Author Topic: blueprintsimulations with LAX  (Read 48213 times)

ckaack

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2011, 11:16:23 am »
I don't know how people can buy them!

I can not agree more

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2011, 04:08:24 pm »
I don't know how people can buy them!

With money.   ;D
Intel Core i7-4790 Haswell 4.0 GHz EVGA Z97 Classified EVGA Supernova 850 G2 G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Western Digital 1TB GeForce GTX 780 Superclock

Anders Bermann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2011, 06:26:43 pm »
I don't know how people can buy them!

With money.   ;D

LOL! :D

Indeed... usually while using a credit-card ... :D
Best regards, Anders

PUP4ORD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • UA777
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2011, 02:13:35 am »
I don't know how people can buy them!

With money.   ;D

LOL! :D

Indeed... usually while using a credit-card ... :D
Or debit card, Thats BP for ya!!! ;D
KENNETH M."PUP"CRADDOCK II
Ladies and Gentlemen please fasten your seatbelts for a short ride......
http://pup4ordfsxmore.blogspot.com/

ALIENWARE AURORA R4 MSWIN7 64BIT  As for the rest of it......?????????

Deltalpha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2011, 04:33:07 am »
Here we go again with the bashing of Blueprint. Do you really think they are trying to compete with FSDT? Read their homepage: Accuracy is there main concern.

Two different markets, two different developers. All the bashing in this thread about another developer doesn't make the FSDT community look too good...

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2011, 04:24:27 pm »
Do you really think they are trying to compete with FSDT?

They were working on DFW and LAX at the same time as FSDT, and rushed to get theirs out the door first. Sounds like they were competing to me.  As for accuracy being their main concern, the product speaks for itself in volumes.
Intel Core i7-4790 Haswell 4.0 GHz EVGA Z97 Classified EVGA Supernova 850 G2 G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Western Digital 1TB GeForce GTX 780 Superclock

josepha1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2011, 07:49:51 pm »
I've purchased their sceneries before. RDU and MCO. If no one else makes the sceneries I want and they make them, I'll buy them.

ckaack

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2011, 08:17:19 pm »
I've purchased their sceneries before. RDU and MCO. If no one else makes the sceneries I want and they make them, I'll buy them.

This is what I can understand, because BP sceneries are still better than the default one (even their work is close to FS default). But in case I know a scenery is going to be released by FSDT, FlyTampa, et cetera, I would never spend any cent on a BP scenery. I would sit, wait and relax for a high quality one. But everybody has different drivers and opinions.

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2011, 09:49:24 pm »
Do you really think they are trying to compete with FSDT?

They were working on DFW and LAX at the same time as FSDT, and rushed to get theirs out the door first. Sounds like they were competing to me.  As for accuracy being their main concern, the product speaks for itself in volumes.

Who said they rushed to get their sceneries out?  Since their detail isn't to the level of FSDT, they have a significantly less production time.  Do you somehow have some information that I don't have that they were rushing?

Frank Lindberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 747
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2011, 10:00:33 pm »
I'll ONLY buy airports that support AES  ;)
VA. Senior Captain Frank Lindberg
"United we stand and divided we fall"
My PC spec: MS Win10 pro 64 bit - Intel Core i9-9900K CPU @ OC to 5.0 GHz - 16GB Ram - Geforce 2080TI 11GBVRAM - P3Dv5.1

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2011, 04:45:13 pm »
Who said they rushed to get their sceneries out? ... Do you somehow have some information that I don't have that they were rushing?

Why are you always rushing to defend Blueprint?  Team member incognito, perhaps?  LOL   ;D
Intel Core i7-4790 Haswell 4.0 GHz EVGA Z97 Classified EVGA Supernova 850 G2 G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Western Digital 1TB GeForce GTX 780 Superclock

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2011, 06:59:44 pm »
Who said they rushed to get their sceneries out? ... Do you somehow have some information that I don't have that they were rushing?

Why are you always rushing to defend Blueprint?  Team member incognito, perhaps?  LOL   ;D

Not at all.  I just think the criticism they get is unwarranted.  And personally, I don't like their sceneries; I prefer more detailed sceneries.  But do you have an answer to my questions?  How do you know they rushed?  Based on the screenshots, they look just like their other sceneries.

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 753
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2011, 07:59:43 pm »
OMG! It's so obvious they rush their stuff. Just look at how many sceneries they produce every year?? I have worked at LAX for the better part of 11 years and can say without a doubt their focus is NOT about quality. It can't be!! There is no pride at all in their work. Ok let's discuss frames. EVERY other developer out there is finding magical ways to increase detail with out increasing framerates. Blueprint doesn't seem give a damn, they just keep releasing the same quality stuff over and over. They don't seem to be trying to increase the level of quality in their products. I used to feel the EXACT same way about Imaginesim but imagine really is putting pride in their work and it's getting MUCH better with each release. I was quite impressed with WSSS. Just compare that with their first product.

Now compare blueprints KLAX with their first product. Same quality, no pride. I am not bashing, I am stating what is so obvious. If they create respectful products, then I will give them the respect they deserve.

And unless I am on a VFR flight to a GA airport, it had better have AES or I am not going.  ;)

Which remindes me, I just activated all those damn Overland airports so I am going to have to purchase my 20th credit pack so I can be ready for KLAX, KSFO, and Athens!! I gots 1 credit left currently!!  :o
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 08:03:17 pm by newmanix »

Deltalpha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2011, 10:26:10 pm »
Taken directly from their homepage. Don't shoot the messenger.
Quote
Our sceneries are designed following a few simple premises:

We seek to achieve the highest level of aeronautical and geographical accuracy in order to provide the experienced pilot with the opportunity to apply real-life operational and navigational techniques during taxi, takeoff, departure, approach and landing procedures even during CAT III instrument flight (IFR) conditions.

In addition, we seek to render the primary components of the airport environment at the highest level of detail possible for the corresponding version of the flight simulator. We employ unique design techniques that enable us to render each component, particularly passenger terminals, at an unprecedented level of accuracy that in most cases permits one-to-one comparison to the real structure down to the number of windows between two boarding gates. This level of detail is, however, limited to the visible portions of the structures by accessibility to detailed information, the most obvious exception being the ground-level airside facilities in most passenger terminals. As much as we dislike the idea, artistic liberties must be taken to fill gaps left by lack of information.
The primary (or essential) components of the airport environment are, in our opinion, runways including the corresponding visual navigational aids, taxiways, signage, passenger and cargo terminals, and the air traffic control tower.
We give priority to the accurate location and orientation of gates, including jetways and aircraft parking positions, at the passenger terminals over all other features including the complex animations required by moving jetways and vehicles as well as advanced parking alignment aids. Unfortunately, the use of default animated jetways and vehicles is simply impossible at this time as is the possibility of customizing the individual components for each gate.

There are two significant, yet intended, deviations from ideal accuracy in "all" our sceneries. First, we add or modify some features of the airfield in order to enhance, and in some cases enable, the pilot's positional awareness that is inherently limited by the simulator environment. These items include countdown distance signs for all runways, flashing lights at all taxiway/runway interceptions, and oversized parking spot alignment aids. Second, we incorporate the latest airport features including those under development such as new runways and passenger/cargo terminals. Interestingly, the ability to peek into and experience the future is, second to their "accuracy", one of our sceneries' most popular features.
BluePrint sceneries are purposefully designed to be highly customizable. Their modular design is intended to provide the user with the opportunity to add or remove features at will. Each module is contained in a separate file and every file is labeled is such a way as to allow easy identification of its contents. Features/components can be easily removed by disabling the corresponding file. This can be accomplished by moving the file to a scenery-inactive location or by changing the file label extension. Consequently, items such as terminals, concourses, jetways, GA areas, static vehicles, trees, etc. can be easily removed or added to fit individual needs. No secret codes and cryptic labels are used. While this approach makes our sceneries significantly more vulnerable to piracy and theft, we truly believe that our customers deserve nothing less. As long as the customer has the knowledge and skills necessary to add or modify scenery components, our sceneries are not only designed for but in fact expected to be customized to fit his or her needs.

They mention nothing about the need to place useless cones anywhere or making sure every tire mark in in the right place. (Assuming thats what you mean by "detail".)

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 753
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2011, 10:34:32 pm »
And yet their payware Boston scenery isn't half as good as Geroge's outdated freeware Boston. Now that is funny! I am really beginning to believe you are part of the Blueprint team. The way you defend them here... You don't like their work but the way you defend them... it's uncanny... ???

Cones and tire marks are eye candyfodder. Its the actual texturing of the buildings and ramps I am refering to. The their rendition of TBIT is completely WRONG! They say LAX is their home airport, it seems none of them made the effort of actually going down to LAX to see huge features they left out.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 10:45:09 pm by newmanix »