Issues with KDFW Scenery

[Kasper3952]

So thiers a couples of annoying issues ive found with DFW. 1st is on the overamps that connects runways 35 and 36 I notice boulder like objects the block the taxiway overramp themselves. 2nd and most annoying is that unless I have while in VC zoomed in to .60+ I cant see taxi lines, signs, or any other details. I perfer to fly @ .33 zoom. Please help because I really like this airport but currently hate flying to it because of these reasons. Also I attached 3 photos. The 1st is of the blockade on the overpass and the second and 3rd is the zoomed in and issues with the taxiway signs and lines. Also this was just recently purchased so im assuming it is its newest version.

[virtuali]

1st is on the overamps that connects runways 35 and 36 I notice boulder like objects the block the taxiway overramp themselves

This because you haven't set the Mesh settings as explained in the DFW manual, the chapter named "Design Notes"

2nd and most annoying is that unless I have while in VC zoomed in to .60+ I cant see taxi lines, signs, or any other details.

This has been discussed many times on the forum, and it's not a bug either, the scenery has been optimized for LOD it's designed to be visible from about 60-70 zoom, which is universally acknowledged to be the most realistic setting in FSX.

[Kasper3952]

Fair enough. Quick question because I plan on buying about 4 more scenerys tomorrow klas, kjfk, Vancouver, and kord. And already own a couple others and had no similar problems with those. So out of the 4 I plan on getting is their any similar issues to expect as with KDFW.?

[Hnla]

Fair enough. Quick question because I plan on buying about 4 more scenerys tomorrow klas, kjfk, Vancouver, and kord. And already own a couple others and had no similar problems with those. So out of the 4 I plan on getting is their any similar issues to expect as with KDFW.?

They aren't "issues" to begin with, Umberto clearly explained why this takes place. And expect all other sceneries (even non-FSDT sceneries) to have this as well.

[Kasper3952]

They aren't "issues" to begin with, Umberto clearly explained why this takes place. And expect all other sceneries (even non-FSDT sceneries) to have this as well.
[/quote]

Well all my other FSDT, Flytampa, and Flightbeam airports dont do that so thats not a true statement. And where in my other post does it state I didn't understand what he said. Simple question asked is their any known issues with the zoom having to be at 60-70 because I dont fly at that zoom on klas, vancouver, kord, kjfk thats all.

[virtuali]

Well all my other FSDT, Flytampa, and Flightbeam airports dont do that so thats not a true statement

It IS a true statement. It's you that are defining these as "issues", but they aren't, it's not the scenery is like that because of a bug. It has been *designed* to be like that, and that's a frame rate optimization.

If you would go to FlyTampa forum complaining why their sceneries have static jetways, which is another way to save fps (every developer usually have to compromise something to save fps), I guess they'll probably reply that's not an "issue", but the way the scenery was made.

Note that, it takes ADDITIONAL time and effort to do multiple LOD levels to optimize a scenery for fps, if we simply didn't care, you would be able to see everything at very wide angles, although with probably lower fps. Just like it takes additional time and effort to do animated jetways. If we simply didn't care, we would do all sceneries with static jetways...

We have been thinking about allowing users to tweak the LOD optimizations in a scenery, because we have the ability to do that (the Couatl engine can even modify sceneries without restarting FSX), so you might be able to decide for a lower fps and less LOD pops-out, or better fps, but with the requirement to use only realistic zoom levels which, as I've said, has been tuned taking into account what everyone agree being the most *realistic* zoom level, it's not that we just made up that 0.60-0.70 figure.

That's just to explain you shouldn't confuse what is a carefully thought optimization feature with a "bug".

If you are looking for more, jetways will alternate between static and animated depending on your viewing distance, and this might cause some funny situations with AI, because they will switch between attached/detached depending on your view distance. Again, this is made intentionally, and of course a scenery that didn't had animated jetways to begin with, wouldn't even need such optimization to begin with...

[Kasper3952]

As for flytampa they have started adding moving jetways with TNCM 1.5 and more probably sure to come, and for flightbeam they have moving jetways, HD textures and no Zoom issues. And maybe I'm lucky when I say i say I dont have the zoom issue with klax or kfll. And let me make this very clear when I say this I love your products or I would not have bought all your US products other then Hawaii. I've never built a scenery but I know theirs a fine line between performance and the highest quality possiable, I get it. Just as a loyal customer that's my 2 cents for what its worth.

Issues= Limits,  Not A BUG
Hope that clairfies what I mean by issues.

[virtuali]

As for flytampa they have started adding moving jetways with TNCM 1.5

Which is probably 1/10th the size of KDFW, which is one of the largest airports in the world. How many moving jetways there are at TNCM ? How many at KDFW ? In any case, it's nice they finally realized that animated jetways are a must in 2013.

and for flightbeam they have moving jetways, HD textures and no Zoom issues

They have moving jetways in their two latest sceneries, KDFW has been designed in 2009 and released in 2010 so, it was obviously optimized BOTH because of its huge size AND taking account the PC available 3-4 years ago.

And maybe I'm lucky when I say i say I dont have the zoom issue with klax or kfll.

Every scenery is different and it's tuned differently depending on its size, shape etc. so, it's just wrong generalizing and make assumptions comparing different sceneries. See the previous sentence.

Issues= Limits,  Not A BUG

You are saying it now, but you reported it as if it was a bug. Issue normally means bug. But that's not the point. The LOD optimization is not an issue, not a bug and not a limitation, it's a scenery feature made intentionally.

But as I've said already, we'll might add a feature to change LOD settings in an upgrade, so users could adapt the scenery with the faster and faster systems they likely use in the coming year, but it would have been wrong to release a slow fps scenery with that huge size (as I've said, KDFW is one of the largest airports in the world) 3.5 years ago, the best we could do was to optimize it with the most realistic zoom setting.

[Kasper3952]

As with FLYTampa your right it is about time. As for FlightBeam they only have made 3 airports all of which are large aswell and 2 of them phx and iad are fully complete. And like I said and I guess you for got to quote that is that I understand in designing especially a big airport there are give and takes. Also as for the "issue" what else was I suppose to call it when I first brought it up?  And after your first anwser I addressed that when I said I understood what you said the first time before the other guy decided to chime in. I guess selfishly I know it can be done and I have the computer to run it perfect but you are making these airports for the masses with all different types of computers.

P.S. If I knew how to use the quote option this would have been a better debate. Haha

[blueridgeflyer]

I generally been delighted with DFW with the exception of the blue taxiway edge markers. Those need to be removed from pavement areas where multiple taxiways are present.  The RL holding pads adjacent to 18L, 36R, 17R and 35L are clear of edge way markers. These areas are used to for sequencing departures and the various "lanes" are often transitioned.

[Kasper3952]

Agreed their are minor improvements to be made but you can't please everyone I guess. I think it's funny that I bring up what I thought was one issue which just happened to turn out to be a "limitation" due to performance issues (theirs that word again) and then after umbertos first post understood why it is they way it was. Then I asked if Klas, Kord, kjfk, cyvl had any similar limitations yet still have yet to recieve the anwser to that question about 4 posts ago. Instead I end up in a debate about something I clearly stated I understood after the first explantion. Umberto I understand these products are your babies and you will defended them, I would do the same. Realize  this I love your products or I would have not spent over $230 of my hard earned money on them. So if I have a question I deserve a right to an anwser thats not met with critisim and "facts" I'll I want was an anwser not a lecture. So I bought the other airports so with that i'm done with this pointless subject/topic.

[virtuali]

Then I asked if Klas, Kord, kjfk, cyvl had any similar limitations yet still have yet to recieve the anwser to that question about 4 posts ago.

Since all our sceneries are available in Trial version, that would have replied to your question much better than anyone else could: what's better than installing and testing on YOUR system with YOUR settings ?

In general, it's not possible to risk spending any money and not being satisfied with our products, unless you explicitly decide to do so, by not taking advantage of the Trial option.