General Category > General Discussion

Question Regarding The Scope Of DFW Scenery

<< < (2/3) > >>

virtuali:

--- Quote from: thepilot on December 28, 2009, 02:35:47 pm ---I was joking (did you see the ;) ?) as a response to one of your thousand references that FSX is more detailed than FS9.
--- End quote ---

I was just stating a fact. If there are "thousands references" of that, it's only means the improvements are many.

If you wanted to know if, in case the FS9 default scenery was really empty, if we would be willing to add those missing object to the FS9 version, then no, we think to have already explained this: if there's something in the default scenery that it's missing in FS9 *only*, we are not going to do extra work just for the FS9 version, to add something that it's default in FSX.

Luckly for FS9 users (in this case), the default scenery is not empty, but includes everything you have asked for, just in lesser detail.

thepilot:

--- Quote from: virtuali on December 28, 2009, 03:31:45 pm ---we are not going to do extra work just for the FS9 version
--- End quote ---

It would have truly amazed me if you were willing to do so ;)
You seem unconvinceable - have you ever accepted a user request (serious question)? Quotes please.

virtuali:

--- Quote from: thepilot on December 28, 2009, 07:31:29 pm ---You seem unconvinceable - have you ever accepted a user request (serious question)? Quotes please.
--- End quote ---

We always accepted user's requests, when they make sense.

There's obviously not need to "quote" every episode, because if you simply look the the very long AFCAD threads, it's clearly proven that all suggestions are always followed.

Or, the threads about the supposed JFK "texture blurriness", which in fact is not really a problem on a properly set system, but we changed a lot our design methods for later sceneries, so they'll appear sharp even on wrongly setup systems.

Or, the threads about making the reinstall procedure less confusing, which lead to the current version of the Addon Manager, that has a reinstall entirely remade, which should be easier to understand for those that don't read the manuals.

Or, the threads about making the purchase simpler, which lead to the use of a Web page as an alternate way of purchasing products, instead of only using the in-game menu, as it used to be.

The suggestion to improve FS9 trying to replicate what FSX already has as default, instead, doesn't make any sense. If we were trying to to do that, it would mean (and this is just a *partial* list)

10x denser autogen
4x texture resolution
Way more detailed default scenery (cities, roads, rivers, lakes, coastlines, landclasses, etc.)
Dynamic airport vehicles with their own pysical modeling and behaviour
Up to 7 cm/pixel photoreal scenery, instead of 4.8 m/pixel
Advanced textures and material properties
Traffic on roads

Even assuming we would ever be able to recreate those features in FS9 ( which shouldn't be taken for granted, and at WHAT cost ? ), the end result would probably be slower than the real FSX, which makes the whole exercise pointless, because at that point, you could just use FSX instead.

If you decided to use the less capable simulator, that's fine for us, but you just can't pretend to have the same features.

Basically, to use a real-world example, it's as if a Wii user would *demand* support for HD resolution from the developer of his favourite game, just because the same developer has done a PS3/Xbox360 version of the same game that has it.

thepilot:
Alright, seems valid to me. I merely asked out of curiosity.
About the usage of a "less capable" simulator, as you call it: FSX is so hardware-hungry that my settings would have to be turned down so much that it wouldn't look any better than FS9 (at a worse peformance). So the landmarks wouldn't probably even show.

SirIsaac726:

--- Quote from: thepilot on December 29, 2009, 12:59:24 am ---Alright, seems valid to me. I merely asked out of curiosity.
About the usage of a "less capable" simulator, as you call it: FSX is so hardware-hungry that my settings would have to be turned down so much that it wouldn't look any better than FS9 (at a worse peformance). So the landmarks wouldn't probably even show.

--- End quote ---

That is the case for me as well.  BUT, current technology is catching up/has already caught up with the i cores and is making FSX to be probably the best sim out there with the correct technology.  The problem is the price but with time it will come down.  Basically, FSX was ahead of its time when it was released.

I currently use FS9 just because I don't have the technology but once I have the money and the price comes down on the iCores, you can bet I'll be making a switch

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page