General Category > General Discussion
DFW?
virtuali:
--- Quote ---ORBX/FTX released a service pack for YMML with fsx gmax sdk ground. This means rain effects without alpha transparency, detail map, etc.
--- End quote ---
I really hope it *doesn't* mean this because, not using detail map or alpha transparency, can't be called a "feature", since it lowers the final quality considerably.
--- Quote --- Any comment on this technique and feasibility for future airports?
--- End quote ---
Geneva already HAS rain compatibility, without forfeiting the detail texture, which is why it looks so much better, on top of supporing rain as well.
--- Quote ---They claim this is a 'world-first', but I've been using a freeware scenery on avsim (st-pierre_miquelon.zip) since July 2008
--- End quote ---
"World First" ? We had FSX rain effect compatibility since the Bergen scenery we made for Cloud9 in January 2007, and we also had it on buildings, not "just" on ground...that WAS a "World First", without so much hype.
However, we prefer to decide if having this feature or not, depending on the scenery, putting the best compromise between visual features and performances to be the most important deciding factor.
One should keep in mind this general rule: if we don't do something in a scenery, it's NEVER because we don't know how to do it, it's because we tried it, and decided it didn't fit well with that specific scenery project, either because of performances, or because the general visual impact at *that* particular location, etc. There's no single method that work, that's why we don't always use the same methods but, instead, we choose which method that suits best the project at hand.
Also, the hardware people use keep improving over the time so, it's not said that, what we decided to forfeit in (for example) October 2007 when we released Zurich, might be still rejected on April 2009, when we'll release KLAS. In fact, KLAS will probably be more similar to Geneva than to Zurich...
JFKpilot:
First of all I want to thank you for being so patient and providing such thorough answers to someone that's always a pain in the ass. ::) You've got world-class products and service, which is really hard to top.
--- Quote from: virtuali on March 03, 2009, 11:59:34 am ---I really hope it *doesn't* mean this because, not using detail map or alpha transparency, can't be called a "feature", since it lowers the final quality considerably.
--- End quote ---
Sorry I meant they don't use transparency for the rain efffects but DO use a detail map, not that it matters.
--- Quote from: virtuali on March 03, 2009, 11:59:34 am ---Geneva already HAS rain compatibility, without forfeiting the detail texture, which is why it looks so much better, on top of supporing rain as well.
"World First" ? We had FSX rain effect compatibility since the Bergen scenery we made for Cloud9 in January 2007, and we also had it on buildings, not "just" on ground...that WAS a "World First", without so much hype.
--- End quote ---
I think they meant ground with the fsx-gmax sdk, not with the fs2002 gmax sdk you've used since the cloud9 days, which was what I was referring to with the two sceneries I mentioned. Either way, you are right, it's overhyped. Most people can't tell Geneva / Bergen etc etc have default aprons slightly showing underneath the custom ground, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
--- Quote from: virtuali on March 03, 2009, 11:59:34 am ---However, we prefer to decide if having this feature or not, depending on the scenery, putting the best compromise between visual features and performances to be the most important deciding factor.
--- End quote ---
This is smart. Most developers use the same techniques over and over. Fsdt clearly knows how to proritize -- for example fs2002 sdk would have been unfeasible at kord or jfk so you used resampled ground instead, and back to fs2002 gmax ground for the smaller lsgg and klas.
--- Quote from: virtuali on March 03, 2009, 11:59:34 am ---One should keep in mind this general rule: if we don't do something in a scenery, it's NEVER because we don't know how to do it, it's because we tried it, and decided it didn't fit well with that specific scenery project, either because of performances, or because the general visual impact at *that* particular location, etc. There's no single method that work, that's why we don't always use the same methods but, instead, we choose which method that suits best the project at hand.
--- End quote ---
That's a bold statement. Nonetheless it's justified -- you guys are geniuses. :o Since I'm probably a waste of your precious time I'll refrain from asking any more dumb scenery-related questions.
--- Quote from: virtuali on March 03, 2009, 11:59:34 am ---Also, the hardware people use keep improving over the time so, it's not said that, what we decided to forfeit in (for example) October 2007 when we released Zurich, might be still rejected on April 2009, when we'll release KLAS. In fact, KLAS will probably be more similar to Geneva than to Zurich...
--- End quote ---
I'm looking forward to it! Hopefully you can squeeze a long life out of fsx.
Thanks again.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version