Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can UTX and ORBX be used simultaenously in the same area?
619 views
Skip to first unread message
DonK
Dec 13, 2013, 5:41:16 PM12/13/13
to
I'm afraid that I didn't ask this question specifically enough in my
other thread so I'm trying again.
I use ORBX PNW and I like it a lot, I don't want to loose it. Is it
possible to use UTX to correct road placement in the PNW area without
screwing up the ORBX PNW scenery?
If UTX is actually a new set of FSX textures it sounds like I would
have to choose between the nice looking ORBX scenery or the accurate
UTX "scenery". IS THAT CORRECT??
Is it possible to have an accurate representation of roads (primary,
secondary, thirdary, N-ary <g>) in ORBX PNW?
BTW: Do mesh addons screw up ORBX scenery?
Thank y'all,
DonK
Vic Baron
Dec 13, 2013, 5:50:46 PM12/13/13
to
I had them combined before and I don't recall any issues Don. It's also
possible that Orbx has higher priority and so it overrides UTX anyway. Mesh
products like FSGenesis and SceneryTech play nice with Orbx.
With UTX, even if you didn't like what you see, it doesn't make any
permanent changes so you could uninstall - or just disable UTX in the
scenery library.
Vic
"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7f2na958i8krqn0ea...@4ax.com...
possible that Orbx has higher priority and so it overrides UTX anyway. Mesh
products like FSGenesis and SceneryTech play nice with Orbx.
With UTX, even if you didn't like what you see, it doesn't make any
permanent changes so you could uninstall - or just disable UTX in the
scenery library.
Vic
"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7f2na958i8krqn0ea...@4ax.com...
Ariel
Dec 14, 2013, 5:44:00 AM12/14/13
to
Short answer - yes. I use UTX USA and UTX Europe with Orbx Global
textures and they work very well together, just like you might have had
UTX and GEX textures working together. I did have just that, but
uninstalled GEX and installed Orbx Global instead. Using Global
textures, there is no need to worry about scenery priorities.
But... if you have an Orbx scenery area, like PNW or Central Rocky
Mountains etc, etc, it's a bit more complicated. These do the same job
with roads, landclass and 3D objects within their areas as UTX does
(only even better, I reckon). So to prevent conflicts and weird
problems in areas where they overlap, you need to ensure that the Orbx
scenery area(s) have a higher priority than the UTX files in the Scenery
Library list. That means listing them in the Scenery library above the
UTX entries (i.e. with a lower number).
If you install the Orbx scenery area after the UTX area, that will
probably work out right. Or if not, you can move them up or down the
list manually. Also there is a tool in the Orbx "Central" configurator
which can be used to lock the Orbx entries in the list above some
particular scenery entry, like the topmost UTX entry, so the priority
will always stay right.
Orbx have their own "Vector" scenery area add-ons coming out shortly,
which will do the same job as UTX over large areas, but until then I'm
happily using UTX USA and UTX Europe with a whole raft of ORBX scenery
areas.
Mesh...Don't worry too much about different mesh scenery files. It
doesn't matter much where they are in the scenery priorities. FSX (and
presumably P3D) will use the one with the best (highest) resolution. (A
rare case of common sense breaking out!).
Ariel
textures and they work very well together, just like you might have had
UTX and GEX textures working together. I did have just that, but
uninstalled GEX and installed Orbx Global instead. Using Global
textures, there is no need to worry about scenery priorities.
But... if you have an Orbx scenery area, like PNW or Central Rocky
Mountains etc, etc, it's a bit more complicated. These do the same job
with roads, landclass and 3D objects within their areas as UTX does
(only even better, I reckon). So to prevent conflicts and weird
problems in areas where they overlap, you need to ensure that the Orbx
scenery area(s) have a higher priority than the UTX files in the Scenery
Library list. That means listing them in the Scenery library above the
UTX entries (i.e. with a lower number).
If you install the Orbx scenery area after the UTX area, that will
probably work out right. Or if not, you can move them up or down the
list manually. Also there is a tool in the Orbx "Central" configurator
which can be used to lock the Orbx entries in the list above some
particular scenery entry, like the topmost UTX entry, so the priority
will always stay right.
Orbx have their own "Vector" scenery area add-ons coming out shortly,
which will do the same job as UTX over large areas, but until then I'm
happily using UTX USA and UTX Europe with a whole raft of ORBX scenery
areas.
Mesh...Don't worry too much about different mesh scenery files. It
doesn't matter much where they are in the scenery priorities. FSX (and
presumably P3D) will use the one with the best (highest) resolution. (A
rare case of common sense breaking out!).
Ariel
DonK
Dec 15, 2013, 7:43:28 PM12/15/13
to
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 10:44:00 +0000, Ariel <f0rd....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>Short answer - yes. I use UTX USA and UTX Europe with Orbx Global
>textures and they work very well together,
>
[Ariel]
>So to prevent conflicts and weird
>problems in areas where they overlap, you need to ensure that the Orbx
>scenery area(s) have a higher priority than the UTX files in the Scenery
>Library list.
[Ariel]
After installing UTX I tried flying in two U.S. locations.
The first was in the Eastern US where I had no ORBX scenery. That was
fine.
The second was KAWO in the area covered by ORBX PNW. That airport was
totally screwed up compared to the great job that ORBX did in modeling
it. Before I got off the ground, my computer crashed (probably not the
fault of UTX) and I didn't feel like doing anymore flying after a
reboot.
The KAWO problem would likely have been fixed by giving a lower
priority to UTX BUT . . . I don't like the way ORBX does roads. Many
roads are missing or they often just fade into nothing or simply dead
end.
From what I saw flying around KMUU (small grass strip in central PA)
the UTX placement of roads was more realistic than what ORBX models in
their scenery areas.
I'm not at all surprised by this, in fact, it's exactly what I
expected when I installed UTX. What I would like to see is my ORBX PNW
scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just like
I do when driving on them in my car. I want to fly East on 116th St
and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's probably too
much to ask for.
Thanks for your help.
DonK
wrote:
>Short answer - yes. I use UTX USA and UTX Europe with Orbx Global
>textures and they work very well together,
>If you install the Orbx scenery area after the UTX area, that will
>probably work out right. Or if not, you can move them up or down the
>list manually.
>
>probably work out right. Or if not, you can move them up or down the
>list manually.
>
>Orbx have their own "Vector" scenery area add-ons coming out shortly,
>which will do the same job as UTX over large areas, but until then I'm
>happily using UTX USA and UTX Europe with a whole raft of ORBX scenery
>areas.
>
>
>Ariel
>which will do the same job as UTX over large areas, but until then I'm
>happily using UTX USA and UTX Europe with a whole raft of ORBX scenery
>areas.
>
>
>
[Ariel]
>So to prevent conflicts and weird
>problems in areas where they overlap, you need to ensure that the Orbx
>scenery area(s) have a higher priority than the UTX files in the Scenery
>Library list.
After installing UTX I tried flying in two U.S. locations.
The first was in the Eastern US where I had no ORBX scenery. That was
fine.
The second was KAWO in the area covered by ORBX PNW. That airport was
totally screwed up compared to the great job that ORBX did in modeling
it. Before I got off the ground, my computer crashed (probably not the
fault of UTX) and I didn't feel like doing anymore flying after a
reboot.
The KAWO problem would likely have been fixed by giving a lower
priority to UTX BUT . . . I don't like the way ORBX does roads. Many
roads are missing or they often just fade into nothing or simply dead
end.
From what I saw flying around KMUU (small grass strip in central PA)
the UTX placement of roads was more realistic than what ORBX models in
their scenery areas.
I'm not at all surprised by this, in fact, it's exactly what I
expected when I installed UTX. What I would like to see is my ORBX PNW
scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just like
I do when driving on them in my car. I want to fly East on 116th St
and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's probably too
much to ask for.
Thanks for your help.
DonK
Ariel
Dec 16, 2013, 4:32:05 AM12/16/13
to
If you installed UTX after the Orbx stuff, the scenery library
priorities will definitely be in the wrong order, and will need to be
changed to prevent problems.
Ariel
priorities will definitely be in the wrong order, and will need to be
changed to prevent problems.
Ariel
sambodidley
Dec 16, 2013, 11:59:53 AM12/16/13
to
"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote >
> I'm not at all surprised by this, in fact, it's exactly what I
> expected when I installed UTX. What I would like to see is my ORBX PNW
> scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just like
> I do when driving on them in my car. I want to fly East on 116th St
> and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's probably too
> much to ask for.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
>
> DonK
Atlas accuracy in a $49 computer game. Just relax and enjoy the flying part.
It works pretty good for the most part.<g>
Sam
Copter_Six
Dec 16, 2013, 2:43:03 PM12/16/13
to
able to navigate with a sectional. UTX gives just enough accuracy to be
able to do that.
I have FSGearthview which shows the actual terrain view forward of the
aircraft. You can see other views as well. It's amazing how accurate
FSX is just in default mode. Flying some rivers in North Korea FSX will
show an island in a sharp bend in the river and Google Earth shows the
actual island. Pretty good for $50.00.
--
Copter Six
sambodidley
Dec 16, 2013, 4:26:48 PM12/16/13
to
"Copter_Six" <" c6"@texas.com> wrote in message
news:l8nl4b$kbh$1...@news.albasani.net...
Heck, Bob. I can't even read a sectional any more. I can barely read
the map view in FSX. Besides, the scenery I flew over back then doesn't
even exist any more. The sectionals of today look nothing like the ones I
used when I was flying. There was no GPS or VOR, either. Very little
controlled air space. I didn't have a radio in my plane most of the time.
Didn't need one to fly into or out of any airpoer at that time. Flew quite a
bit without a chart after I left flight school. Just used the highways and
railroads. Some of those railroads ran straight as an arrow for miles and
miles. We called them the "Iron Compass".
I can find roads well enough in FSX to figure out where I am. I sure
don't expect to be able to pick out a particular house in a subdivision
anywhere in the world with a $49 computer game, though. <g>
Sam
scott s.
Dec 16, 2013, 5:45:12 PM12/16/13
to
DonK <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:u9hsa9psebere2aft...@4ax.com:
>
> After installing UTX I tried flying in two U.S. locations.
>
> The first was in the Eastern US where I had no ORBX scenery. That
> was fine.
>
> The second was KAWO in the area covered by ORBX PNW. That airport
> was totally screwed up compared to the great job that ORBX did in
> modeling it. Before I got off the ground, my computer crashed
> (probably not the fault of UTX) and I didn't feel like doing anymore
> flying after a reboot.
>
> The KAWO problem would likely have been fixed by giving a lower
> priority to UTX BUT . . . I don't like the way ORBX does roads. Many
> roads are missing or they often just fade into nothing or simply
> dead end.
>
> From what I saw flying around KMUU (small grass strip in central PA)
> the UTX placement of roads was more realistic than what ORBX models
> in their scenery areas.
>
> I'm not at all surprised by this, in fact, it's exactly what I
> expected when I installed UTX. What I would like to see is my ORBX
> PNW scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just
> like I do when driving on them in my car. I want to fly East on
> 116th St and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's
> probably too much to ask for.
>
> Thanks for your help.
I don't have PNW, but I do have NRM and CRM so looked at KGEG which is
one of my test airport locations. I compared NRM to UTX and the roads
seem identical. What I see different is the landclass assignments.
I took identical top-down views and overlaid them as layers, then played
wih the transparency on the upper layer so I could compare. I see
some difference also in elevation, but that is FSG mesh vs FTX not UTX.
I also noticed a difference between having the UTX Minor Urban roads
(RD4) option on/off (with it off, some roads did just "stop").
scott s.
.
news:u9hsa9psebere2aft...@4ax.com:
>
> After installing UTX I tried flying in two U.S. locations.
>
> The first was in the Eastern US where I had no ORBX scenery. That
> was fine.
>
> The second was KAWO in the area covered by ORBX PNW. That airport
> was totally screwed up compared to the great job that ORBX did in
> modeling it. Before I got off the ground, my computer crashed
> (probably not the fault of UTX) and I didn't feel like doing anymore
> flying after a reboot.
>
> The KAWO problem would likely have been fixed by giving a lower
> priority to UTX BUT . . . I don't like the way ORBX does roads. Many
> roads are missing or they often just fade into nothing or simply
> dead end.
>
> From what I saw flying around KMUU (small grass strip in central PA)
> the UTX placement of roads was more realistic than what ORBX models
> in their scenery areas.
>
> I'm not at all surprised by this, in fact, it's exactly what I
> expected when I installed UTX. What I would like to see is my ORBX
> PNW scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just
> like I do when driving on them in my car. I want to fly East on
> 116th St and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's
> probably too much to ask for.
>
> Thanks for your help.
one of my test airport locations. I compared NRM to UTX and the roads
seem identical. What I see different is the landclass assignments.
I took identical top-down views and overlaid them as layers, then played
wih the transparency on the upper layer so I could compare. I see
some difference also in elevation, but that is FSG mesh vs FTX not UTX.
I also noticed a difference between having the UTX Minor Urban roads
(RD4) option on/off (with it off, some roads did just "stop").
scott s.
.
DonK
Dec 16, 2013, 6:57:56 PM12/16/13
to
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:59:53 -0600, "sambodidley"
<scoo...@loonyville.com> wrote:
>
>"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote >
J3 tailwheel" in a $49 computer game. (BTW: I paid less than $30 for
FSX Gold)
>Just relax and enjoy the flying part. It works pretty good for the most part.<g>
I sincerely do not see the attraction of sitting in a chair, staring
at a screen while SIMULATING going up, down, left and right.
Additionally, even the best FSX scenery looks cartoonish to me. It's
just peachy if you get enjoyment from that but I don't.
You want to go left, right, up and down in a J3. I want to do that
occasionally but I need more than that to make it interesting for me.
I want to do some navigation, pull out a sectional and plotter, dial
in VOR's, learn details of the various GPS devices, simulate
emergencies, have radios and ATC that do a better job simulating RL
radios, etc.
>It is unreasonable to expect "World Wide" Atlas accuracy in a $49 computer game
I don't think it's unreasonable at all. I'll bet all that info is
available from the USGS http://www.usgs.gov/ and can be "transformed"
to a format that FSX/P3D can use. The only obstacles are price and
computing power and I doubt that either would be that great of a
hurdle. I've got hundreds of dollars invested in add-ons, controllers,
planes, airports, etc. What's another few bucks for accurate roads,
bridges, etc?
Merry Christmas Sam. If you say humbug I'm gonna poke my finger
through your J3. ;-)
DonK
<scoo...@loonyville.com> wrote:
>
>"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote >
>
>> What I would like to see is my ORBX PNW
>> scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just like
>> I do when driving on them in my car.
>>
>> What I would like to see is my ORBX PNW
>> scenery but with accurate, road placement that I can follow just like
>> I do when driving on them in my car.
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> DonK
>
> Hey! Don, it's just a game. It is unreasonable to expect "World Wide"
>Atlas accuracy in a $49 computer game. Just relax and enjoy the flying part.
>It works pretty good for the most part.<g>
>Sam
>
Hey! Sam, it's just a game. It is unreasonable to expect "an accurate
>>
>> DonK
>
> Hey! Don, it's just a game. It is unreasonable to expect "World Wide"
>Atlas accuracy in a $49 computer game. Just relax and enjoy the flying part.
>It works pretty good for the most part.<g>
>Sam
>
J3 tailwheel" in a $49 computer game. (BTW: I paid less than $30 for
FSX Gold)
>Just relax and enjoy the flying part. It works pretty good for the most part.<g>
at a screen while SIMULATING going up, down, left and right.
Additionally, even the best FSX scenery looks cartoonish to me. It's
just peachy if you get enjoyment from that but I don't.
You want to go left, right, up and down in a J3. I want to do that
occasionally but I need more than that to make it interesting for me.
I want to do some navigation, pull out a sectional and plotter, dial
in VOR's, learn details of the various GPS devices, simulate
emergencies, have radios and ATC that do a better job simulating RL
radios, etc.
>It is unreasonable to expect "World Wide" Atlas accuracy in a $49 computer game
available from the USGS http://www.usgs.gov/ and can be "transformed"
to a format that FSX/P3D can use. The only obstacles are price and
computing power and I doubt that either would be that great of a
hurdle. I've got hundreds of dollars invested in add-ons, controllers,
planes, airports, etc. What's another few bucks for accurate roads,
bridges, etc?
Merry Christmas Sam. If you say humbug I'm gonna poke my finger
through your J3. ;-)
DonK
sambodidley
Dec 16, 2013, 8:36:55 PM12/16/13
to
news:es2va9po2m5r6kj1k...@4ax.com...
LOL Gotcha going on that one, didn't I, Don. I've got a few bucks
invested in my sim, also. Paid 3100 bucks for this last super box that I
use exclusively for FSX. Nothing else installed on it but FSX and its
addons. Gotta full set of controls, both stick and yoke, mounted on a Flight
Seat to simulate a real cockpit. Gotta 27 inch Viewsonic monitor strapped
to the top of my yoke. Got GEX, UTX, REX essentials w/Overdrive, FEX and all
ORBX NA scenery. Still can't find my house, though, and don't really care. I
already know where it is. ;-)))
BTW, Microsoft got their J3 tailwheel right in their $49 game. It was
that high priced accu-something I bought that didn't. Merry Christmas, Don.
If
you say humbug I'll send you my TrashIR to help you find your house. <g>
Sam
invested in my sim, also. Paid 3100 bucks for this last super box that I
use exclusively for FSX. Nothing else installed on it but FSX and its
addons. Gotta full set of controls, both stick and yoke, mounted on a Flight
Seat to simulate a real cockpit. Gotta 27 inch Viewsonic monitor strapped
to the top of my yoke. Got GEX, UTX, REX essentials w/Overdrive, FEX and all
ORBX NA scenery. Still can't find my house, though, and don't really care. I
already know where it is. ;-)))
BTW, Microsoft got their J3 tailwheel right in their $49 game. It was
that high priced accu-something I bought that didn't. Merry Christmas, Don.
If
you say humbug I'll send you my TrashIR to help you find your house. <g>
Sam
DonK
Dec 16, 2013, 11:18:13 PM12/16/13
to
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:36:55 -0600, "sambodidley"
house. That's available in photoreal scenery and I don't care for it.
I would just like to have accurate roads.
Merry, happy,
DonK
<scoo...@loonyville.com> wrote:
>
>"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:es2va9po2m5r6kj1k...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:59:53 -0600, "sambodidley"
>> <scoo...@loonyville.com> wrote:
>>
>> Merry Christmas Sam. If you say humbug I'm gonna poke my finger
>> through your J3. ;-)
>>
>> DonK
>
> LOL Gotcha going on that one, didn't I, Don. I've got a few bucks
>
>"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:es2va9po2m5r6kj1k...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:59:53 -0600, "sambodidley"
>> <scoo...@loonyville.com> wrote:
>>
>> Merry Christmas Sam. If you say humbug I'm gonna poke my finger
>> through your J3. ;-)
>>
>> DonK
>
> LOL Gotcha going on that one, didn't I, Don. I've got a few bucks
>If
>you say humbug I'll send you my TrashIR to help you find your house. <g>
>Sam
Just to be clear, I didn't say anything about finding my, or any,
>you say humbug I'll send you my TrashIR to help you find your house. <g>
>Sam
house. That's available in photoreal scenery and I don't care for it.
I would just like to have accurate roads.
Merry, happy,
DonK
DonK
Dec 16, 2013, 11:27:57 PM12/16/13
to
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:45:12 -0600, "scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom>
wrote:
>DonK <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:u9hsa9psebere2aft...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> After installing UTX I tried flying in two U.S. locations.
>>
>
I had all the UTX road options turned on. I think UTX made a positive
difference in the non-ORBX area in central Pennsylvania that I looked
at but I didn't get a chance to see what difference it might have made
in PNW before my computer went TU. I'll probably try it again in a
couple days.
DonK
wrote:
>DonK <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:u9hsa9psebere2aft...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> After installing UTX I tried flying in two U.S. locations.
>>
>
>I don't have PNW, but I do have NRM and CRM so looked at KGEG which is
>one of my test airport locations. I compared NRM to UTX and the roads
>seem identical. What I see different is the landclass assignments.
>
>I took identical top-down views and overlaid them as layers, then played
>wih the transparency on the upper layer so I could compare. I see
>some difference also in elevation, but that is FSG mesh vs FTX not UTX.
>
>I also noticed a difference between having the UTX Minor Urban roads
>(RD4) option on/off (with it off, some roads did just "stop").
>
>scott s.
>.
Wow, that was a lot of effort.
>one of my test airport locations. I compared NRM to UTX and the roads
>seem identical. What I see different is the landclass assignments.
>
>I took identical top-down views and overlaid them as layers, then played
>wih the transparency on the upper layer so I could compare. I see
>some difference also in elevation, but that is FSG mesh vs FTX not UTX.
>
>I also noticed a difference between having the UTX Minor Urban roads
>(RD4) option on/off (with it off, some roads did just "stop").
>
>scott s.
>.
I had all the UTX road options turned on. I think UTX made a positive
difference in the non-ORBX area in central Pennsylvania that I looked
at but I didn't get a chance to see what difference it might have made
in PNW before my computer went TU. I'll probably try it again in a
couple days.
DonK
sambodidley
Dec 17, 2013, 12:54:08 AM12/17/13
to
"DonK" <don8...@comcast.net> wrote
>>you say humbug I'll send you my TrashIR to help you find your house. <g>
>>Sam
>
> Just to be clear, I didn't say anything about finding my, or any,
> house.
"I want to fly East on 116th St
and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's probably too
much to ask for."
Oops, my bad. I thought you wanted to find his house. Just the block?
and find the block that my friend lives on, etc. That's probably too
much to ask for."
Ok, but that wouldn't interest me. Now, with google streets, I can find my
block, my house, read the license plate on my car parked there and the house
numbers on my front door. If someone could figure a way to incorporate
that, for the whole world, into a $49 computer game I'd sure like to buy
one. <g>
Sam
scott s.
Dec 17, 2013, 5:53:15 PM12/17/13
to
DonK <don8...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:84kva9djii4agfjm2...@4ax.com:
I had never done a true "A-B" comparison so was kind of interested.
Just a matter of slewing over an airport. FSUIPC has option to
"autosave" a flight on exit, so all I had to do was turn FTX NA
or or off in FTX Central, restart the sim and load the flight, take a
screenshot and load it into "GIMP", then play with the transparency
slider in GIMP to ssitch from one snap to the other. Kind of hard
to make a good comparison view, though (I tried to tint the images to
enhance contrast, but probably a vid would capture it better).
KEGE airport (Spokane WA) with FTX NRM (green)
http://imageshack.us/a/img138/4980/uix1.jpg
with UTX USA (blue)
http://imageshack.us/a/img59/6988/kp2o.jpg
Tring to mix with transparency
http://imageshack.us/a/img200/7973/kz1p.jpg
If you look close you can see that Orbx did some work on the
airport layout, but the roads look pretty much the same.
scott s.
.
news:84kva9djii4agfjm2...@4ax.com:
Just a matter of slewing over an airport. FSUIPC has option to
"autosave" a flight on exit, so all I had to do was turn FTX NA
or or off in FTX Central, restart the sim and load the flight, take a
screenshot and load it into "GIMP", then play with the transparency
slider in GIMP to ssitch from one snap to the other. Kind of hard
to make a good comparison view, though (I tried to tint the images to
enhance contrast, but probably a vid would capture it better).
KEGE airport (Spokane WA) with FTX NRM (green)
http://imageshack.us/a/img138/4980/uix1.jpg
with UTX USA (blue)
http://imageshack.us/a/img59/6988/kp2o.jpg
Tring to mix with transparency
http://imageshack.us/a/img200/7973/kz1p.jpg
If you look close you can see that Orbx did some work on the
airport layout, but the roads look pretty much the same.
scott s.
.
0 new messages