Scenery

[colin5392]

This has probably been asked elsewhere in the site, but could you advise as to why the Orbx scenery is not being used / was not considered for use with DCS World?

[Aginor]

It is not compatible, that's all. Also it would contradict one of the main points of DCSW: DCSW is free (at least one map, that is).

If you had different sceneries you would have to balance between the people who have - or don't have - better geometries and stuff. That would cause problems.

So you won't see something like Orbx for DCSW any time soon.

[Woogey]

Here then is it time to revisit this subject? Different maps is NOT an issue, as we have seen. Compatibility? Well now, that is what development is for is it not? We have this great thing called ingenuity, whereby things that are not, become reality. 3d assets are 3d assets. Anything that ORBX does can be brought into the DCS World with determination. That being said, it would require an official partnership between E.D. and Orbx. Orbx is known for their desire to stay on the Civilian Side of the spectrum. However, E.D. have stated they are not opposed to allowing Civilian aircraft development. Anything is possible, and quite frankly, I think E.D. should really think about approaching Orbx to spark up some kind of Co-operative agreement.

 

Orbx is the absolute master of creating scenery in the same way that E.D. does. It would behoove E.D. to enable Orbx to port all of their maps over to DCS, as this would cover almost all of the areas that are highly desired in their platform. If this were to happen, it would absolutely Flip the Flight simulation Genre on it's side. In my honest opinion, it would be the greatest decision either company ever made. This would become the foundation for a flight sim Killer. No other platform would be able to compete. Below is a link to this exact subject over at the Orbx forums. -Woog

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/102784-orbx-to-start-developing-for-dcs-world/

[cichlidfan]

I think ORBX would require a world model to be attached to, which we do not have.

 

EDIT: Most of ORBX scenery would be virtually useless in a Combined Arms environment.

 

EDIT2: I should mention that I am a really big fan of ORBX products, and own quite a few of them myself.

Edited September 10, 2015 by cichlidfan

[Woogey]

I think ORBX would require a world model to be attached to, which we do not have.

 

EDIT: Most of ORBX scenery would be virtually useless in a Combined Arms environment.

 

Hello Cichlidfan,

 

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought this was part of the new engine? A spherical global presence. It is my understanding that the globe is there with full Latitude and Longitudinal Co-ordinates, just missing landmass, until a specific area is created by a developer.

 

I'm not sure the Combined Arms environment statement makes sense to me? Are you saying the ORBX Map locations don't make sense? Or the style of land Class based scenery, with High detail Photo-real Areas for specific airports? This is exactly the same method E.D. uses to create their own maps. Orbx just does it better with a much larger catalog of 3d assets.

 

Sincerely, -Woog

[cichlidfan]

IIRC, ED stated that the new engine would support a proper world model, not that it contained one.

 

From what I have seen of Nevada, ED's scenery at 'medium' detail will be superior to what ORBX looks like when you are at, or near, ground level.

[sobek]

Could also be that they want to reduce the memory footprint of a map. That would necessitate running real time procedural generation though.