FSDreamTeam forum
October 29, 2020, 12:29:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Skylink  (Read 10732 times)
MikeW
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« 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
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 39911



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2010, 10:30:53 PM »

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.
Logged

Dimon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482



« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2010, 10:33:35 PM »

That's funny. Skylink train is working in JFK, what was the problem in KDFW? Is it FSX "unique technique" too?
Logged

i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.
MikeW
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2010, 10:33:43 PM »

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??
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 39911



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2010, 10:37:28 PM »

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.
Logged

Dimon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482



« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2010, 10:41:50 PM »

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

Logged

i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.
01pewterz28
Full Member
***
Posts: 218


« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2010, 10:48:24 PM »

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 Smiley

Sean
Logged
Silverbird
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 655



« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2010, 10:48:49 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 10:52:31 PM by Silverbird » Logged

Cesar

New Jersey EWR
Dimon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482



« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2010, 10:50:51 PM »

Perhaps you're right, folks. Sorry for my overreaction.

Anyway, I'm yet to buy KDFW tonight. Grin So we'll see.
Logged

i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.
Dimon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482



« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2010, 10:52:26 PM »

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 Smiley

Sean

Yeah, but comparing with Aerosoft magic in EDDF or LFPG, I will be missing moving environment a lot.
Logged

i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.
MikeW
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2010, 10:57:37 PM »

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 Smiley

Sean

Yeah, but comparing with Aerosoft magic in EDDF or LFPG, I will be missing moving environment a lot.

Same here. I miss it!
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 39911



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2010, 11:06:21 PM »

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.

Quote
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...
Logged

JoseAlbanez
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2010, 11:16:34 PM »

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

Logged
MikeW
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2010, 11:18:38 PM »


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.
Logged
MikeW
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2010, 11:20:10 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!