Poor performance

[cmpbllsjc]

You are keep insisting there might be some specific "problem" somewhere, when in fact the only problem is the scenery is just very complex, but this, as I've said (too many times already) doesn't seem to be a problem for everyone. If it was, everybody would have the same low fps, which isn't the case, and this is not my opinion, it's proven by all the comments made by several users which have been linked before.

I have a worse system that "DogStar".

I'm running the following:

E8400 oc'ed to 3.85
2GB RAM at 1088
EGVZ GTS 250 OC 1GB card <- a bad idea apparently since I have a 32 bit system with only 2GB RAM
Win Xp 32bit

Anyway, just as an example I am running FSX and flying the PMDG NGX/SP1 into KLAX I am getting between 20 and 30 FPS with about 65% traffic. So if I can get that out of FSX with a plane like the NGX and using a system that should barely be able to cope with FSX, I would have to agree that DogStar has something going on in his FS9 install that is giving bad performance to no fault of FSDT's LAX.

[DogStar]

"Funny", that so many users of the forums I am in, encounter exactly the same problem. Anyway ... I accept that there is no cure for that ... soon I will have a new and really fast system and will enjoy KLAX fully then ...
What I won`t do is recommending KLAX to mid - system users.

[virtuali]

"Funny", that so many users of the forums I am in, encounter exactly the same problem

"So many" ? I've counted only 4 that posted here, but there are more that said they don't have any problems (plus the ones I've linked from Avsim too) and, of course, those are only the ones that took the time to reply, because obviously, most of the users that don't have any problems, don't even bother to post or even register and just enjoy the scenery.

What I won`t do is recommending KLAX to mid - system users.

"Recommending" or not a scenery is not something that applies with our products, since we have a Trial version.

And in this case, by not recommending it to someone, you will do a disservice to him, because he might not have any problems, like the many users that don't, so you should instead say "it didn't worked well on MY system, but install the Trial, because it might work better on yours"

[DogStar]

You are right. The trial version is a fair deal in fact  ... so I will keep my mouth shut and wait for my new PC ...

[kiwiflyer]

I'm posting this with some reluctance as there's been some pretty heated discussions already and I'm not interested in getting into an argument. If this information is useful, then hopefully I can provide something positive. If not, then just ignore it.

I am able to run the new KLAX scenery okay on my system but with some stuttering, some slow texture loading times and FPS between 18-23 depending on the view. With the Cloud9 scenery using the identical flight, same AI, same weather, same default aircraft etc I get a steady 25 FPS which is what my system is locked at.

I have all the FSDT sceneries and have no performance problems with any of them including JFK and ORD. Here's what I've noted and if this helps resolve this then great - if not, please don't kill the messenger... When the trial times out and I lose most of the buildings, the FPS goes up slightly but NOT as much as I would normally expect. Usually with any of the trial versions once it times out the FPS go up enormously. In this case it does not. So it does seem that there might be a problem texture or two among the objects that remain after the trial ends and if that is true and the culprit could be identified, perhaps the problem could be eliminated.

Umberto - before you get pissed off at me and post a rude reply, let me just say that I love your products, have supported you throughout your career by buying hundreds of dollars worth of those products and I WANT this product to succeed and will buy it if I can get the same FPS as all your other products. If not, I am happy to stay with the Cloud9 KLAX which I still think is excellent. So please, either a polite reply or don't bother to reply at all. I am not trying to cause conflict - just to help you perfect what is otherwise a fantastic product that you have every right to be proud of
Ian

[virtuali]

I am able to run the new KLAX scenery okay on my system but with some stuttering, some slow texture loading times and FPS between 18-23 depending on the view. With the Cloud9 scenery using the identical flight, same AI, same weather, same default aircraft etc I get a steady 25 FPS which is what my system is locked at.

Considering how much more detailed the FSDT version is compared to Cloud9, I'd say you are getting normal and expected results.

When the trial times out and I lose most of the buildings, the FPS goes up slightly but NOT as much as I would normally expect. Usually with any of the trial versions once it times out the FPS go up enormously. In this case it does not. So it does seem that there might be a problem texture or two among the objects that remain after the trial ends and if that is true and the culprit could be identified, perhaps the problem could be eliminated.

Textures don't have anything to do with the fps impact on this scenery, but polygons do.

What remains after the trial is the background objects (taxilines and taxisigns), and they use lots of polygons, because the curves are made to be very smooth AND there's an additional weight added we don't have in FSX, which are the detail polygons, otherwise the ground would be too blurred, and had to be made as polygons, because FS9 doesn't support shaders so, the FS9 version have even more polygons than the FSX version.

Sorry guys, but the scenery it's what it is, there's not much we can do other than remade a low polygons version from scratch, which doesn't make any sense, considering there's the Cloud9 version still on sale and, from the data we are gathering from the sales, FS9 users are now half of what they used to be just 6 months ago.

I'll say it again: use the Trial, and if it doesn't work to your satisfaction, don't buy the scenery.

[gwillmot]

from the data we are gathering from the sales, FS9 users are now half of what they used to be just 6 months ago.

What you mean is what you actually said:  your sales for the FS9 version of KLAX is half of what the sales of FS9 version of Kxxx was just 6 months ago.

Your sales figures are influenced not only by the number of remaining FS9 users but also those willing to buy another version of KLAX.  I am one of those (at least to this point).  Yes, I'm still using FS9 on a daily basis and I'm NOT going to the dark side (FSX).  I will wait until another flight simulator (or maybe just Flight) is released to reevaluate the situation.  I have bought almost every product that you have created, but I have also bought Cloud9 products (before they were associated with FSDreamTeam).  Hence, I already had KLAX from Cloud9.  I am not one to have to have every gate accurately portrayed ...... every airport addition reproduced accurately ......the latest and greatest ground texture applied .....I think you get the picture.  I happen to enjoy my current KLAX product with the moving vehicles and all.  For that reason, I will probably choose to pass on your current offering (showing up evidently as a person who has defected from FS9 ..... NOT!).  If you had offered a scenery of an airport which had not already been offered for FS9 users, you would have had my credit card verified and charged by now.

I love FSDreamTeam.  I just do not want to be portrayed as a user who has left FS9 simply because I didn't buy the latest, redundant product that you are offering.

Keep up the good work, but have have a professional marketer analyze your FS9 sales figures.

gwillmot

[sticky1202]

  Just performed my first landing at the FS9 version of KLAX with full ai (and I do mean full!), 5 mile visiblity and rain with very little performance difference from other FSDT sceneries such as KORD, KJFK and KDFW. I certainly hope the fact that some users are having difficulties with this scenery does not discourage FSDT from making future FS9 sceneries....I'm not optimistic 

[bmarcoux]

Well, I just tried my first landing at klax (Trial version) with the Ifly 737 and my frames droped to 6!!!!! on 5 mile final  Yes I said 6. My frames are locked at 20 and never have a problem with other FSDT sceneries (KLAS). Never seen a Frame hit that bad on ANY sceneries I've bought and I have alot. Don't know what its but it's very clear I can't run it and have been looking forward to this one a long time.

[virtuali]

What you mean is what you actually said:  your sales for the FS9 version of KLAX is half of what the sales of FS9 version of Kxxx was just 6 months ago.

Yes, of course they are but, the thing is, it doesn't really make ANY difference to us, we are not trying to making a real poll of remaining FS9 users, we are only interested to those that will eventually buy our products, AS THEY ARE.

As we explained many times already, the only chance to see a new FS9 scenery from us, is that it can be reasonably easy to convert it from the FSX version.

Before KLAX, we *purposely* crippled the FSX version in order to ease the conversion to FS9, now this has ended, because it's quite CLEAR that FS9 user base is keep going down.

We don't have just sales data,  the Trial downloads data also shows that FS9 is going down and, guess what, by the same amount of the sales, which clearly means it's not that FS9 users are not buying KLAX after having tried it because it's "bad", it's just there are few of them left, every data we have goes in the same direction.

Keep up the good work, but have have a professional marketer analyze your FS9 sales figures.

We are perfectly able to interpret sales data ourselves, thank you.

It's the FS9 users that are keep misreading them, as if they were needed in a sort of "competition" against FSX, we are not interested in that, even if FS9 was more than 50% of the market (and it's not), it won't change a bit if FS9 users don't buy the products, for whatever reason.

[Frank Lindberg]

Nah... I'll buy LAX for fs9 when it's AES compatible 

[virtuali]

Just performed my first landing at the FS9 version of KLAX with full ai (and I do mean full!), 5 mile visiblity and rain with very little performance difference from other FSDT sceneries

Well, I just tried my first landing at klax (Trial version) with the Ifly 737 and my frames droped to 6!!!!! on 5 mile final  Yes I said 6. My frames are locked at 20 and never have a problem with other FSDT sceneries

These two posts clearly prove that the scenery itself doesn't have any problem, the only difference it's in the user's systems.

I've already listed the various critical points:

- FS9 scales performances very badly: it might run well up to a certain point, then it collapses rapidly if you overload it with stuff. KLAX IS quite heavy on polygons so, it's possible that by running it TOGETHER with other polygon-heavy products, the TOTAL amount is more than FS9 can handle. You might probably have better results with the FSX version on the same system, which has even LESS polygons than the FS9 version!

- Some hardware/software combinations are critical, like 1GB video cards with 32 bit OS, this will eat your memory resources a lot.

As I've said, what makes the most impact in this scenery it's the polygons, it's not really heavy on textures (the texture folder in FS9 is only slightly larger than JFK and smaller than Zurich), which means there's no way to make it easier on fps without remodeling, which is something we'll not do in any case.

So, for the last time, since there's a Trial version, please use it!

Don't buy the scenery if you are not entirely satisfied with it and don't buy the scenery hoping for some performance fix, because none will come. There's nothing "wrong" with the scenery, other than being polygonal heavy, something that doesn't seem to be a problem in FSX, which means we are not going to change our way to do future sceneries.

If we'll ever do another scenery for FS9, it will be made exactly like KLAX, converted from FSX, whatever the end result will be, and of course it will always be available in Trial version, so you'll have all the means to check if it works for you.

[global express]

I'm suffering with low performance too. Reading this thread, Dogstar, I feel your frustration... communicating with certain people in these forums can sometimes be just as much fun as banging your head against a brick wall!

My system is quite old now... Dell XPS 630i (Quad Core Q8300, 2.5GHz, 4Gb ram with Dual 512MB 9800GTs - XP 32bit).

This question may be O/T - but what specs do folks recommend for FSX? I CBA to build my own system, and currently looking at upgrading to an Alienware desktop?:
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-aurora-r3/pd

Any better 'off-the-shelf' options?

MTIA

[Frank Lindberg]

I don't have any fps problems in LAX

[virtuali]

4Gb ram with Dual 512MB 9800GTs - XP 32bit)

Maybe we are starting seeing some kind of a trend: you are the 2nd person that reports low fps, using XP32 bit and 1GB of VRAM.

Look the rest of the thread to see why this coud be a problem. In your case, it's probably worse, since Flight sim doesn't really supports dual GPU so, you are using what is now mid-low video card, don't get any benefit from Flight sim for being dual, and are crippling your system memory using a 32 bit OS, since the 1GB of total vram is cutting into your total memory.