Jump to content

What's your take on the KLAX scenery?


OlaHaldor

Recommended Posts

The buildings look alright, but could be better textured and the whole thing is let down by the ground photo textures.

Not fond of that green. Reminds me of the early real scenery colouring. Ground could be cleaned up, removing shadowed objects, colours and resolution definately improved.

Not the best advert for x-plane ever, and not up to msfs 2004 standards imho, but better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeesh.

Yep, the photo textures ruin it. I believe photo textures are the best way to go if done correctly- the results I'm getting from my experiments with my local airport are amazing. Of course it's much easier to do photo textures when you have airport access...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The objects are pretty well modeled, however I agree on the photo textures.  What separates this from the Alberta HEMS is that the Alberta HEMS photo textures aren't forced, and the slight blur draws attention slightly away from the ground and to the buildings.  Keep in mind I haven't flown in there for a while, unfortunately forgot about it, so I will come back with some screenshots to compare the ground textures soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better than anything else that's out for LAX, with the possible exception of some of Tom's old v.7 scenery. The lack of scenery for some of the worlds most major airports is pretty pathetic and is a big problem for x-plane. Sure MSFS conversions work ok, but I've always found that the best performance, especially for major airports comes from a native x-plane development. (Assuming all other things are equal like modelling quality and textures etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this scenery isn't free to those who HAVE payed at least $40 in the past? It's only for future payments of at least $40.

If so, that's lame. I have spent a ton of money there in the past...

Send Nicholas an e-mail or PM stating the products you have bought recently and see what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better than anything else that's out for LAX, with the possible exception of some of Tom's old v.7 scenery. The lack of scenery for some of the worlds most major airports is pretty pathetic and is a big problem for x-plane. Sure MSFS conversions work ok, but I've always found that the best performance, especially for major airports comes from a native x-plane development. (Assuming all other things are equal like modelling quality and textures etc.)

Cloud 9 KLAX works like a charm, great fps results as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not willingly pay for this. Certainly a lot of effort went into this project, and I assume the frame-rates should be good. I am guessing that it looks a lot better from 5k feet up, but then there are the different coloring between the tiles that do not match up. As was said before, 3D modelling is good, let down by downright horrible textures in a lot of places. Not a good showcase of what X-Plane can do, and definitely not something that will get people to desert FSX/FS9 anytime soon.

The vision for this scenery was probably good, but the execution not so much. It is salvageable with a serious rework of the textures.

Ola, we are waiting for you to set the benchmark!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, this scenery isn't free to those who HAVE payed at least $40 in the past? It's only for future payments of at least $40.

If so, that's lame. I have spent a ton of money there in the past...

Send Nicholas an e-mail or PM stating the products you have bought recently and see what he says.

Yeah me too - ton of money in the past,and I mean a lot!......it would be a nice "thank you" to customers if past purchases counted....I wouldn't pay for it , not that much anyway... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that you like the 3D modeling. The tower and the arcs are way more detailed than anything else. All I see is boxes. So, flat boxes are OK? There could be a lot more done to them, but you're OK with it?

If so, I'll just scrap a few layers of details and simplify a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that you like the 3D modeling. The tower and the arcs are way more detailed than anything else. All I see is boxes. So, flat boxes are OK? There could be a lot more done to them, but you're OK with it?

If so, I'll just scrap a few layers of details and simplify a lot more.

Well show us what ya got now first.  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...