I understand that you are trying to be helpful but there are a large handful of users on other forums complaining of these performance issues.
Because they don't know how to properly test. And they expect system resources are infinite. There's also a "large handful" of users that are not reporting ANY problems with fps. How do explain this, instead ?
You seem to be dodging the questions by blaming the FPS problems on other products, sliders, hardware, Anti Alaising, FSX.CFG config, etc. I really wish you would address the performance issues rather than delivering a product that is so demanding on hardware resources.
I'm not, and I'm not blaming ANYTHING. I'm showing you how to proceed by exclusion, and find the exact contribution each of your addons to your fps. AFTER you assess that, you can then make up your mind.
However, with the release of YVR, I decided to download the trial and test it out before making a final decision due to previous FPS issues at KLAX.
So, fact that this is selling better than KLAX, is probably proving either one of both of these facts:
1) KLAX didn't had any fps problems for most users, so they are purchasing CYVR without trying it first. Chances are that if KLAX worked well for those users, CYVR should be similar. Those that had problems with KLAX, like you, might have issues with CYVR. This alone should be proof enough the problem is the different system config and other installed addons, since the scenery used it's a constant here.
OR
2) KLAX had problems, so people are cautions and are testing CYVR. Despite of that, CYVR is selling very well, and better than KLAX (this took us by surprise, since we assumed KLAX is more popular than CYVR as an airport, and CYVR it's FSX only while KLAX was FSX+FS9, so we assumed slower sales), if this is the case, it can only mean CYVR WORKS WELL for most users, otherwise they wouldn't buy it.
Either one is true, but in both cases, the sceneries apparently work well for most people, while it seems you had problem with both.
I remember my FPS problems at KLAX after purchasing and I was hoping that FSDT would have made a better effort to optimize this newer scenery for framerates.
There's nothing in FSX so much optimized with fps.
I know that you continually back up your statements by saying "We use shaders", "pure FSX code", "offloading work to GPU" etc.
They are an undeniable fact.
I have just felt the urge to confront you about this on behalf of many other users and I truly am concerned that you are overlooking some of the underlying problems.
The problem might have something to do with the fact that, if there's something ELSE running with non-optimized graphic code TOGETHER, it seems to kill of the advantadges of using the GPU a lot. But we should find what it is.
A simple config manager or performance manager would suffice to improve performance and would likely attract many buyers that are in pursuit of a balanced FPS airport.
A config manager would imply there's something in CYVR that is losing fps. But there isn't, what you might need, would be an entirely remade version, in much less detail, not using shaders, that MIGHT not be slowed down by other legacy code you have somewhere in the system.
About dodging questions, you still haven't replied to my question:
what's your frame rate with:
A default airplane, in 2D panel view, without the 2D panel, and with the fps set to Unlimited ?
