FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ray on November 15, 2008, 12:16:03 pm
-
Hello all,
just came across the review of KJFK of FSDT by Colin McFadden. I don't know with which settings he was testing the scenery, but the ground textures on my system do not nearly look as bad as he complained about they would.
An example given in MacFadden's review:
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/1108/FSDT/taxi011.jpg)
and on my lousy Pentium III 900 Mhz, 1 GB SDRAM, 128Mb Gpu System in FS9:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Rhinehornet/4L_textures.jpg)
Someone should tell him to use the proper settings! :o :)
-
You should probably post the same message on Avsim feedback review section.
-
You should probably post the same message on Avsim feedback review section.
Done. :)
-
The reviewer has his facts and his PC all twisted. He stated that the ground textures are the obvious weakness to the scenery (wtf?). He lost all credibility with that statement. If he had taken one look through the screenshot forum he would have quickly realized his PC was a mess and that the scenery is in the top 5 in the "best sceneries ever" category.
-
Hey guys, I'm Colin McFadden, the AVSIM Reviewer assigned to this project. I contacted support during the making of the review asking what the best settings would be for the scenery, and never received a response. I'm not saying they simply ignored it, but perhaps it was overlooked or wasn't sent correctly? I'm not sure. But I will take the blame for not posting in the forums about it; for that I apologize.
Let me clear some things up, though.
In my review, I NEVER stated that it was a bad scenery, nor did I say it doesn't deserve to be in the top 5 of the "best scenery ever", this scenery could definitely be in the top 3 for that matter! I love it, and I enjoy flying in and out of JFK with it. Perhaps my words about the taxiway textures in the review were a little harsh, but I won't back down about the point I was getting at; and I'll admit it here as well: I wasn't impressed with the taxiway textures...NOT the tarmacs, etc - I'll be sure to revise the review and make that point come across clearer.
The taxiways in this photo are obviously lacking the "crispness" that the Chicago scenery below shows. I'm just stating what I see. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: kinm - FSDT Forums member)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/KinMatsamura/2.jpg)
I'm much more impressed with these textures from FSDT's KORD scenery. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: Nick Churchill - FSDT Forums member)
(http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/images/FSDT/ohare/dream_ohare_04.jpg)
I received input from from other various users as well, all of which admitted that while everything else was awesome, the taxiways clearly lacked the quality of the rest of the scenery.
I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever if you guys would like to give me the best settings to use. I also have no problem in revising my review; let's work together and figure this out. However, I'm just not sure as to how you aren't seeing what I'm seeing? In Ray's photo up top, there is a difference between mine and his, but not too much of a difference. The edges of the textures are definitely a little crisper, but it's not substantially better than the shot I took, is it?
Thanks for your feedback everyone; I'll keep in touch with my editor and edit my review if I find the taxiway textures improve with different settings. Have a great weekend!
- Colin McFadden
coolcolin09 [at] msn [dot] com
-
However, I'm just not sure as to how you aren't seeing what I'm seeing? In Ray's photo up top, there is a difference between mine and his, but not too much of a difference. The edges of the textures are definitely a little crisper, but it's not substantially better than the shot I took, is it?
Disregard the edges for a minute, and look at the taxiway leading to runway 4L... The shot you posted is a blurry mess, while the shot Ray posted looks like well worn asphalt. Check your global max texture slider and set it to massive, then go back and look at Runway 4L. While you're in settings, check everything else as well... everything should at least be set to normal, dense is even better if your system can handle it. Don't worry too much about frame rates, your eye can't see much over 20 anyway.
-
I contacted support during the making of the review asking what the best settings would be for the scenery, and never received a response. I'm not saying they simply ignored it, but perhaps it was overlooked or wasn't sent correctly?
Hello Colin,
I've just re-checked the email, but I haven't found any email coming from you (tried with address, name, surname, nothing). It must have been lost, perhaps because of some anti-spam filter along the way. The best solution would have been asking on this forum, because it might be more reliable than email.
I wasn't impressed with the taxiway textures...NOT the tarmacs, etc - I'll be sure to revise the review and make that point come across clearer.
The issue is, the screenshot you posted on Avsim are far worse than what can be seen on the scenery, so obviously something must be wrong.
The taxiways in this photo are obviously lacking the "crispness" that the Chicago scenery below shows. I'm just stating what I see. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: kinm - FSDT Forums member)
I'm much more impressed with these textures from FSDT's KORD scenery. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: Nick Churchill - FSDT Forums member)
Sorry, but you are making an unfair comparison, by taking as an example of JFK a screenshot from a random user (who might have or not the correct settings, just like you have), and compare it to KORD, as taken by Nick Churchill, who's very well known to be specialized in taking incredible screenshots, so I'm sure his PC has been set up as best as anyone can, with regard to image quality.
This is how JFK looks here, for example:
(http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=830.0;attach=1987;image)
I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever if you guys would like to give me the best settings to use.
There are many things that contribute to image crispness on ground. And it changes between FS9 and FSX. Let's assume FSX first:
On FSX
- The Global Texture size slider. This should be always set to "Massive", otherwise 1024x1024 texture will never be used.
- The Texture filter should be set to "Anisotropic"
- The Texture resolution slider on the Scenery settings, which should be set at 30 cm/pixel, since the scenery use this resolution. Anything lower, and you will not see the full res.
On the Video Card
- You should absolutely use Anisotropic filtering, 8x minimum, 16x it's best. On some drivers, you might need to force it on (on nVidia, it's called "Enhance the application setting")
Other settings
- Depending on your settings, it might be that in THIS area (and not on KORD, because the surroundings are way different than NYC), your system is too overloaded, and you are suffering the infamous "blurries" problem, which is your PC that hasn't enough spare cycles left to "catch up" with the scenery, and load the higher resolution textures, so you are always seeing the lowest ones that are supposed to be loaded only on distance. You might check if this is the case, trying to LOWER other settings (like AI traffic, scenery density, etc), OR limit the fps, and let the sim in slew/pause for a minute or so, and see if the higher resolution texture finally appears. Note, this assumes you have already checked out all the previous items above!
Let me know if you can improve your visual quality a bit with these suggestions.
-
I will be trying these settings tonight and I'll report what I see. But I guess I'm still not getting my point across. The areas around the terminals are great; very high quality. It is the actual black taxiways that I'm talking about. On the taxiways, the yellow lines were painted great, but the actual ground on the black taxiways seem stretched. Any details like oil spots, etc on the taxiways seem big and pixelated.
And I hope you guys don't think I'm bashing this scenery. I really do love it; I'm just trying to point this out and get it cleared up.
-
@ Collin,
Just wanted to point out that in the comparison shots you posted above that it's two very different surfaces. Ohare obviously being concrete, while the American Terminal's taxiway is worn down (and repaved many times) asphalt (or possibly bitmus) which I think Kappa captured dead on. Also if you look at Virtuali's JBU Terminal shot (which is concrete) it has more definition and sharpness than the asphalt surface which is how it is in real life as well.
-
Hello Colin,
the initial cause for me to open this thread was that all (four) screenshots you used to emphasize the (Quote: "totally unacceptable") taxiway textures did NOT show the existing hi-res ground textures of the scenery at all! Just like here as well:
Your example:
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/1108/FSDT/taxi015.jpg)
...and on my outdated system:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Rhinehornet/KJFK_asphalt_Gates.jpg
I believe I understand the point you want to make clear now, however I think there is a difference between saying "it lacks crispness" and "totally unacceptable". The latter statement, I suspect, was a result of you seeing the ground textures the way you posted in the screenshots of your review.
I believe, and I am by far no scenery design expert, the reason that those particular (taxiway) surfaces covered with tarmac lack the artificial sharpness as the concrete surfaces do, for the simple fact that reproducing (manually repainting) the extraordinary multiple irregularly toned patches (if you wanted to stay realistic) would require months to reproduce, unlike the always repetitive concrete slabs and their seams. I suspect the only other way to do dead-sharp and authentic (!) tarmac surfaces would require aerial images with 10 cm resolution/pixel, and it is questionable if such data exists or is affordable.
Just my 0.02 $. Hope it will work out for you with the new settings.
-
Thanks for all your comments with regards to Colin's review as posted at AVSIM.
It is unfortunate that his questions to the developer appear to have gotten lost in the ethernet.
Colin has assured us (as posted in this thread) that he will make an amendment to his review comments.
It was apparent throughout the review that he did like this product, and as a reviewer, called the experience as he saw it.
I appreciate all the help you have afforded him in helping to get his PC settings corrected to give him the best graphical experience possible at JFK.
As soon as Colin has sent me his updated review comments, I'll get the review amended accordingly.
BTW - this is the way forums are supposed to work.....simmers working together for the greater good of the hobby ;D
Robert Whitwell
Reviews Editor
avsim.com
-
hey folks,
i understand colin very well when he says that the taxiways look really blurry.
it is fact, and there ain´t no doubt, that in comparisson with kord the ground texture look, let me say
different.
collin pointed this out, and he is right.
to make clear the problem just take a look into this topic:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=967.15
there you will find the answer why fsdt decided to do it this way.
in my opinion the majority of ground textures in the very near don´t look very well.
but if u look at the airport from a higher point of view, the whole scenry looks just amazing!!!
unfortunately fsdt had to make this compromise in order to get this huge mass of different ground colors handeled.
best wishes,
sören
-
i understand colin very well when he says that the taxiways look really blurry.
No. They don't look nearly as blurred as in HIS screenshot. Clear proof: look at the SAME area, in Ray's screenshots. So, it's obviously a problem on Colin's PC settings, that is not displaying the full resolution of the scenery.
it is fact, and there ain´t no doubt, that in comparisson with kord the ground texture look, let me say different.
That's only an optical illusion created by the fact that the concrete can be faked more easily than asphalt, because the detail texture for concrete can be made more recognizable, and it can mask the otherwise lower resolution of the photoreal background. KORD and KJFK have the SAME resolution for ground!
collin pointed this out, and he is right.
No. It might have been right, if the scenery really looked like his screenshot. But it doesn't. Look at Ray's screenshots again, and tell me if the resolution it's the same. And see his PC specs...
to make clear the problem just take a look into this topic:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=967.15
there you will find the answer why fsdt decided to do it this way.
That explanation was meant to say why the scenery has a photoreal background + detail texture above it (exactly like KORD), instead of a super hi-res multi-GB photoreal background only, but the scenery is NOT blurred as much as the screenshot that was posted there.
In that screenshot, the photoreal background was not loaded in full res AND the detail texture wasn't even loaded, this probably because of the flatten problem, that we fixed a few days after the release.
Colin's screenshots DO show the detail texure instead (so it already has the updated flatten version), but the photoreal background is WAY more blurred than in reality is. So, it's a different problem compared to the one in thread you mentioned, because in that case it was the detail texture that was entirely missing, probably because of the (already fixed) flatten issue.
This is how the scenery looks like on my PC at the same spot of the thread you pointed out, see the attached picture. The detail texture is clearly visible and the photoreal background has better res anyway.
Yes, KORD might look somewhat better, but ONLY because of the distintive signs/cracks/lines than appear on the detail texture to simulate concrete, which are not obviously present on asphalt, NOT because it has a better background resolution. The explanation was trying to tell that, we can't double the background resolution (quadrupling scenery size) "just" because asphalt is more difficult to fake with details...
However, that KORD looks a little bit (not *that* much) better it's not the main point here, the point is: KFJK DOES NOT looks as bad as in the Avsim review shots!!!
unfortunately fsdt had to make this compromise in order to get this huge mass of different ground colors handeled.
Yes, of course compromises are always made, but that's doesn't mean the scenery really looks like the screenshot posted on Avsim.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Another comparison, which I think close the question beyond any doubt:
KJFK 4L from the Avsim review:
(http://www.avsim.com/pages/1108/FSDT/taxi009.jpg)
KFJK 4L on my PC:
(http://www.fsdreamteam.com/images/kjfk_4l.jpg)
-
Mr. Umberto "Virtuali" Colapicchioni,
Could you please just post your *recommended* settings for FS9/FSX for this scenery (for High/Low end systems), like you did when you/Kappa gave me your .cfg file(s)? In the updated Manual(s) would be great place to put it for all your scenery products. This would greatly decrease the confusion, about what are users computer limitations, from a package's settings requirement issues. And, may end topics that lead to "YAPD" or you trying to convince people of our incorrect knowledge about your products. I don't think anyone cares; we just want to enjoy and use the products as you intended.
I think I have indicated to you before that I don't care to know everything about FSX and the creation of each and every scenery package after installing and buying it. *We* users just want it to work and that isn't always clear for people with low end systems or limited knowledge in hardware settings/tweaking. I, myself, (as an example) have a very high-end system and it "chokes" a little with KJFK; Not at all with KORD, LSZH, Greystone or even FlyTampa's Kai-Tai which, I fully load up with everything to max including all AI types in FSX. I get average 47-77 FPS even with "high demand" models like Aerosoft's F-16 or CaptainSim's C-130 / 757's on those scenery packages and NO OC'ing or super-cooling liquid utilities are involved.
But...
The KJFK package has a few, shall we say *gremlins*, that aren't showing up on your test machines but are still unresolved on the open market. I recently tested the latest download of KJFK with another completely different hardware/system to be used on an FTD at a FBO. Although, I don't have this exact issue as Colin, I've already indicated the ones that I have and, am sadly, still able to replicate those issues mentioned on the FTD system.
Perhaps after you're done working out your current projects you can look at these issues. Please don't continue to tell me that it is a personal issue for this user alone or me for mine. I have seen issues posted elsewhere that have similar or *newer* problems with this current version of the product. I'll wait for you to have time to fix it and perhaps between now and then you can resolve Colin's problem(s).
Good Luck!
PS: If users have other opinions you are free to express them but please don't try to argue your point endlessly; I simple don't care. Like Colin, I want my purchased product to work as advertised.
-
Could you please just post your *recommended* settings for FS9/FSX for this scenery (for High/Low end systems), like you did when you/Kappa gave me your .cfg file(s)?
If there was a "magic" FSX.CFG that would work well with every machine, on every combination of addons, on every combination of hardware, drivers, OTHER software outside flight installed, bios settings, etc, it wouldn't be necessary to even have sliders to begin with: just the "magic" FSX.CFG preset for everyone.
Also, everyone has his own idea of visual quality versus fps versus important/unimportant things to turn on or off. THAT'S why there are settings.
So, it's just pointless asking for a "magic" FSX setting that would work for everyone. Also, there are just countless of other factors external that the FSX.CFG wouldn't solve.
And, anyway, I think I've already posted my fsx.cfg after YOUR request in an older thread so, it's even more pointless to repost it again. Not that it might do much difference, if the rest of the setting are wrong.
However, it's not the point. The point is than another USER (Ray), with a very low-end machine, was clearly able to get better quality than the Avsim's reviewer. I posted my screenshots just as a reference as it should look like on a more proper FSX PC, but the fact was already apparent with Ray screenshots.
The KJFK package has a few, shall we say *gremlins*, that aren't showing up on your test machines but are still unresolved on the open market.
The first screenshot that clearly showed much better quality than Avsim's, WAS NOT posted by me. I started posting my screenshot just now, because in the last one the difference was just striking and speaks for itself.
Like Colin, I want my purchased product to work as advertised.
The product is advertized with the demo, much better than any review or advertising could do. The point of having a demo, is to allow people to evaluate the scenery on THEIR OWN setup, so we have already exposed ourself way better than any review could do, good or bad.
-
Mr. Umberto "Virtuali" Colapicchioni,
I see that *we* are continuing to have "circular arguments" over stories of *magic* fixes and other rubbish.
So, let me be plain - advertise the recommended Graphic card settings and FSX display settings based on your development tests so that people don't always have to play around with each and every setting, when a product is purchased. Please do that in the manuals as NO one reading these forums for the first time might find that information easily.
Next, I get better quality images than Mr. Nick Churchill on three 47-inch screens at a resolution of 3840x1024 (32bit Color); So I know that the product is beautiful - What *we* hope you'll do is give people a setting range to shoot for and expected graphic card settings that were used to develop and test the scenery. Your "current" way just puts people in the Test-Drivers seat in hopes that they will figure it out for themselves or live with the disappointment of not doing so. In my humble opinion, a bad Idea for a marketing strategy, which results in a lower sales volumes.
Just a thought: If you do this it will workout many of the unnecessary (simple fixes) posts requesting support for things that can easily be fixed by a simple read of the manual. And then you'll have more time to deal with the major issues and build new packages. Many other developers are doing that and its been much easier to install and use their sceneries within minutes without all the other hassle involved; so why is it so difficult to include this for your scenery packages/manuals?
I can only hope you'll will see my point and not continue to argue yours by bringing in life's realities as reasons/excuses for why you did this or that - No one cares; *we* just want a potential solution and, not a lesson in development; and a product that works without having to fight with it to make it work.
PS: The Trial/Demo should only be for a tour, before-you-buy, and not what your using it for; to have people beta test-drive the software and come to you for fixes.
-
Another comparison, which I think close the question beyond any doubt:
KJFK 4L from the Avsim review:
KFJK 4L on my PC:
I'm sorry to say this but neither of these screenshots are convincing. It could be a lot sharper...
-
I'm sorry to say this but neither of these screenshots are convincing. It could be a lot sharper...
The issue is not about what is more convincing to you, it is about the difference between the screenshots! Also may I recommend to reread Virtuali's posts in this thread, he explains why there some ground textures look sharper than others!
I never felt a single time like a beta tester with FSDT's released products.
-
Guys, the ground on FSX version of JFK is rendered with photoreal texture (the same tecnique used on standard terrain on FSX) and have a resolution of 0.39 Meter for pixel. To visualize the terrain on full resolution is necessary set the slide of terrain resolution at 30 cm/pixel. If the PC is slow, and has blur on fsx standard terrain, the same problem is presents on JFK terrain ....
Alessandro.
-
I'm sorry to say this but neither of these screenshots are convincing. It could be a lot sharper...
The issue is not about what is more convincing to you, it is about the difference between the screenshots! Also may I recommend to reread Virtuali's posts in this thread, he explains why there some ground textures look sharper than others!
I never felt a single time like a beta tester with FSDT's released products.
I kinda understand the difficulty, but the results stays the same, doesn't it?
-
I'm sorry to say this but neither of these screenshots are convincing. It could be a lot sharper...
But this is NOT the polint. At all.
The point is not to discuss how sharper might be JFK. I think to have already explained why there's an ILLUSION of being less sharp compared to KORD, although they have the SAME ground resolution (I even think KORD is *slightly* less). Please, re-read my explanation about this.
The ground terrain already takes more than 100MB of VRAM, and that's JUST for the basic photo background. There will be buildings, markings, vehicles, signals and of course, the *rest* of the scenery around, the landclass textures, the AI textures, the users airplane textures, the VC textures, the gauge textures. All of this HAVE to fit into the video RAM. If it doesn't, the frame rate will COLLAPSE, because of the continuing swapping between main ram and vram.
If the ground res were, let's say, at 20 cm instead that the current 39, the memory taken JUST by photo background would have about 4 times more, around 400MB. JUST for the base photo background!
There's no need to point out other sceneries around, and complaing about being sharper. They are NOT JFK. They don't have 8 terminals ENTIRELY different (so, no texture reuse, like at KORD), they are not that size, they don't have the same polygon count, they don't stay in the NYC area, which is already almost full even without the airport.
Zurich is sharper ? Yes, it is. And Geneva will be EVEN MORE, because we simply use the available hardware resources as best as we can. If JFK had a single runway, or just 3 terminals the looked all the same, or was in the middle of an otherwise sparse area, or had the ground made in concrete so it looked better just because of the work of the detail texture, it might have looked probably sharper.
So, the point is not "could JFK being sharper than it is ?", because this is NOT what we are discussing here. We were discussing an Avsim review that made comments, and my screenshots ( and Ray's ) clearly show that JFK is much different compared to what has been shown on Avsim.
-
Yes, I get your point - solution: build some smaller airports ;) Long Beach, Oakland or Anchorage are the ones I always keep in mind...
-
Yes, I get your point - solution: build some smaller airports ;) Long Beach, Oakland or Anchorage are the ones I always keep in mind...
*cough* Phoenix *cough* ;D
Anyways, all joking aside, this isn't a solution to what you think the problem is. That is just a suggestion for the future which it appears as if they aren't doing (but I fully expect the future products of big airports to be just fine).
-
So, let me be plain - advertise the recommended Graphic card settings and FSX display settings based on your development tests
You keep not WANTING to understand...There's NO a general recipe for good results. Because IT DEPENDS on individual PREFERENCES and hardware capabilities.
If an user, for example, doesn't care much for AI, perhaps because he flies online only, he might enjoy much better settings, because he would have the luxury to turn off AI altogether. But if I suggest those settings to everybody, it might look like a slideshow.
Another user might simply not care for absolute sharpness, but always strive for fast fps.
Another user might settle for lower fps, provided the visual quality is high.
And, if you take different users expectations, and MULTIPLY with the different hardware at disposal, the combination are endless, THAT'S why it's not possible to suggest a fixed set of settings for everyone.
AND, if you care to read my initial message in response to Colin, I've ALREADY listed some critical settings that will affect image quality.
so that people don't always have to play around with each and every setting, when a product is purchased
I'm sorry, but this is also wrong and not possible. It's just impossible to have a fixed setting that would work in every situation, with every scenery. You previously mentioned Greystone as been very fast and looking good on your scenery. I BET IT WOULD!!!! Greystone is a toy scenery, which is not even as complex (in total) like a *single* JFK terminal building, and it stays in an almost empty and flat area, and it doesn't attract basically any AI. I would be surprised if it had any problems, even with most of the sliders to the right. But, of course, if you use the same setting at JFK, no machine would be ever able to run it. And, something like Zurich, would probably sitting in the middle, reaching its best fps/quality compromise with higher settings than JFK, but lower than what Greystone might be able to afford.
So, it's wrong to expect to use the same settings everytime, also because they depend on the type of flying. If I were to fly in the Ultralight at the default Friday Harbour airport for a slow VFR tour, I'll probably use WAY different settings compared to JFK, like cranking up traffic cars, ai boats, autogen, something that I wouldn't do when landing an airliner at JFK.
So, setting ARE meant to be constantly changed. FSX has introduced a nice feature to LOAD/SAVE its settings, which makes the process a lot less painful than it used to be.
Many other developers are doing that and its been much easier to install and use their sceneries within minutes without all the other hassle involved; so why is it so difficult to include this for your scenery packages/manuals?
I've already explained why you can't put generic settings good for everyone, because everyone usage habits are different, and everyone has different hardware. I prefer letting the user play with the product as they like, and configure the product as they like.
Also, there are plenty of websites, forums discussiones and articles with very deep explanation about system optimizations, what the settings do, how they affect image quality, and such so, it's not that is difficult to get this information out there, if we had to duplicate this info in the manuals, they'll become more a tutorial in flight sim optimization, and become so long that nobody would read it anyway. Believe me, many people simply don't read the manuals. If the did, I wouldn't lose so much time replying dozen of emails each day, just to explain how to retrieve a lost email purchase after a computer crash something that, of course, IS explained on the manual...
Other developers don't have a demo, so I guess they have to put some suggestions on the manual, to reduce the support pressure by people that bought the scenery BEFORE trying it out, and discovering it runs bad on their system, after they purchased it.
Our Demo is made in a SPECIFIC way, that is 100% suited for Flight Sim users. Usually, Trials have an expiration date, like 2 weeks or so. Instead, we allow the user to launch the program an unlimited number of times, just for 5 minutes at a time, which is just about right to try a new setting, see what it does, and restart. And, we don't set any expiry date, because an user might not have the hardware to run the scenery today, but it might have it tomorrow so, he might come back at a later time, and giving it another chance.
I can only hope you'll will see my point and not continue to argue yours by bringing in life's realities as reasons/excuses for why you did this or that - No one cares;
It's the second time in this thread, that you advice someone in advance not to arguing with you. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, if there are sound reasons why the reply you get is not the reply you want, I'll keep explaining. You might care or not, but the fact remains.
*we* just want a potential solution and, not a lesson in development; and a product that works without having to fight with it to make it work.
Asking for a solution, would suggest the existance of a problem. There's no "problem" to begin with. The product clearly WORKS and there's no "fighting" to make it work.
As I've said already, this thread it's NOT about "how JFK is" but is about "how JFK is COMPARED to what Avsim says it is". Not even mentioning that the only thing negative in that review was the ground resolution.
We have already assesed the review commens were generated by the fact the reviewer had a problem with his settings, and I've already listed the most important ones in my first message. My shots and Ray's ones, were simply posted to show the DIFFERENCE between how the scenery normally looks like. The fact the the "good" screenshots were obtained with two very different specs. machines, should tell out that seeing the scenery as blurred as in the Avsim review it's probably the exception rather than the norm so, there would be no need to post "secret" configuration hints because the quality the scenery is designed for doens't look too difficult to achieve.
So, this should have cleared up the topic thread: the Avsim review.
If you want to discuss an entirely different subject, which is not "why Avsim screenshots were blurred" anymore, but has become "why JFK is not sharper than it is" or "what would be the best settings for JFK" or "why the scenery is done like that", in THIS CASE (apart for the fact that this wasn't the original topic), you NEED to have a "lesson in developement", which will help you find YOUR ideal settings ON YOUR OWN, like the old Chinese proverb about teaching a man to fish being better than giving him a fish...
The Trial/Demo should only be for a tour, before-you-buy, and not what your using it for; to have people beta test-drive the software and come to you for fixes.
Having a demo or not DOES NOT prevent any developer for releasing a product when he THINK is ready. This happens everytime with software, I still have to see ANY software were users don't complain begin "treated as testers" or hasn't been patched, many times.
BUT, having a Demo has an effect on this because, since in our case there's absolutely no difference between the Demo and the full version, it's in our best interest to fix problems as soon as possible and it's not in our best interest to push a product out when it's not ready just to start selling it, because that WILL be appear in the Demo.
-
Mr. Umberto "Virtuali" Colapicchioni,
I already read your posting in response to Colin's Avsim review. In the time that it took you to write all your arguments in response to mine; you could have posted all those *suggestions* in an updated manual as a "suggested settings fix" or FAQ for users who have blurry textures in the KJFK scenery.
Just plain and simple "Common sense" - That's my point; are *we* getting it? ??? ::)
PS: If you want to make a "Build" comparison between products, Greystone and KJFK are not what I would choose; Why not FlyTampa's Kai-Tai and KJFK for complexity, hardware/FPS demands, etc. Then you can post another topic and argue all your points with all the other old ladies that like to do the YAPD here. *We* just want a default Addon Manager/FS setting in the manuals from which to be guided by for FSDT sceneries; The rest of the users who don't want to read can harrass you and you can continue the same nonsense by re-explaining what's in the manual if you want. Asking you for anything is getting tiresome when you won't even try to understand what is being asked and provide it.
-
I already read your posting in response to Colin's Avsim review. In the time that it took you to write all your arguments in response to mine; you could have posted all those *suggestions* in an updated manual as a "suggested settings fix" or FAQ for users who have blurry textures in the KJFK scenery.
Just plain and simple "Common sense" - That's my point; are *we* getting it? ??? ::)
Exactly, you are NOT getting it. I've tried to explain why it wouldn't make any sense to describe every possible setting that might (under different conditions might, might not, or might even have the opposite effect) affect the scenery quality in the manual, because the very concept of scenery quality is different for anyone, because everyone has different hardware, other software installed, and simply use Flight Simulator in a different way.
PS: If you want to make a "Build" comparison between products, Greystone and KJFK are not what I would choose; Why not FlyTampa's Kai-Tai and KJFK for complexity, hardware/FPS demands, etc.
As usual, you don't pay much attention to my posts, because if you did, you would noticed that I haven't used just Greystone as an example, but I also mentioned Zurich as something in between Greystone and JFK.
However, having seen FT Kai-Tak recently, because, since is such a SMALL airport comparing to anything we did, except Graystone, I was able to do the ParkMe file for it in less than 30 minutes (I started doing Aerosoft EGLL and THAT one is big and comparable to our stuff...) and had the chance to look at it closely.
It's WAY smaller in size/complexity than JFK. It's a single runway airport, with two very small terminals, with few parking stands, (not hundreds like JFK). It LOOKS more complex than it is, because being smaller, everything is closer. We had doubts when doing KORD because, during developement, it seemed that you keep adding stuff, and it kept looking sparse, because of its area. Zurich LOOKED denser, even with LESS objects, because it's more tight, and Kai-Tak it's like that. You simply need less stuff to give the illusion of an higher "perceived" complexity on a smaller place. Geneva will give that impression too, people will think it's more complex than JFK/KORD, even with less objects (much less).
*We* just want a default Addon Manager/FS setting in the manuals from which to be guided by for FSDT sceneries;
So now you are talking in the plural...the only think that I can say is that, every other user seemed to have got my point, and you are left alone continuing arguing.
I tried to explain, many times already, yet you still fail to understand, there's no such thing as generic suggested settings, without changing the manual into a generic tutorial of everything related to system optimization, graphic technologies, hardware issues, AND flight sim-related concept. ALL of this, multiplied with different user expectations and goals, so such manual should probabably become like a decision tree, sort of "if you are such an user, go read page 28, if you care about fps only, skip this section, if you fly online, go to page 44, if you use 3rd party AI, read this chapter, if you have a firewall, go to section xx". Pure nonsense...
The rest of the users who don't want to read can harrass you and you can continue the same nonsense by re-explaining what's in the manual if you want.
Since the best reply can be given only by knowing the specific user needs/expectations/habits/hardware at his disposal, etc, etc, etc, the best service to users would be simply reply on the forum or via email, AFTER getting to know all this fact.
It's no use telling to someone "just put the texture slider to Massive", if he has a 128MB card. And this is just *one* very simple example. And I already explained that, considering all the variables involved, the combinations are just too much to be put into a manual.
But yes, if I had to write an 800-pages, 49.99$, "Bible of Flight Simulator optimization" book, (which might be an idea for a possible product), I MIGHT take that approach, trying to cover as much ground as possible.
-
*sigh*
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I'm going to amend my review in regards to the aprons/tarmacs. I overlooked what I said there by saying "tarmacs horrible as well" in my review. As I said earlier, I love the aprons, so that will be changed. However, after messing with the settings according to your recommendations, I see only slight differences; not nearly enough improvement to change my mind about the taxiways.
I am building a new PC in a week or two, so I will certainly see what it looks like then, as well.
My questions is; and this is in no way a complaint, simply a curiosity: How have scenery creators such as FlyTampa been able to produce such incredibly high-quality ground textures across whole airports? I get higher frame rates on FlyTampa in San Francisco, Miami, Dubai, and Boston than I do with your FSDT JFK.
Any who; I will have certain parts of the review changed by this weekend. I'll be checking this thread a couple times a day until then if you guys want to continue discussing it.
Thanks!
-
*sigh*
;)
-
I'm going to amend my review in regards to the aprons/tarmacs. I overlooked what I said there by saying "tarmacs horrible as well" in my review. As I said earlier, I love the aprons, so that will be changed. However, after messing with the settings according to your recommendations, I see only slight differences; not nearly enough improvement to change my mind about the taxiways.
I am building a new PC in a week or two, so I will certainly see what it looks like then, as well.
My questions is; and this is in no way a complaint, simply a curiosity: How have scenery creators such as FlyTampa been able to produce such incredibly high-quality ground textures across whole airports? I get higher frame rates on FlyTampa in San Francisco, Miami, Dubai, and Boston than I do with your FSDT JFK.
Any who; I will have certain parts of the review changed by this weekend. I'll be checking this thread a couple times a day until then if you guys want to continue discussing it.
Thanks!
Please check the airport size/complexity and the surrounding area before
do these questions. ;)
However we have many positive "frame rate" comments from our customer about NY, here and around the web. :)
and.. just another point of view:
"De plus, FSDT combine la qualité avec un grand respect des FPS. Avec une scène réglée sur un niveau de détail moyen, la scène affiche énormément d'objets, autogen et encore plein d'autres détails, sans que les FPS ne soient affectés."
http://www.avionic-online.com/index.php?Mnu=JFK
-
However, after messing with the settings according to your recommendations, I see only slight differences; not nearly enough improvement to change my mind about the taxiways.
Have you seen this screenshot ?
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1260.msg10164#msg10164
This is not a "slight difference", it's totally different. So, if you don't see this on your PC, we should find WHY, and you are free to contact me in private so we can check better your config.
Don't forget that we have a Demo version, which has been downloaded by many thousands of users so, by leaving your review in public like that, instead of investigating the reasons why you don't get the expected results that most of the people are getting, the only damage you do is to your review only, since we have the Demo that is far more eloquent than any review might be.
How have scenery creators such as FlyTampa been able to produce such incredibly high-quality ground textures across whole airports?
Give the ample evidence that has been given in this forum, I think that until you are not able to find your issue, and reach the quality that JFK has been designed for, it's better not comment about other "incredibly" high quality ground textures. Also, I think you said yourself that you never had this issue at KORD, why don't commenting about that, instead ?
I get higher frame rates on FlyTampa in San Francisco, Miami, Dubai, and Boston than I do with your FSDT JFK.
These airports are all way smaller than JFK, none of them has so many terminals with so many different textures ( texture repeteability keeps vram requirements down ) and none of them stays in NYC area, which has a considerable impact on fps on its own. Again, have you tried other airports we did, like Zurich for example ?
And, evaluating fps for a scenery should be done in the correct way. For example, if you *really* want to know the fps impact of the scenery itself, you should turn off AI entirely, because in that case you are testing more of your AI package fps impact than the scenery. This is more true, the more parking stands the airport has, and also which models appear more often, which is another variable that should be excluded for a correct judgement.
Speaking of which, I would like to point out another problem of the review: you complained about not being able to selectively turn off features, like other developers do. It IS possible to turn off features, and of course in the most logical and simpler way: by using the Scenery Complexity slider, since the scenery objects that impact the most, DO respond to the complexity slider. And, this is better than simply cutting off whole BGL, because instead of turning off all objects of a certain kind, the scenery complexity slider allows for more granularity so, at Extremely Dense everything will be in, something will disappear at Very Dense, something more at Dense, etc. This way, it would be possible to still see some objects, instead of having to choose from on or off for whole classes.
I'll be checking this thread a couple times a day until then if you guys want to continue discussing it.
I'll be away for a couple of days but, feel free to contact me anyway, so we can discuss your system config in detail, your settings, your other addons, etc.
-
hello together,
virtuali, you are right in saying that colins statements towards the gound sharpness are wrong.
his pictures really don´t show the reality!!!
i´ve took colins points and checked them on my machine.
the ground textures are clear!!
the only thing, i believe he was pointing out, is what has been mentioned in the topic i was refering to.
the difference between asphalt and concrete. you cleared up the reason and so its fine.
best wishes,
sören
-
Here is my point in an example:
"A joke is ment to be funny; If you have to explain the joke, then its not funny"
Someone needs to provide more documented support for FSDT products, to help users resolve their problems; Who here is willing to do that?
-
... ???
what do you mean?
... ???
regards
sören
-
Are you saying that unless you get the documentation you want, FSDT is a joke? ???
-
Are you saying that unless you get the documentation you want, FSDT is a joke? ???
I think its too bad that JamesChams is still hurting from being temporarily banned from this forum three times. It looks like he only want to make trouble for FSDT.
Virtuali shows a lot of patience with JamesChams. Maybe JamesChams could show some respect in return instead of writing all his foolish stuff. This is an important topic and JamesChams does not help it.
-
This is an important topic and JamesChams does not help it.
Neither does dousing the fire with gasoline. ;)
-
You may be right Bruce. I'm sorry if I also make trouble. I would just like to see more respect for people from Mr. Chams.
Bruce, I like your signature. It makes me laugh. ;D
Have a good day :D
-
Guys,
I agree with Bruce, we are falling in the trap of fuelling JamesChams posts which allows him to continue to make a spectacle of himself on this forum. He is obviously frustrated with FSDT and for his own reasons continues to argue. I think Umberto has done a very good job of dealing with him and will continue to do so as I am sure this will continue.
In my opinion, he does not represent the majority of the users on this forum and if the sceneries designed by FSDT don't suit his needs for his flight simming experience, he can choose not to purchase them in the future. I personally am happy with their work and will continue to support them however way I can to promote their great sceneries. I believe the Avsim reviewer will make the necessary changes (origin of this post) to show the greatness of this scenery.
I look forward to the next scenery and will continue to monitor this forum quietly and not let JamesChams influence my thoughts on this great company.
Thanks
David
-
Sundance - I agree fully with your post, except I think you are merely elaborating on Dylan's point. If you agree with Bruce that Dylan is fueling a fire, then what is it you're doing... ???
But again, I completely agree with you. I think more people should speak out against James as he is now obviously and simply trying to undermine FSDT.
-
We should let this topic be about the inacurate review AVSIM made. I have sent James Chams a private message and I'm sure he feels badly about this. I know he is a good person and will be more respecful in the future.
I'm sorry I changed the topic, but I'm sure Mr. Chams will be better now.
Everybody have a nice day please.
-
Give the ample evidence that has been given in this forum, I think that until you are not able to find your issue, and reach the quality that JFK has been designed for, it's better not comment about other "incredibly" high quality ground textures. Also, I think you said yourself that you never had this issue at KORD, why don't commenting about that, instead ?
Because when I did comment about KORD being higher quality than the JFK taxiways, you shot me down saying that the screenshot I used as an example by a certain member has always given you amazing screenshots in contrast to another shot from someone from a potentially less-quality machine.
And to Dylan, the only inaccurate aspect of the review are the 1 or 2 things I've already explained multiple times that I'm going to amend.
I'm done posting here, so if you want to contact me about anything, email me at coolcolin09 [at] msn [dot] com. Thanks and have a nice week.
-
Give the ample evidence that has been given in this forum, I think that until you are not able to find your issue, and reach the quality that JFK has been designed for, it's better not comment about other "incredibly" high quality ground textures. Also, I think you said yourself that you never had this issue at KORD, why don't commenting about that, instead ?
Because when I did comment about KORD being higher quality than the JFK taxiways, you shot me down saying that the screenshot I used as an example by a certain member has always given you amazing screenshots in contrast to another shot from someone from a potentially less-quality machine.
And to Dylan, the only inaccurate aspect of the review are the 1 or 2 things I've already explained multiple times that I'm going to amend.
I'm done posting here, so if you want to contact me about anything, email me at coolcolin09 [at] msn [dot] com. Thanks and have a nice week.
Thank you Colin.
Just a couple of screen from my amd64 and 8800 gtx.
Have a nice week. :-)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just an update, I'm ordering my new PC this weekend:
ASUS P5Q Pro
E8400 3.0GHz
CORSAIR 4GB RAM
ATI 4870 512MB
ASUS VW224U 22" Monitor
Vista 64-bit
Should run quite nice on that. I may replace some screenshots as well to show any differences; I'll definitely report here to show some before/after pics to show any differences.
Thank you everyone for your feedback!
-
Just an update, I'm ordering my new PC this weekend:
ASUS P5Q Pro
E8400 3.0GHz
CORSAIR 4GB RAM
ATI 4870 512MB
ASUS VW224U 22" Monitor
Vista 64-bit
Should run quite nice on that. I may replace some screenshots as well to show any differences; I'll definitely report here to show some before/after pics to show any differences.
Thank you everyone for your feedback!
Hi Colin very cool system! I wish that was under my Christmas tree! and we appreciate your review over at avsim and look forward to your update. ;) its funny I was thinking the other day that we actually have a great jfk scenery for fsx many people didnt think it was possible with the fps problems in the nyc area.
-
Just an update, I'm ordering my new PC this weekend:
ASUS P5Q Pro
E8400 3.0GHz
CORSAIR 4GB RAM
ATI 4870 512MB
ASUS VW224U 22" Monitor
Vista 64-bit
Should run quite nice on that. I may replace some screenshots as well to show any differences; I'll definitely report here to show some before/after pics to show any differences.
Thank you everyone for your feedback!
Hi Colin very cool system! I wish that was under my Christmas tree! and we appreciate your review over at avsim and look forward to your update. ;) its funny I was thinking the other day that we actually have a great jfk scenery for fsx many people didnt think it was possible with the fps problems in the nyc area.
Is not so funny.... ;) :-[
Cool system Colin, look forward to your update.
-
Just an update, I'm ordering my new PC this weekend:
ASUS P5Q Pro
E8400 3.0GHz
CORSAIR 4GB RAM
ATI 4870 512MB
ASUS VW224U 22" Monitor
Vista 64-bit
Should run quite nice on that. I may replace some screenshots as well to show any differences; I'll definitely report here to show some before/after pics to show any differences.
Thank you everyone for your feedback!
Hi Colin very cool system! I wish that was under my Christmas tree! and we appreciate your review over at avsim and look forward to your update. ;) its funny I was thinking the other day that we actually have a great jfk scenery for fsx many people didnt think it was possible with the fps problems in the nyc area.
Is not so funny.... ;) :-[
Cool system Colin, look forward to your update.
lol Kappa :) I meant it in a good way ;)
-
And to Dylan, the only inaccurate aspect of the review are the 1 or 2 things I've already explained multiple times that I'm going to amend.
OK Colin. Even though I don't agree with what you write I shouldn't say it like that. Please let me say I'm sorry. What I wanted is for you and Virtuali to not be distracted by all the other stuff here. :-\
I hope you really have a lot of fun with your new computer. I wish I had one that good :(
I apologize,
Dylan
-
No problem, Dylan. Last weekend was just hectic and stressful time outside of the FS world; so I was a little short-tempered, if you will, and wasn't so patient with everything. ;)
Thanks for your kind words everyone :)
-
Hey Colin,
Just wanted to say I was a little surprised by your review as well. But, you coming onto this forum and discussing it like you have....well...you show a lot of coolness...
Your forum name is appropriate...
-
after reading this thread i felt i had to post here, despite the fact that it may be a bit late and that the author of the review is probably about to modify the initial impressions, i just wanted to point out with a screenshot from FS9 i took a while ago, there are more screens in the "JKF ground, FS9" thread in the screenshots section if you want to take a look there.
This is FS9 and i think the tarmac taxiway looks great, at lest in my opinion
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p213/Insane22_2006/fs92008-10-2017-11-39-07sharp.jpg)
As have been mentioned here earlier, i think the problem is that dark colored astphalt is hard to replicate in flightsim and can easily be seen as blurry.
Personally i disagree with the initial review about the taxiway textures, but of course that's just my opinion :)
Have a nice day folks
-
That screenshot looks amazing if you ask me...! What's your system specs?
-
Thanks Aeroman :)
My system specs is nothing special, it's probably a system that's by todays standards are considered to be an average system:
CPU: Intel Core2duo E6700
GPU: XFX8800GTS 640 mb
RAM: Corsair 2GB PC6400 DDR2 CL4
HDD: 2x WD Raptor 10.000 RPM in raid-0
OS: Windows XP
-
hey colin,
just want to know when you are going to amend the review at avsim.
it is still there containing the things you wanted to change (taxiways (pictures), tarmac (pictures)).
i would suggest you react soon, because possible fsdt cusomers could be alienated.
ok, best wishes,
sören
-
i would suggest you react soon, because possible fsdt cusomers could be alienated.
We are not worried about this.
Since the product has a freely downloadable Trial, which has been downloaded by tens of thousand of people already, everybody can see the image quality it's not as been posted on Avsim screenshots. By not correcting the review, the only people that are going to be alienated, are Avsim readers, which will start doubting its reliability.
That's the beauty of having a Trial: a single (fortunately, it's the only one) negative review can't hurt us in any way, especially in this case, which was clearly a problem with the reviewer's settings and/or its machine config.
If we weren't 100% sure about the quality of the scenery, we would probably stop offering Trial versions, and start investing into advertising...
-
Just hold on guys...I'm still working on it.
-
a single (fortunately, it's the only one) negative review can't hurt us in any way, especially in this case
Not to mention the high amounts of the praise also in the review. He only negatively spoke about the taxiway/ground textures. ;)
-
I noticed the difference in quality of taxiway textures (tarmac and runways are fine, just the taxiways), but the buildings, static ground objects, building textures, static ground object textures, AFCAD, tarmac and runway textures, and the accurateness of the airport make up for it. Besides, after 1 or 2 flights into JFK I got used to it...