FSDreamTeam forum
FS9 support => Dallas FS9 => Topic started by: MikeW on August 06, 2010, 10:23:01 pm
-
Hi,
does the animated skylink only work in FSX? Even no moving groundvehicles in FS9?
best regards
-
Yes, the train is static in FS9, and there are no moving ground vehicles, because in FSX we exploited the ground AI capabilities, which are not available in FS9.
-
That's funny. Skylink train is working in JFK, what was the problem in KDFW? Is it FSX "unique technique" too?
-
Concerning the top quality of your products, I really cant understand why moving vehicles are not part of your sceneries. If Aerosoft can do it, why not FSDreamteam??
-
That's funny. Skylink train is working in JFK, what was the problem in KDFW? Is it FSX "unique technique" too?
No, but the animation lenght at KDFW (which includes the stops at the station) is well over the maximum limit of 1024 frames that exists in FS9. This limit doesn't exists in FSX.
Even if it's technically possible to have >1024 frame animations in FS9, it's quite cumbersome to do and, as usual, requires extra work just for FS9, which we are not willing to do.
-
That's funny. Skylink train is working in JFK, what was the problem in KDFW? Is it FSX "unique technique" too?
Even if it's technically possible to have >1024 frame animations in FS9, it's quite cumbersome to do and, as usual, requires extra work just for FS9, which we are not willing to do.
I understand that. Why not to put extra 25% to the price of FS9 version for the additional effort? I may understand technical limitation of FS2004, but as a customer I don't understand a phrase "we are not willing to do".
If you don't respect FS2004 market - that's ok, it's your choice. Simply do not release products for FS2004 with 'we are not willing to do", it hurts your status of quality developer.
Thanks
Dmitriy
-
I am ok with NO moving objects (ground vehicles or trains) for FS9 I use ASE and continued design of airport for FS9 works for me :)
Sean
-
That's funny. Skylink train is working in JFK, what was the problem in KDFW? Is it FSX "unique technique" too?
Even if it's technically possible to have >1024 frame animations in FS9, it's quite cumbersome to do and, as usual, requires extra work just for FS9, which we are not willing to do.
I understand that. Why not to put extra 25% to the price of FS9 version for the additional effort? I may understand technical limitation of FS2004, but as a customer I don't understand a phrase "we are not willing to do".
If you don't respect FS2004 market - that's ok, it's your choice. Simply do not release products for FS2004 with 'we are not willing to do", it hurts your status of quality developer.
Thanks
Dmitriy
Dmitriy, I rather have dfw for fs9 the way they have it now. then not have it at all. I admit I would have love some animation in the fs9 version but I respect fsdt reason of not doing it.
-
Perhaps you're right, folks. Sorry for my overreaction.
Anyway, I'm yet to buy KDFW tonight. ;D So we'll see.
-
I am ok with NO moving objects (ground vehicles or trains) for FS9 I use ASE and continued design of airport for FS9 works for me :)
Sean
Yeah, but comparing with Aerosoft magic in EDDF or LFPG, I will be missing moving environment a lot.
-
I am ok with NO moving objects (ground vehicles or trains) for FS9 I use ASE and continued design of airport for FS9 works for me :)
Sean
Yeah, but comparing with Aerosoft magic in EDDF or LFPG, I will be missing moving environment a lot.
Same here. I miss it!
-
I understand that. Why not to put extra 25% to the price of FS9 version for the additional effort?
We don't want to sell the FS9 version separately, we want to have users MOVE ON from FS9 and, of course, the only way to do this, is to have a single license which is valid in both sims.
If you don't respect FS2004 market - that's ok, it's your choice. Simply do not release products for FS2004 with 'we are not willing to do", it hurts your status of quality developer.
I know you don't want to believe it, but KDFW has same or even BETTER FPS in FSX right now, even with the FS9 version missing all that stuff.
This scenery is simply too big, and way over what the obsolete FS9 engine can do. We were able to solve the problem in FSX, by using Shaders instead of cobbling the scenery with lots of ground polygons, otherwise it wouldn't been possible to offer anything at this level of quality, with such a large area, if we were using the old FS9 methods.
Remember the complaints about JFK ground not being sharp enough ? This is as large as JFK+KORD COMBINED!! Since in FS9 we are *forced* to use lots of ground polygons, instead of shaders (that we don't have), we start with a performance penality, even without starting to add animations, and all the other stuff that is missing.
So, the FS9 version is not limited just by our unwillingness to do things, it's limited by FS9 itself because, if we put *all* that was in FSX, it would have been unusable.
We don't HAVE to deliver the same quality on two platforms, with one being vastly superior to the other.
If you take a scenery made with FS9 methods in FSX, it might look good in both sims, but a scenery like this, which couldn't be done in THIS quality level without exploiting FSX features, will just show the real difference between FS9 and FSX.
In the videogaming world, is as if you, as a Wii user, would complain with a developer the PS3 version of their games looks better, and the developer shouldn't release for the Wii, unless he could match the PS3 version feature by feature, otherwise his reputation would be "hurt". Doesn't make any sense...
-
Marketing wise all these developers are taking the path of less resistance. Aerosoft now says they cannot do see through glass on buildings and jetways but only on FSX yet they've done it in the past for fs9. The same goes for elevated bridges on fs 9 they feel "technically challlenged" or "FS9 limitations" prevents us from it....however we had better developers as simflyers with less resources than these so called Great Developers to which we give our money away which demonstrated that elevated bridges with taxiways passing over local traffic and 3D parking structures are possible on FS9. Let's not forget FlyTampa and their moving trains and terminal traffic on SFO.
Quite frankly is a shame that they have this hidden agenda to force the consumer to move to a platform they are not comfortable with and exepect the consumer to just throw away thousands invested on their airport collections and hardware.
My loyalty with FSDT and others has been put to the test with these hipocritical excuses. I agree with DINO when he says "if you don't want to do it on FS9 don't do it" It is more respectful to the community and honest to consumers.
Hope that now that i gave away $33 for your scenery, you'll have the descency of making a texture resizer available for it.
Thanks...
Jose
-
we want to have users MOVE ON from FS9
I guess most users would like to, but the hardware that allows "all sliders fully on the right" is not yet that low priced.
-
Marketing wise all these developers are taking the path of less resistance. Aerosoft now says they cannot do see through glass on buildings and jetways but only on FSX yet they've done it in the past for fs9. The same goes for elevated bridges on fs 9 they feel "technically challlenged" or "FS9 limitations" prevents us from it....however we had better developers as simflyers with less resources than these so called Great Developers to which we give our money away which demonstrated that elevated bridges with taxiways passing over local traffic and 3D parking structures are possible on FS9. Let's not forget FlyTampa and their moving trains and terminal traffic on SFO.
Quite frankly is a shame that they have this hidden agenda to force the consumer to move to a platform they are not comfortable with and exepect the consumer to just throw away thousands invested on their airport collections and hardware.
My loyalty with FSDT and others has been put to the test with these hipocritical excuses. I agree with DINO when he says "if you don't want to do it on FS9 don't do it" It is more respectful to the community and honest to consumers.
Hope that now that i gave away $33 for your scenery, you'll have the descency of making a texture resizer available for it.
Thanks...
Jose
I totally agree. That's what I think as well.
-
I don't know if you cared to read my previous message but, from your response, it's clear that you haven't understood much of it.
If we were happy of making a year 2002 Simflyers-style scenery, than yes, FS9 is clearly very capable of delivering it. But it's 2010, we have to move forward, and with every new scenery, we have to push forward the boundaries of what it's possible.
For THIS airport, there was no other choice, than fully exploit what FSX had to offer, which has never been delivered in such extent, until now. This resulted in the FS9 version being strongly penalized but, for an airport of THAT size, on FS9, it's either this, or it's "Simflyers-quality"
So, what you would think would hurt our reputation more: having an FS9 version that, overall, looked like crap, or having an FS9 version that is just missing some features, but still looks very good and performs adequately ?
-
it's either this, or it's "Simflyers-quality"
I for one am pleased with THIS! :) Great work guys.
Kelly
-
it's either this, or it's "Simflyers-quality"
I for one am pleased with THIS! :) Great work guys.
Kelly
+1 ;D
-
So, what you would think would hurt our reputation more: having an FS9 version that, overall, looked like crap, or having an FS9 version that is just missing some features, but still looks very good and performs adequately ?
I agree with you here, Umberto!
I understand that there are users that miss the moving environment like LFPG or EDDF by Aerosoft, BUT better have a DFW without moving trains (guys this is a flightsim) than no one!
-
All we are looking for is that you strike the balance between the fullly loaded FSX version with a detailed yet useful experience on FS9. When we make our televisions ( I work for a TV manufacturer) we don't offer just the Top of the Line and the Stripped down budget version of it. We have features accross the line that will be constant to produce an image picture that will keep our reputation as a tier one manufacturer.
But we also offer less features on the lower models in between for those consumers who cannot afford the fully loaded television. The same dogma can be applied to scenery creation where while watering down the FS9 version, the features on it would have allowed the user to enjoy the scenery.
You have stroke this balance before at Honolulu, Zurich, Geneve. So you know what to do and those skills were the one's that gained our loyalty. Believe me I understand you are trying to keep production costs low and max out the limits on FSX to find out how real can it get... but let's get back down to earth and remember that this is a simulator game not a simulator.
thanks
-
I look at how terrible Simflyer's version ran and even on today's machines it's still a framerate hog (FSDT is right here in stating how big this airport is and how concessions need to be made for an airport this size in the FS9 environment). Seeing I'm one of the original requesters of this scenery I'm glade FSDreamteam finally got it done. I don't need all the features FSX's version has as long as the airport looks good in general. Concerning the bridges over roads it's true Simflyer's was able to do this with their KPHX scenery which still looks good today. It's a valid concern that on face value it looks as if developers aren't willing to take the time anymore with FS9 versions of their add-ons. That being said I'll take this KDFW over nothing at all and be happy with it.
Thanks FSDT for creating KDFW for both sims. You did a great or should I say outstanding job here.
-
You have stroke this balance before at Honolulu, Zurich, Geneve.
Zurich and Geneva are *way* smaller sceneries, the size factor is really crucial (it affects the global overall sharpness) so we were able to reach good ground quality in both sims, without using FSX-only methods.
KDFW couldn't be done in good quality without shaders, and since FS9 doesn't have them, it gets a huge performance hit because of the number of polygons needed to get good detail over such large area.
-
Just purchased it (called it sick for 2 last hours of work).
My worst nightmares didn't materialize ;D. The scenery is pretty much on par with KLAS, so I'm happy so far.
It's going to be a rought night for heavy AFCAD corrections.
Thanks FSDT - I hope you can to the same favor for the minority of FS2004 users with KDEN.
-
I hope you can to the same favor for the minority of FS2004 users with KDEN.
KDEN??? :-\
-
I hope you can to the same favor for the minority of FS2004 users with KDEN.
KDEN??? :-\
Well, it's still rumours based on recent virtualli's statement that KDEN might be a good challenge for FSDT. ;D Personally, I have no objections.
-
That's funny. Skylink train is working in JFK, what was the problem in KDFW? Is it FSX "unique technique" too?
Even if it's technically possible to have >1024 frame animations in FS9, it's quite cumbersome to do and, as usual, requires extra work just for FS9, which we are not willing to do.
I understand that. Why not to put extra 25% to the price of FS9 version for the additional effort? I may understand technical limitation of FS2004, but as a customer I don't understand a phrase "we are not willing to do".
If you don't respect FS2004 market - that's ok, it's your choice. Simply do not release products for FS2004 with 'we are not willing to do", it hurts your status of quality developer.
Thanks
Dmitriy
He is speaking for himself. I am thrilled that you still think enough of the FS9 users to continue ot make the product for us. THANK YOU!!!!!