Darker and lighter ground, the concrete layer

[Mike...]

Okay, so I'll try and bring up a real issue this time. There's a layer that gives the ground textures a concrete look, basically a layer of squares. I think it looks good, unfortunately, the application of that layer was a little rough. Areas that don't need it (grass), got it and vice versa. Areas that don't have the layer also look lighter, so it's very easy to notice. I've been making good use of my screen capturing program and the result can be seen below. Just a couple of examples, but it's basically all over the place.

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/5931/capture003l.jpg
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8427/capture004b.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8500/capture005s.jpg

[virtuali]

That's not a bug, that's how the scenery have been made. We can discuss its looks, but at least you know it's nothing wrong on your system, nor is really a bug, it's just how is supposed to look like.

The contour is not very rounded, to keep the polygon count down. It's (as usual) a way to simulate what we get in FSX "for free" with the use of details Shaders. Since we don't have shaders in FS9, and the underlying textures were made for FSX *assuming* we would get extra detail over it, we had to replicate that in some way in FS9 using additional polygons.

I'll see if we could at least smooth out that sharp corner, but don't expect to have a fully precise detail contour, like we have in FSX, because that level of precision is not possible in FS9, since in FSX there are no polygons whatsoever, and the application of the detail types is controlled pixel by pixel with the alpha layer of the ground textures.

[Mike...]

I understand you can't or won't add umpteen points to the polygon (or whatever the lingo is), but there's a difference between being conservative with those points and well... a rush job. I mean, if I can slew around the airport in a couple of minutes and spot some obvious eyesores, then surely you can and try and iron them out. Or at least have a good betatester who brings this kind stuff up and I don't mean a customer with that.

[virtuali]

Or at least have a good betatester who brings this kind stuff up and I don't mean a customer with that.

This is not a beta testing thing because, as I've said, we don't see it as a bug. Beta testing should only concern with problems that prevents the scenery to work, not questioning about design choices.

This case it's more a matter of liking or not a detail so, it's not inappropriate to be brought up by customers which, on top of that, have all the means to check if they like the scenery before purchasing it. If something less than ideal is there, if it's *really* a problem for many users, it will impact sales. Which also means, it's usually in our best interest to fix it.

[Mike...]

I will say only this, I have six FSDT sceneries, last three of which were purchased at significant discounts...

[virtuali]

Thanks to our periodic discounts which, as you said yourself, are significant, most of our users have all our sceneries by now, yet you are the only one reporting this particular issue so, apparently, you are just more sensitive to these things than the vast majority of users.

[Mike...]

Rationalizing and qualifying literally everything to your advantage. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Shame on me for actually caring about quality and good value for money. LOL!

Well, until the next sale.. or not. I'm off to buy the next scenery on my list, KTPA Rebooted by FlyTampa, for full price, their quality and ethos are more aligned to my own.

[virtuali]

Shame on me for actually caring about quality and good value for money. LOL!

Value for money is entirely subjective and, given nobody reported this problem before and the fact the scenery is offered in Trial version and is currently our fastest selling scenery, it's clear most of users decided this issue is not big enough to affect their perception of it.