Author Topic: LAX  (Read 107906 times)

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50653
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: LAX
« Reply #120 on: September 18, 2011, 02:23:32 pm »
Not that bad. It's the scenery with least imapact on FPS I've ever seen. Every scenery I own gives me about 8-10 FPS. FS9 still gives me 20-60 FPS, depending on situation, but if every scenery would run like this I would switch to FSX

All our sceneries perform more or less like that, we try to make them similar, some are slightly faster (well, the Hawaiian are surely much faster, but they are also small), some might be slightly slower, but the overall performance is very similar.

The problem with FSX undeserved bad reputation for low fps, it's only a fault of having too many addons not made specifically for FSX, especially AI airplanes and scenery, since the FS9 code (and FS8 ground polygons even more) runs very bad in FSX.

keino333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: LAX
« Reply #121 on: September 19, 2011, 02:50:29 pm »
Not that bad. It's the scenery with least imapact on FPS I've ever seen. Every scenery I own gives me about 8-10 FPS. FS9 still gives me 20-60 FPS, depending on situation, but if every scenery would run like this I would switch to FSX

All our sceneries perform more or less like that, we try to make them similar, some are slightly faster (well, the Hawaiian are surely much faster, but they are also small), some might be slightly slower, but the overall performance is very similar.

The problem with FSX undeserved bad reputation for low fps, it's only a fault of having too many addons not made specifically for FSX, especially AI airplanes and scenery, since the FS9 code (and FS8 ground polygons even more) runs very bad in FSX.

Gentlemen,  My fellow pilots and noble, dedicated enthusiasts ...

That should sum it up for all of us...Umberto has made it quite clear...

And with that statement, I believe that here, FSDT has provided us with the first scenery of its kind.  I've deduced from his statement that all other sceneries; UTerrainX, GEX, UTrafficX, flytampa,  aerosoft, simwings etc, and  including some of the past FSDT products share this encumbrance by use of component techniques that are byproducts of the FS9 Coding..

As Such; and as an owner of FSX(in its 5th year), I shall remain patient whilst all developers provide products that meet the technical manufacturing spec as with FSDT latest.  Its bad enough that some of the FSX products consume soo much hard disk space...I hate to be hit with the low fps too.  
Nevertheless, I will soon purchase this LAS v2 as well as PMDG NGX...but until such time I shall expulse all other sceneries (or most of) for FSX from my system to enjoy and run FSX as it should.

I still pray for positive traction on the progress of converting LAX v2 for FS9...

Kind regards

Thank you again Umberto....for your insight and for producing such a marvelous product in LAX v2 and products overall....
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 02:53:27 pm by keino333 »

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50653
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: LAX
« Reply #122 on: September 19, 2011, 03:09:46 pm »
And with that statement, I believe that here, FSDT has provided us with the first scenery of its kind.  I've deduced from his statement that all other sceneries; UTerrainX, GEX, UTrafficX, flytampa,  aerosoft, simwings etc, and  including some of the past FSDT products share this encumbrance by use of component techniques that are byproducts of the FS9 Coding..

I'm not sure if your post was serious or not, but your deduction here is not correct, since you mixed up several very different product together that doesn't belong to my description.

Things like UTX, GEX, UT2 are surely native FSX products and don't really contribute much to bad performances, AIRPORT scenery which uses FS8 code, Airplanes AND AI that are not compiled with the FSX SDK DO, and I was referring specifically to those.

In the airport scenery category, I include even many of our own products, up to before KDFW. They where never known to be performance killers, but just because we restrained a lot what we did, since we already started with the heavy baggage of the FS8 code.

Not having to bring the FS8 code with us, is allowing to INCREASE complexity without a visible fps drop.

How do you explain, otherwise, that KLAX Terminals are all in the range of 20-25K polygons *each*, compared to Zurich, which is a far smaller airport, has less sophisticated materials, has less terminals at 7-8K polygons each, and it's not significantly faster ?

How do you explain the PMDG747 (ported for FS9 after more than 1 year of work) it's a frame rate hog in FSX, while the FSX-only and FSX-native NGX737 runs just fine ? They are both equally complex both visually and in the simulation aspect.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 03:12:33 pm by virtuali »

rakitic10

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: LAX
« Reply #123 on: September 19, 2011, 03:49:36 pm »
You - the developers - said that there will be probably no FS9 version.
The reason given by you was, as far as I understood, the loss of quality and time. Well, I think most of the FS9 users (like me) would accept that.
Let us therefore concentrate on the "time-aspect":

I cannot understand this reason. If one plans such a work and one knows that one will use improved textures, real high quality textures, one knows how difficult it will be to split them to get them into FS9.
This only means that you should have thought about that before producing this scenery and not after having done it. It only shows that FSDT follows the level of other developers like PMDG, i.e. to neglect all the FS9 users. You should never forget (obviously you did) WHY FSDT was and is that successful and high-regarded. You should never forget who created the basis for all this: FS9 users who are now left in the rain by you and many others. Enough reason for me, even though I have both, FS9 and FSX, never to buy again a FSDT product.

Concerning the published version or more likely the screens I saw so far: very very good work..

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50653
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: LAX
« Reply #124 on: September 19, 2011, 03:57:14 pm »
You - the developers - said that there will be probably no FS9 version.

No, we haven't. We always said that there WILL be an FS9, IF we manage to do it quickly. Which is something we started looking into it right now.

B777ER

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: LAX
« Reply #125 on: September 19, 2011, 05:19:56 pm »
There are those in this thread that keep saying, its to late to switch to FSX because MS Flight is around the corner. Well, you might just end up switching to FSX instead. More and more info is surfacing that Flight is not going to be what everyone is expecting. The primary theory running now is it will just involve Hawaii and one plane as a base package with MS created additional packages later that can be bought separate. I think FSX will be around for a long time to come. I point you to the below two threads. Read the comments under the articles as well. Note what the Orbx head developer says in a interview just days ago (response #5):

http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2011/09/exclusive-for-airdailyx-interview-of.html#more

http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2011/09/microsoft-flight-not-on-hold.html
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 05:43:28 pm by B777ER »
Eric

member111222

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: LAX
« Reply #126 on: September 19, 2011, 05:26:41 pm »
You - the developers - said that there will be probably no FS9 version.
The reason given by you was, as far as I understood, the loss of quality and time. Well, I think most of the FS9 users (like me) would accept that.
Let us therefore concentrate on the "time-aspect":

I cannot understand this reason. If one plans such a work and one knows that one will use improved textures, real high quality textures, one knows how difficult it will be to split them to get them into FS9.
This only means that you should have thought about that before producing this scenery and not after having done it. It only shows that FSDT follows the level of other developers like PMDG, i.e. to neglect all the FS9 users. You should never forget (obviously you did) WHY FSDT was and is that successful and high-regarded. You should never forget who created the basis for all this: FS9 users who are now left in the rain by you and many others. Enough reason for me, even though I have both, FS9 and FSX, never to buy again a FSDT product.

Concerning the published version or more likely the screens I saw so far: very very good work..

How old are FSX and FS9? If you buy a car for instance, you get spare parts for a specific period of time. After that you can do a headstand or a flip. It will change nothing. The product reached its operational life span. It is sad, but that's how it is. Wait a few years and even FSX will be as forgotten as FS 5.1 is nowadays.

goodperson36

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: LAX
« Reply #127 on: September 19, 2011, 05:47:20 pm »
I think all of us who want to continue to stick to fs 9 should go ahead and upgrade to windows 7 from what i have been told fs 9 works just as great in windows 7 as in windows XP. I think we do not need to worry there will be other developers out there who will make products that will please all of us. FSDT has done a great job On KLAX if they decide to never maker  another fs 9 product then I am sure they will be other developers who will fill that need for us thanks. :)

Frank Lindberg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 747
Re: LAX
« Reply #128 on: September 19, 2011, 06:13:53 pm »
I think all of us who want to continue to stick to fs 9 should go ahead and upgrade to windows 7 from what i have been told fs 9 works just as great in windows 7 as in windows XP. I think we do not need to worry there will be other developers out there who will make products that will please all of us. FSDT has done a great job On KLAX if they decide to never maker  another fs 9 product then I am sure they will be other developers who will fill that need for us thanks. :)

100% agree  ;) spot on.
VA. Senior Captain Frank Lindberg
"United we stand and divided we fall"
My PC spec: MS Win10 pro 64 bit - Intel Core i9-9900K CPU @ OC to 5.0 GHz - 16GB Ram - Geforce 2080TI 11GBVRAM - P3Dv5.1

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: LAX
« Reply #129 on: September 19, 2011, 07:49:57 pm »
There are those in this thread that keep saying, its to late to switch to FSX because MS Flight is around the corner. Well, you might just end up switching to FSX instead. More and more info is surfacing that Flight is not going to be what everyone is expecting. The primary theory running now is it will just involve Hawaii and one plane as a base package with MS created additional packages later that can be bought separate. I think FSX will be around for a long time to come. I point you to the below two threads. Read the comments under the articles as well. Note what the Orbx head developer says in a interview just days ago (response #5):

http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2011/09/exclusive-for-airdailyx-interview-of.html#more

http://airdailyx.blogspot.com/2011/09/microsoft-flight-not-on-hold.html

You realize you are trusting a completely anonymous poster who quotes an anonymous source, right?

Sorry, but there are just too many rumors circulating (and it all starting with the scuzzball of 10 minute whatever).  I won't believe a single thing until release OR information is released officially by Microsoft and the Flight team.

John, from Orbx, somewhat clarified what he was speaking about in another statement and basically admitted that Flight is still a huge unknown for them and they've pretty much grown tired of not knowing anything and as a business must focus on other things in the meantime.

John's statement, according to him, about only Flight only being Hawaii or only being GA aircraft is based solely the fact that MS hasn't shown us, the public, anything but Hawaii and GA aircraft.  Do people not remember FSX and how much everything focused on Island scenes and GA aircraft in previews? 

So again, until something official is released that says otherwise, I ought to expect Flight will be another sim. in the line.  I'm not going to believe an anonymous poster who says their mother's great uncle's best friend who knew a guy that worked at Microsoft told him this crap.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 11:03:29 pm by SirIsaac726 »

geoffbecks

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: LAX
« Reply #130 on: September 19, 2011, 09:03:36 pm »
I think all of us who want to continue to stick to fs 9 should go ahead and upgrade to windows 7 from what i have been told fs 9 works just as great in windows 7 as in windows XP. I think we do not need to worry there will be other developers out there who will make products that will please all of us. FSDT has done a great job On KLAX if they decide to never maker  another fs 9 product then I am sure they will be other developers who will fill that need for us thanks. :)

100% agree  ;) spot on.

I have windows 7 64bit and I have windows XP 64 and I can assure you that fs9 works best with Windows XP. I does work okay with windows 7 but it works far better on the older platform, but it (fs9) just needs lots of memory, I have 6gig Ram, and a fast processer to work best, I am using a duel core with 4.0GHz.it runs like a charm with tripple head2go and all the scenery add ons from VFR france REX & active sky covering the weather and all the main sceneries for europe and the states from all the major developers,,over 200 add on airports, I have the PMDG 747 the ifly 737 both CS and QW 757 the just flight Embraer the F1 ATR and it handles all this and runs 45 - 80 FPS but bot so well on windows 7.....I wont be swopping to FSX either

GerardWay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: LAX
« Reply #131 on: September 20, 2011, 01:29:17 pm »
You - the developers - said that there will be probably no FS9 version.
The reason given by you was, as far as I understood, the loss of quality and time. Well, I think most of the FS9 users (like me) would accept that.
Let us therefore concentrate on the "time-aspect":

I cannot understand this reason. If one plans such a work and one knows that one will use improved textures, real high quality textures, one knows how difficult it will be to split them to get them into FS9.
This only means that you should have thought about that before producing this scenery and not after having done it. It only shows that FSDT follows the level of other developers like PMDG, i.e. to neglect all the FS9 users. You should never forget (obviously you did) WHY FSDT was and is that successful and high-regarded. You should never forget who created the basis for all this: FS9 users who are now left in the rain by you and many others. Enough reason for me, even though I have both, FS9 and FSX, never to buy again a FSDT product.

Concerning the published version or more likely the screens I saw so far: very very good work..


Completely I support!
It is a pity that won't be LAX for fs9. >:(

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50653
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: LAX
« Reply #132 on: September 20, 2011, 02:00:29 pm »
Completely I support! It is a pity that won't be LAX for fs9.

I really don't know why such unfounded assumptions gets spread: we NEVER said "there's won't be an KLAX for FS9".

We ALWAYS said, right from the start, there won't be a KLAX for FS9 IF, after we made all the due tests, we'll realize it would take far too long to do that would make it unprofitable OR it would look bad, with "bad", meaning worse than the Cloud9 version which is on sale now, right here.

All the explanations about the technical challenges were made to make people UNDERSTAND why doing this port might be difficult, and why it will likely look worse than the FSX version NOT as a cheap excuse to justify that we already decided it won't be made, because nothing like this as been decided, and even less announced.

Until you read here, directly from the source "there won't be an FS9 version", don't assume anything and don't believe anything you might have read elsewhere.

Dimon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 491
Re: LAX
« Reply #133 on: September 20, 2011, 03:20:31 pm »
So....what are the chances of FS2004 version as of today, September 20th, 2011?
i7-6700k@4.6Ghz, Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50653
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: LAX
« Reply #134 on: September 20, 2011, 03:50:21 pm »
I'd say fairly good...I made some tests with terminals, they looks different from FSX, but not totally crap...