General Category > General Discussion

I hope KDFW is still on and next...

<< < (7/10) > >>

CaseyD:

--- Quote ---We are not *that* naive, and I'm quite able to judge sales. I was obviously not speaking about total sales only, but also sales in the same amount of time.

Anyway, it doesn't change much: Zurich is our best selling scenery, probably together with JFK and in this case, yes, JFK has sold less, but only because it has been released many months after.
--- End quote ---

These statements appear to contradict one another.


--- Quote ---So, we could say they are BOTH best sellers, with the difference that Zurich had a VERY good freeware alternative, compared to JFK that only had a very outdated commercial version. It DID NOT make ANY difference, since both sold very well and in comparable numbers. My point, exactly.
--- End quote ---

You also offered Zurich for free to people who bought both ORD and JFK, which is really the only reason I have it. That also could be a reason.


--- Quote ---That what we always said. If we wouldn't do this, there would be no FS9 version to begin with. Would you prefer no FS9 version, instead ? What should we do more, other than openly saying that, and letting you TRY the scenery, BEFORE purchasing it ?
--- End quote ---

Considering it's optimized for FSX, I would expect the FS9 version would be sold separately at a cheaper price. Or, a specific FS9 version to be made.


--- Quote ---As we explained, many times already, we DO NOT "take away" features from the FS9 version. What you are seeing in FSX, it's COMING FROM FSX! Should we *remove* what FSX gives us for free, just to please FS9 users ? You are getting exactly the SAME scenery as in FSX, the only thing you are missing, it's what's coming from FSX itself so, if you made the choice to use FS9, maybe you weren't that interested in those features, otherwise you would use FSX instead.

The road traffic for example, which I think is what one of the things your are referring to: we DON'T create it in the FSX version. It comes out automatically, when we draw a road! It's FSX that fills the road with traffic. The SAME road is featured in our FS9 version but, since FS9 doens't have that feature, the road is empty. But, what you are buying from US, it's just the same!

Another FSX-only feature we have in the sceneries are the user controlled animations or ParkMe. Everything is done with Simconnect, we wouldn't know how to do that without it. So, if you were able to convince Microsoft to create Simconnect for FS9, we'll gladly support it but, I doubt it will ever happen...
--- End quote ---

That's understandable. However, why not make animations scenery specific, rather than just utilizing the default software? There are plenty of other payware companies that are able to do this. Surely FSDT has the talent to as well.


--- Quote ---That's something new, you really should check better because, I can easily surpass 25 fps at JFK on FS9, and I have about 37 fps where it matters ( on the runway of course ) and way higher with KORD. So, the simple fact you are seeing JFK and KORD as being the same, leads to believe something is not right, because KORD is usually way faster, of course mainly becasue what's around the area. 

The JFK area it's a very problematic one, because you have several airports very close together AND a major detailed city, that is already visible from JFK.

Users are generally very satisfied with JFK performances, considering where it is placed, and usually nobody complains about KORD!

Anyway, you are wrong comparing different airports, even if they are "large". Being large is not just the only parameter. If we put our JFK in a flat area with nothing else around for miles, like at KATL, it would be much faster than every KATL around.
--- End quote ---

Believe me, I have checked plenty of times. JFK could be very comparable to ATL or any of the other sceneries I mentioned when pointed towards Long Island eastward rather than towards the city and LGA. Still, it under performs with all those other things out of view. ORD for me was even worse than JFK though. Dropped into the teens routinely before I removed the pushback tugs which helped some.


--- Quote ---So, the real question you should ask is, instead: are there other sceneries for JFK or KORD that are faster than ours ? Because, every other comparison it's just wrong.
--- End quote ---

I would be more than happy to test it if there were other sceneries available, but unfortunately that's not an option.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: CaseyD on August 10, 2009, 01:14:36 am ---These statements appear to contradict one another.
--- End quote ---

They don't. You were saying that Zurich sold more than the others because it was the first one released. I've simply replied that yes, Zurich sold more than anything else in total, but it also sold more than the others even considering the same amount of time, the only one that is performing like it, it's JFK, and that obviously doesn't counterdict anything I've said: in the worse case, Zurich is the best selling scenery together with JFK, which still proves my point that, having a freeware alternative, doesn't impact sales.



--- Quote ---You also offered Zurich for free to people who bought both ORD and JFK, which is really the only reason I have it. That also could be a reason.
--- End quote ---

We obviously know exactly how many free Zurich we have given away, and they are a negligible percentage over the total sales, nothing statistically significant: Zurich would still be the best selling one, even by excluding the free copies.



--- Quote ---Considering it's optimized for FSX, I would expect the FS9 version would be sold separately at a cheaper price. Or, a specific FS9 version to be made.
--- End quote ---

No, because we would not be able to offer an easy upgrade route to FS9 customers that will eventually switch to FSX. We are sure that many FS9 users bought our FS9 product with confidence BECAUSE they known it would not be necessary to spend anything extra when they finally switch to FSX. And they will, sooner or later.



--- Quote ---That's understandable. However, why not make animations scenery specific, rather than just utilizing the default software? There are plenty of other payware companies that are able to do this. Surely FSDT has the talent to as well.
--- End quote ---

And why should we spend time to do extra work, when FSX does it for us ? Without even mentioning that, in case of road traffic, how FSX handles that is FAR more efficent that anything that could have been made with BGL animations, which it would be the only way to port it to FS9 but then, you would have an fps impact at worse-than-FSX levels. At that point, you'd better use FSX directly, if you ARE interested in road traffic.



--- Quote ---Believe me, I have checked plenty of times. JFK could be very comparable to ATL or any of the other sceneries I mentioned when pointed towards Long Island eastward rather than towards the city and LGA. Still, it under performs with all those other things out of view.
--- End quote ---

Not relevant. The default scenery at JFK has several issues, which impact performances even when not looking directly at the most problematic areas. I guess the main issue is the huge number of library objects that are loaded *anyway*, even if not actually displayed, and it's specific to JFK area. As I've said, it's just wrong to compare to any other area.



--- Quote --- ORD for me was even worse than JFK though. Dropped into the teens routinely before I removed the pushback tugs which helped some.
--- End quote ---

Then you clearly have something that doesn't work right. KORD is WAY faster than JFK, and this has always been the general consensus amongst users.



--- Quote ---I would be more than happy to test it if there were other sceneries available, but unfortunately that's not an option.
--- End quote ---

My point, exactly. Since there aren't any other JFK sceneries, you can't say anything about JFK performances. Simflyer's one (if it even works in FS9), it's WAY slower.  JFK never had the reputation for being an fps hog, there's MUCH worse stuff around, and not made for the worse area in the world, which is, incidentally, JFK.

CaseyD:

--- Quote ---No, because we would not be able to offer an easy upgrade route to FS9 customers that will eventually switch to FSX. We are sure that many FS9 users bought our FS9 product with confidence BECAUSE they known it would not be necessary to spend anything extra when they finally switch to FSX. And they will, sooner or later.
--- End quote ---

You are sadly mistaken. FSX in general is a subpar product and there are many users who will likely never switch. That's why most payware and freeware companies continue to support FS9 in general more so than FSX. FS9 provides almost double the performance of FSX and with the proper addons, even better quality. I don't understand why it would be difficult to offer two serials, one to an FS9 version, and one to an FSX version. Many developers use this method.


--- Quote ---And why should we spend time to do extra work, when FSX does it for us ? Without even mentioning that, in case of road traffic, how FSX handles that is FAR more efficent that anything that could have been made with BGL animations, which it would be the only way to port it to FS9 but then, you would have an fps impact at worse-than-FSX levels. At that point, you'd better use FSX directly, if you ARE interested in road traffic.
--- End quote ---

People buy a scenery to get away from what is FS default and of course, what is custom made is almost 100% of the time better than what was made by Microsoft. I have plenty of sceneries with animated ground equipment that have no FPS impact whatsoever.

All this is why I originally said I wouldn't mind seeing Imaginesim make DFW. They are more committed to FS9 than FSDT seems to be, and of course that's what caused you to be hell-bent on proving me wrong about that.


--- Quote ---My point, exactly. Since there aren't any other JFK sceneries, you can't say anything about JFK performances.My point, exactly. Since there aren't any other JFK sceneries, you can't say anything about JFK performances.
--- End quote ---

Which is why I'm comparing it to the rest of FS. I understand that La Guardia and Manhattan may have some affect on frames at JFK, but neither should have as much of an affect as they seem to. The biggest factor in NY is not the city or the scenery but AI traffic, however there are areas with much more and yet better performance. The way the JFK ground texture was made seems to also have a detrimental effect.

JFKpilot:

--- Quote ---You are sadly mistaken. FSX in general is a subpar product and there are many users who will likely never switch. That's why most payware and freeware companies continue to support FS9 in general more so than FSX. FS9 provides almost double the performance of FSX and with the proper addons, even better quality. I don't understand why it would be difficult to offer two serials, one to an FS9 version, and one to an FSX version. Many developers use this method.
--- End quote ---



Do you seriously want to get less product for the same price? I assume you are someone that thinks Imaginesim, for example, is giving you are better deal by offering separate versions. But in fact, they are just ripping you off, because they fs9 and fsx versions are identical anyway! The Fsdt way is seriously a win-win situation for everyone. Ever considered some people run both sims? And despite the fact that fs9 seems to have a larger base, sales of the PMDG Md-11, just as one example, proves otherwise.     




--- Quote ---People buy a scenery to get away from what is FS default and of course, what is custom made is almost 100% of the time better than what was made by Microsoft. I have plenty of sceneries with animated ground equipment that have no FPS impact whatsoever.
All this is why I originally said I wouldn't mind seeing Imaginesim make DFW. They are more committed to FS9 than FSDT seems to be, and of course that's what caused you to be hell-bent on proving me wrong about that.
--- End quote ---

The animated ground equipment takes time to do and is bad on fps so it's rather pointless in fs9. And as far as an imaginesim DFW goes, if you're satisfied with fs2002 tech, then it might be for you.



--- Quote ---Which is why I'm comparing it to the rest of FS. I understand that La Guardia and Manhattan may have some affect on frames at JFK, but neither should have as much of an affect as they seem to. The biggest factor in NY is not the city or the scenery but AI traffic, however there are areas with much more and yet better performance. The way the JFK ground texture was made seems to also have a detrimental effect.
--- End quote ---



New York is the worst performing area in FS, yet even still, Fsdt JFK praised for its fps. And it is not ai that is the bottleneck. As for your assertion that the ground is causing performance issues, care to explain how that would be the case? If you mean the ground causes stuttering, yes, that is a common complaint and was addressed long ago for all Fsdt fs9 airports except KORD. If you mean bad performance as in bad fps, it's probably a local system issue.

SirIsaac726:
There is one disagreement I have with what has been said by Umberto.  With the example of FlyTampa sceneries, I'd say there IS a way to do animated traffic for FS9 that doesn't affect frames horribly, if at all.

Other than that though, I agree on the overall picture FSDT gives.  I mean, two sceneries for the price of one by other developers, can't beat that.  Right now, I too wouldn't mind to see an ImagineSim DFW because I feel, when looking at the sceneries, as if their products are more custom to FS9 (once again, that is just a feeling...I'm not speaking about whether or not it technically is).  Not to mention, I am sticking with FS9 for now (mostly because I am too lazy to do all the tweaks and things to get FSX to an acceptable level graphics-wise and frame rates-wise).  But, for people who use both products or will be switching from FS9 to FSX (which I plan to do in the near future), FSDT offers a great deal that really can't be beat.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page