General Category > General Discussion
KJFK Review on avsim.com - Dispraise?
thepilot:
--- Quote from: Ray on November 17, 2008, 06:54:46 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
I kinda understand the difficulty, but the results stays the same, doesn't it?
virtuali:
--- 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 ---
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.
thepilot:
Yes, I get your point - solution: build some smaller airports ;) Long Beach, Oakland or Anchorage are the ones I always keep in mind...
SirIsaac726:
--- Quote from: thepilot on November 17, 2008, 10:34:55 pm ---Yes, I get your point - solution: build some smaller airports ;) Long Beach, Oakland or Anchorage are the ones I always keep in mind...
--- End quote ---
*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).
virtuali:
--- Quote from: JamesChams on November 17, 2008, 06:35:43 pm ---So, let me be plain - advertise the recommended Graphic card settings and FSX display settings based on your development tests
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---so that people don't always have to play around with each and every setting, when a product is purchased
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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;
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---*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.
--- End quote ---
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...
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version