General Category > General Discussion
KJFK Review on avsim.com - Dispraise?
virtuali:
--- Quote from: JamesChams on November 17, 2008, 04:24:07 am ---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)?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---Like Colin, I want my purchased product to work as advertised.
--- End quote ---
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.
JamesChams:
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.
thepilot:
--- Quote from: virtuali on November 17, 2008, 03:16:32 am ---Another comparison, which I think close the question beyond any doubt:
KJFK 4L from the Avsim review:
KFJK 4L on my PC:
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry to say this but neither of these screenshots are convincing. It could be a lot sharper...
Ray:
--- Quote from: thepilot on November 17, 2008, 06:43:07 pm ---I'm sorry to say this but neither of these screenshots are convincing. It could be a lot sharper...
--- End quote ---
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.
Alessandro:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version