X-Plane -> FS2004

[Kelburn]

I know that most people want to do FS2004/FSX scenery into X-Plane, but I was wondering how to make X-Plane scenery work in FS2004 (well convert it).

It may seem like a weir question but there's an OK Auckland scenery (http://www.xpjets.com/) which I would really like to try out in FS2004.

If anyone has any suggestions I'd really appreciate it.

Cheers,
Kelburn.

[SteelBlades]

Or you could convert all your other FS2004/FSX scenery to X-Plane as I have done (pretty successfully I might add) and fly in X-Plane. You'll get much more accurate mesh (better than Christian Stock's and it's free), better actual flying, better weather, more aircraft and Auckland scenery.

[Christian]

QUOTE (SteelBlades @ May 21 2009, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll get much more accurate mesh (better than Christian Stock's and it's free)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The data we use is 20m elevation data which you only get from professional sources (and that means $$$). The XPlane one is probably SRTM derived (which is the only free elevation data set available and is 90m) and judging from screenshots doesn't look anything like the real thing.

ADMIN EDIT: I've made a small change to the wording which hopefully preserves the meaning.
-Robin

[Ian Warren]

There is nothing to compare as yet , The Red Baron i think has shot em all down with the 20 mesh , when you start covering an area .. build on it .. yes Autogen .. you get to study the area .. I can say ive been to most places , to fill in the gaps and learn the extra , scared to think but possibly .. me well going .... into its hundreds on reference books and Atlas's covering the NZ . There is nothing wrong with X-plane but has many many years to catch up to the , well wrong words .. but 'yeah' the mesh and terrain and how its coming together in FS9/FSX could be a tall order for another to show same result , my reasons complete this by the amount off payware addons .. and the superb freewares .

[SteelBlades]

A lie huh? It can only be a lie if I know it to be wrong. I don't. Please accuse with more caution thank you.
New Zealand GIS expert (and pilot) Andrew McGregor has used a combination of sources including SRTM and LINZ to create an X-Plane mesh that is, as far as I can tell, the equal of your 20m mesh (I'm chatting on MSN with him as I write this - and getting the lowdown). By using some cunning Andrew managed to avoid 'commercial' i.e. need to pay for sources, so X-Plane users can have this for free! As well, it comes with tree data that is accurate down to hedge rows, so you get accurately placed forests, trees and shrubs, from forests to windbreaks.

Consequently I do have to apologise. Andrew's mesh is only better than two old lower-quality mesh options that used to be available. However as it does claim a 20m mesh, it apparently is the equal of your best one. My apologies for the mistake, but please think before calling someone a lier.

For the record, X-Plane's default scenery is vastly more accurate than MSFS/FXS's. It would need to be - it comes on 7 double layered DVDs!

So simmers, if you want to fly in NZ with a mesh that's pretty much as good as Christian Stock's you can have one for free with X-Plane. Having said this, X-Plane's land-use data is nowhere near as good as Christian's. Andrew is working on this, but still has a way to go.

Main thread: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=38099&hl=
View of Mt Cook
View of Wellington

ps. you might want to replace the link to AVSIM for the scenery review, now that the site is gone.

[SteelBlades]

QUOTE (steelsporran @ May 17 2009, 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What has his command of English got to do with it?

Confusing the word lie with mistaken. I was possibly mistaken. I definitely wasn't a lying - I'd have had to know exactly what Christian's data sources were, as well as Andrew's - and then deliberately mislead this forum. Christian's a bright guy (he has a PhD) so should know how to tell the difference. Maybe the data that Christian used for his product is now available at no cost. In any case, calling me a lier is a pretty gutsy call from Christian - and pretty rude.

[toprob]

I've done a little pruning here, in an attempt to stop any bickering. Please keep on-topic.

However there is certainly some scope here for some facts regarding X-plane's features, so the topic remains open, as long as the discussion covers the relative features of each sim, rather than personal comments.

[Christian]

QUOTE (toprob @ May 22 2009, 05:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've done a little pruning here, in an attempt to stop any bickering. Please keep on-topic.

However there is certainly some scope here for some facts regarding X-plane's features, so the topic remains open, as long as the discussion covers the relative features of each sim, rather than personal comments.

Thanks Robin. There was no offense meant, I didn't mean it literally, nor wanted to start any kind of bickering. So I apologize.

If X-Plane does indeed use the commercial LINZ data, it's possible it matches the quality of the 20m FS mesh. It's not free data, so I'm not sure how Andrew can get it for free. However, if Andrew has built a 20m mesh from the LINZ data, I'm wrong and apologize again (though his mesh would match my mesh - not be 'much more accurate'). I'd need to know more facts. All that I know is that the LINZ topo is not available for free, the only free data set that exists is the SRTM.

Christian

[Kelburn]

Hey so back to on topic - there is no way to convert from X-Plane FS2004?

[toprob]

Even though one day we might see a 3D model and airport facility converter from X-plane to MSFS (this depends on X-plane becoming the dominant sim, I suspect), I don't think we'll ever see an aerial texture converter, simply because it would be a lot easier to make MSFS scenery from scratch, using the same source imagery as the X-plane scenery. There is nothing complex about the process, especially with FSX.

From a quick look at the Auckland X-plane scenery, it seems that there are just simple uncompressed aerial images, so you could convert them for use in FS2004 or FSX, you'd just need some way to place them.

[Kelburn]

That's what I don;t know how to do...!? :-(

Also the Auckland airport scenery for NZAA was one that I wanted to try out... but ohh well.

[SteelBlades]

QUOTE (toprob @ May 18 2009, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even though one day we might see a 3D model and airport facility converter from X-plane to MSFS (this depends on X-plane becoming the dominant sim, I suspect), I don't think we'll ever see an aerial texture converter, simply because it would be a lot easier to make MSFS scenery from scratch, using the same source imagery as the X-plane scenery. There is nothing complex about the process, especially with FSX.

From a quick look at the Auckland X-plane scenery, it seems that there are just simple uncompressed aerial images, so you could convert them for use in FS2004 or FSX, you'd just need some way to place them.

I think that by the time X-plane becomes the dominant sim, the flight simming environment will have changed significantly. Quibbles aside, FSX and X-Plane 9 seem to be pretty close on balance - 3D party support and graphics are in FSX's favour, actual flying in X-Plane's. BUT, there are so many MSFS/FSX users, it'll take years for X-Plane to become dominant. I doubt it'll happen sooner than half a decade. But... the pace of advancement in FSX has of course halted, while X-Plane's will continue. The upshot is that, if indeed we need X-Plane to become dominant before such a converter from X-Plane to MSFS/FSX happens, by the time anyone could bother to make a one, simmers will be loosing interest in MSFS/FSX. I say this because the graphics is the one thing that has long been in Microsoft's court in the flight sim business. Now that X-Plane can take an unchallenged lead, in five years or so time and by the when X-Plane is at version 10 or 11, it'll be far better then the current situation and capture pretty much all of the attention, commercial and customer.

I'm a little saddened by the demise of Microsoft's product as we loose any competition to X-Plane, but in many regards X-Plane has developed outside of such competition anyway (on Mac OS) so I'm optimistic that well see no slowdown of advancement. I suspect it'll only be a matter of time before big names in the MSFS/FSX world release major products for X-Plane. While I understand that it's frustrating not to have scenery for NZ airports (they've been VERY slow in coming for X-Plane), the NZ based X-Plane community is banding together to make NZ the premier flying location in the X-Pane world. I've been producing NZ based liveries for NZ aircraft type, Andrew McGregor is producing NZ mesh and landclass and others are working on the airports (okay, I've done some of those too via conversion - thanks Snowman!).

Please don't think I'm saying you should ditch MSFS/FSX. Not at all. The beauty of the situation is that you can have both on your computer as X-Plane is cross platform and won't affect how you run MSFS/FSX. Alternatively, wait a few years and let X-Plane's NZ scenery really get established. Then you'll really see something exciting.

With regard to converting aerial imagery for sim use, I'm sure Toprob is right. There must be a suitable converter available. I think there's a couple for X-Plane (from Google Earth as I recall), so there has to be one for the current dominant sim.

[Naki]

QUOTE

the pace of advancement in FSX has of course halted[/quote]

The pace of FSX (and FS9) advancement hasn't halted - not while we still have all these 3rd party developers developing things for FSX..the pace of advancement for MS FS has - for the time being anyway.

Last edited by Naki on Wed May 20, 2009 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[SteelBlades]

I should have written, "development of" not, "advancement in" FSX, but then you and I had the same idea as you cite, "3rd party developers developing things for FSX". The thing is Naki, that FSX is simply MSFS version 10, but written and marketed a bit more cleverly. As long as Microsoft's MSFS product remains unsold to another developer, development has of it has halted. I quite agree that development for the product (both versions 9 and 10) is still alive and well. But in five years time, when X-Plane demonstrates that it's still in active development by the developer, and includes the latest graphic (and other technological) possibilities, 3rd party focus is likely to shift.

This all assumes of course that no other company picks up picks up the code for MSFS. Frankly I think it is unlikely a company will. If MS had a buyer, they'd have been only too happy to tell us, and every month that passes makes it increasingly unlikely that the sim will get picked up. As time passes, the programmers increasingly go their different ways making it all the more difficult for the team to ever regroup and begin development of the product again. I don't know if you've ever tried to work with other people's code, but it's very difficult. The chance of a new developer successfully producing FS 11/FSXI/FSX 2 are low. On the other hand, it's only a matter of time before we have X-Plane 10, or will that be X-Plane X?

I do hope there's a competitor to X-Plane, but equally I'm happy to see sim development go cross-platform and towards OpenGL (and in time OpenCL). In that light I'm looking forward to seeing what Project Magenta and the likes can do with X-Plane. X-Plane's architecture is very open so amazing things are possible.

[Christian]

MSFS isn't dead as yet. A bunch of developers have been rehired just a week after they've been fired and Microsoft is continuing the development on MSFS. It's unlikely it's going to be called MSFS, nor is it going to be a direct successor (at least judging from comments ex-ACES employees have made). It has been hinted though that the new MSFS will connect to Microsoft Live (in what I see as a positive way). Some early comments do make me optimistic, however there are no details available as the project is kept in secret (the existence is not secret though) - I suspect even MS don't know at this point what the end product will look like nor when it will be released.

I do agree with Peter though, I really would like some other developer to have a shot at developing a flight sim. FSX (and what I've seen from X-Plane, but I'm no expert there) is hopelessly outdated when compared to other video games (both in graphics and physics - gosh, we have physics accelerators now, can they please be used?!?). I haven't played FarCry2, but I have seen videos with a hang glider and the terrain is absolutely amazing...

Christian