtis, butnaru, etc.) or folks who have little/no desire to make money but enjoy doing it (Frede, Cami, myself and many others). It could also use a push from the company, but since the primary scenery and art people aren’t on LR payroll don’t hold your breath. It is up to us. So my question to you is…Why don’t you get in the field? Even a lego brick airport (which isn’t that hard to do once you get into it) is better than an empty field with a runway.
Quick note: we have both LR employees and volunteers working on scenery – it’s a mixed group!
Thank you for your reply Brian.
(btw I am still looking for good sources for free/donation scenery that is up-to-date with X-Plane 10.X – can you point me to any?)
To get to the field… well no. So if I like a specific recipe I NEED to be able to make it myself? (yes it would be nice, but yet…) If I like rolercoasters, should I build my own? Some people are good and like doing certain things and some other are good and like doing other things. Then all people “share” this expertise and talent and work, either freely or for a price.
I don’t think “consumer” interest is just on the planes. I won’t open this discussion (it has been 1000 times probably in the forums).
I think it’s easy to target the flaws and say it’s the editor’s fault for almost everything, really. Correct me if wrong, but the strategy of XPlane has never been to provide an extensive precise set of all cities and airports. It’s never been that way, and you have an almost naked Scenery to that particular point. It may be good or terrible, the facts are the facts and it’s about the community to fill them. Maybe it will change someday, but for now and for some time it’s definitely not.
So I don’t understand the “Why ?” of the complain.
So you believe there is no point for the consumer base to have any argument, just accept “facts” and buy or not buy, like sheep or something.
OK, way different view here. Won’t elaborate though, wrong place.
Agreed.
KLGA is my homeport and I share NLS’s desire to see NYC in (most) of it’s plausible splendor. However, that said, it might be helpful if the development team could provide a “statement of scope” for X-Plane 10 that can be referred to when needed to remind folks “what-it-is”. I’d also like to see a “tear in the space-time continuum” effect but won’t hold my breath.
Developing major city scene packages does sound like an opportunity for some talented artist/code monkey. What’s the ROI?
LOL
Very curious to see what NZ Pro’s ROI will be on donation-ware. Also curious about the market size of XP10. How many of LR’s licenses are commercial, where scenery isn’t that important vs. retail, where we want to look out the windows a lot more….
Yes we would all love our home areas, but I am talking for at least MAJOR world landmarks (landmarks ARE part of realistic flight – not all of us fly 777s…) and maybe 10 major world cities. Something to lure the more “consumer” public (I warranty it would grow sales significantly btw…). I don’t understand the separation of realism to just flight models and plane design. Don’t those planes fly in Earth skies? Else we could just put place-holders “here is a mountain, there is sea”. LR make Earth rendering better and better, yet they don’t seem interested in what is integral to realism. You can’t fly above NYC and make it look like it’s large village in Iran.
I don’t want to open again the argument of how major cities actually looked… better with 10+ years old simulators. Even Interceptor on the Amiga (a computer with fantastic graphics for the time but using bitplane architecture which was extremely unfriendly to “polygons” etc.) released on 1988 (that is 24 years ago), had the major San Francisco landmarks, that you could point and understand about where you are without resorting to maps.
Anyway… seems I am almost alone on this (!).
You’re not alone, I agree with you.
Ahh….the Amiga. Still got mine and it works. Preferred my Atari ST though, something romantic about it. Maybe it was the beeping, LOL.
Another one here, NLS. I’m part of the “consumer public”–I don’t fly in real life (yet?) so I admit eye candy is a bigger draw for me. MSFSX fits that bill but was never an option since I use Macs, plus I like the idea of realistic flight model over a game even if I can’t fully appreciate it.
I’ve dabbled in XP for years, finally bought XP8, but couldn’t stick with it because the major cities… weren’t there. v10 finally brought some hope with autogen and Open Street Map integration, but there’s still a long way to go. One thing I would’ve liked to see is auto-generated airport terminals and facilities where custom/accurate ones don’t exist… anything is better than a completely flat concrete surface where buildings should be.
No, you are not alone NLS.
Since the moment I have bought X-Plane 10 almost a year ago and paid $70+ for it, I was dreaming of seeing a city as a city, even from far.
I fly in the NYC area, it is a joke what you see now.
I have asked many times about it here and every time was told that it was a high priority…
Recently , there is a light in the tunnel since 10.20 B5 introduced SOME as they are called art assets and when I fly over the bigger cities , there are at least few more medium size buildings.
I know that things are hard to get done properly but I also think that the LR priorities in general are wrong.
Who gives a f^%%^ about a little fine tuning how the street lamps are seen when you fly over NY as it was after Third World War….
I see the pluses , I see the 64 bit as a future but as far as the cities , medium and big size, I am very disappointed.
When the credit is due, I give the credit but in the area described above, it is just impossible.
X-Plane is not a freeware, we pay big bucks for it.
$70 is big bucks?
Really?
I can think of a lot of things people spend more on with nothing to show for it. Given the countless hours of learning, entertainment and pleasure X-Plane has given me over the years, it’s a bargain.