General Category > General Discussion
KJFK Review on avsim.com - Dispraise?
Bruce Hamilton:
--- Quote from: coolcolin09 on November 15, 2008, 06:27:46 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: coolcolin09 on November 15, 2008, 06:27:46 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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)
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---I'm much more impressed with these textures from FSDT's KORD scenery. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: Nick Churchill - FSDT Forums member)
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever if you guys would like to give me the best settings to use.
--- End quote ---
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.
coolcolin09:
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.
_Dre_:
@ 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.
Ray:
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:
...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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version