FSDreamTeam forum
August 21, 2019, 03:12:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: CYVR and FS2004  (Read 41480 times)
Dimon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 461



« on: September 26, 2012, 07:42:32 PM »

Don't want to run into pointless discussion about FS2004 vs FSX vs hardware (see my sig) - please provide any clue whether you have plans for FS2004 version of CUVR or not. Aerosoft will plan to stick with FS2004 for large airports on the long-term basis. I hope you would do the same

Thanks

Dmitriy
Logged

[email protected], Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 35504



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2012, 10:08:30 PM »

No plans whatsoever, I believe this was made clear enough already.

There's no way it will ever fit into FS9, it's a entirely different level of complexity compared to KLAX, which also got lot of complaints by FS9 users, which totaled less than 10% of the sales (we know, since KLAX for FS9 wasn't released together with FSX). CYVR will be MUCH more FSX-dependent: we had to do cut and remodel lots of things with KLAX just to be able to *export* it for FS9, there's no way CYVR will ever fit into the FS9 .BGLs, and the materials used requires some special blending modes that FS9 does't have even a closest equivalent.

With the hardware you have in your signature (which is purely wasted with FS9) you surely have noticed how much better KLAX for FSX is compared to the FS9 version, an hypothetical CYVR for FS9 will look bad (assuming we'll ever be able to export it in the first place) and will perform even worse, and of course will not have the signature new dynamic shadows feature.

So no, we don't have any plans to compromise the quality of the product (and getting complaints from FS9 users because their version doesn't work well), just to accomodate what is now a TINY minority of users. Everything changed this year and, the most telling tale, is that NOBODY complained when was said that CYVR will be FSX-only, compared to last year when we made KLAX.

Note that, as you said already, we don't have any intention to have this thread transformed into a useless discussion FS9 vs FSX.

There isn't any need for a discussion in the first place, FS9 doesn't exists anymore for what we are concerned. We decided this as soon KLAX for FS9 was released, when we finally got final and undeniable proof there's no "FS9 users base" anymore, not one that has any commercial meaning to speak of.

So, to anyone reading this, don't try to convert this into a poll, there's no "poll" to be made and no decision waiting to be made. KLAX was our last scenery for FS9.
Logged

Dimon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 461



« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2012, 12:14:32 AM »

Understood. Thanks
Logged

[email protected], Z170 Delux, 980Ti-6GB5700, 2TB EVO850, 16GB DDR4 RAM Win7/64 PRO.
kui5566
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2012, 06:36:52 PM »

Dear Fsdream,

Just a few point of my and others group of fs2004 opinion. We don't see the point why u have to put away fs2004 for this new airport CYVR. We all are still hope of this because klax was a wonderful airport. We re not just buying with money but with the quality and interest of ur product is excellent. I hope you don't get offense but we do hope u can do it or else everything will just gone and no support for ur product. So once again we do hope and have the opportunity to continues ur product in fs2004 for the future.

Thanks
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 35504



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2012, 07:03:01 PM »

We don't see the point why u have to put away fs2004 for this new airport CYVR.

My previous message just above this one clearly explained the point. I'm sorry, but FS9 is done for us.
Logged

Dave_YVR
Beta tester
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 558


« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2012, 03:29:21 AM »

  There's a great freeware CYVR for FS9 only available that is very good made by Jonathan Gabbert. I beta tested it and with full AI was still never below 60fps. At avsim cyvr_release_v100.zip

 It's payware quality and as good as you're going to get without going FSX and getting the FSDT version.
Logged
MD11IDUPB
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2013, 11:11:28 AM »

Hello, precise FS2004 users while they are by no means in the minority, quite the opposite, your message on the issue of not developing the scenery for FS2004 sounds like a great offense even more so for those like me who bought all products of FSDT for FS2004, except of course GSX that you should also do it for FS2004, I do not understand the way to develop only for fSX, remember that not everyone has the possibility to change the pC to a more powerful one for fSX and FS2004 with some measures and improvements is better than FSX!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 11:40:57 AM by virtuali » Logged
pete_auau
Full Member
***
Posts: 184


« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2013, 11:44:17 AM »

Hello, precise FS2004 users while they are by no means in the minority, quite the opposite, your message on the issue of not developing the scenery for FS2004 sounds like a great offense even more so for those like me who bought all products of FSDT for FS2004, except of course GSX that you should also do it for FS2004, I do not understand the way to develop only for fSX, remember that not everyone has the possibility to change the pC to a more powerful one for fSX and FS2004 with some measures and improvements is better than FSX!   Angry Angry Angry

By Cristiano Arosio

They  already explained  their  reason for  not  going  to make any more  airports  for fs9,    since it be like going backwards  for  them in designing  things   so it  can't  be the same  as  fs9  as  fsx  which we all know cant  be  done.   Maybe i should have used  red letters  or  just bold  letters   Smiley
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 12:29:20 PM by pete_auau » Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 35504



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2013, 12:13:03 PM »

Hello, precise FS2004 users while they are by no means in the minority, quite the opposite

See, the problem with FS9 users it's just one: they don't *realize" they are the minority.

Quote
your message on the issue of not developing the scenery for FS2004 sounds like a great offense even more so for those like me who bought all products of FSDT for FS2004

Have they stopped working now ? You paid to use THOSE products, you are still using them, nobody will take them away from you and we WILL continue supporting our FS9 products and users.

Quote
except of course GSX that you should also do it for FS2004

There's no way we could ever done GSX in FS9, but we might consider it, should you be able to convince Microsoft to make a patch to FS9, to add support for Simconnect, programmable Simobjects and Shaders graphics and Bones animations which makes realistic human characters possible, we might consider it.

Of course, in the unlikely event Microsoft would ever "patch" FS9 to add those FSX features, it would need the same hardware requirements than FSX (or are you really thinking FS9 is "magically" faster than FSX ? It's faster because it does LESS!! ), so you better use FSX anyway.

Quote
I do not understand the way to develop only for fSX

That's very simple: since FSX users are the VASTLY OVERWHELMING majority right now, developing to be still compatible with FS9 means we have to limit the FSX version in what it can do, which instead IS a "great offense" to FSX users, because by keep using FS9 methods and technologies in FSX, we undermine the quality of the FSX version of the product, and we are killing our future, because we can't keep innovating with new stuff because, if you haven't noticed, with *each* new scenery we added a new feature, which is constantly putting away from FS9, at to the point that with CYVR, there's now way we could do it in FS9, other than redoing from *scratch*, as if it was another separate product.

And, when we made the last try with FS9, with KLAX, it took us lot of pain to convert it for FS9, and the result wasn't nearly as good the FSX version, because textures were 4x less resolution (since FS9 doesn't support 4096x4096 textures) and frame rate was WORSE than the FSX version, because in order to replicate some of the detail that was added in FSX with Shaders, we had to increase the polygonal complexity, with additional workload added because we started to exceed the maximum amount of polygons FS9 can display for an object.

And since we released KLAX for FS9 after two months, we had a REAL statistic about how big (or I'd rather say, small) the FS9 user base is right now, since KLAX for FS9 sold less than 1/5th of the FSX version.

This was 1 year ago. The only thing we were able to observe during last year, is that most of those that stuck with FS9 until 2012, after the failure of MS Flight, which might have allowed them to jump directly to it, skipping FSX, have now come to their senses and either switched to FSX (since MS Flight failed, it's clear that FSX is here to stay), or to Prepar3D, which IS basically FSX, but is still under development, so it has a future.

Of course, being testers for MS Flight, and having seen it with more than a year in advance, we knew very well how it was, and we were sure it would have been a failure the moment MS sent an email to every 3rd party developer they cancelled the developers program.

It was at THAT time that we decided to stop working on FS9, we just gave it a last chance to it with KLAX, but that only gave us the final evidence we needed to assess how small the FS9 user base became.


Quote
remember that not everyone has the possibility to change the pC to a more powerful one for fSX and FS2004 with some measures and improvements is better than FSX!

You really believe FS9 is better than FSX, it means you haven't seen FSX with "some measures and improvements". But that's not the issue. The issue is, sooner or later you WILL change your PC. What are you going to do then, purchase a Core Duo or Centrino Huh

Now, if this wasn't clear enough the first messages:

There won't by another FS9 product from FSDT. This is not open to any discussion or negotiation, it's just the way it is. This is our final message about this issue.
Logged

mnsbell
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2013, 10:39:21 PM »

"There won't by another FS9 product from FSDT. This is not open to any discussion or negotiation, it's just the way it is. This is our final message about this issue."

 And with that you will never get another dime of my money FSX or otherwise...so KISS MY ASS! Kiss
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 35504



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2013, 10:44:40 PM »

And with that you will never get another dime of my money FSX or otherwise...so KISS MY ASS! Kiss

I'll kiss you goodbye, instead, that's why you are now banned from posting. You are welcome to return when you learn to express yourself on a public forum using decent language.
Logged

FLIGHTCOMPANY
Newbie
*
Posts: 10


« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2013, 05:08:48 AM »

If this is relevant, there is a very nice freeware CYVR scenery for FS2004

http://www.jgabbert.com/

It is really good! Payware quality if you're interested Cheesy
Logged
Anders Bermann
Full Member
***
Posts: 214



« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2013, 10:22:07 AM »

I'll kiss you goodbye, instead, that's why you are now banned from posting. You are welcome to return when you learn to express yourself on a public forum using decent language.

Very well said....
Kudo's for keeping your cool in that regard... Smiley

Quite honest, I don't know if that comment even deserved an answer...
Logged

Best regards, Anders
sticky1202
Full Member
***
Posts: 152



« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2013, 04:33:48 PM »

One quick question from a FS9 user. For me, full AI is a must which I am able to do in FS9. Is there any hardware out there that could run FSX, FSDT sceneries, and AI traffic maxed out?  Undecided

Jim
Logged
virtuali
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 35504



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2013, 04:47:18 PM »

One quick question from a FS9 user. For me, full AI is a must which I am able to do in FS9. Is there any hardware out there that could run FSX, FSDT sceneries, and AI traffic maxed out?  Undecided

Any recent hardware out there can do that, but even "AI Maxed out" in itself is something difficult to define, because their impact changes dramatically depending which airport you use, which traffic package you use (FS9 models like WoAI used in FSX kill fps), and what the AI schedule on that time of the day and day of the week is set to.

This means, you might have just 20 AIs at 100% traffic at, let's say, Geneva, and being happy with it, but the same 100% setting might generate 200 AIs at O'Hare, and that *will* kill your performance.

Sliders, unfortunately, are not a "fire and forget" thing that you could set it at maximum and be done with it. That might have been true with FS9, but because sliders in FS9 were scaled differently, a "Sparse" Autogen setting in FSX would generate as many houses/trees that FS9 at "Very Dense" and some setting didn't even existed, such as road traffic, boat traffic, etc.

To answer your question, if you want to know if there's an hardware setup that allows you to run FSX with "all sliders to the right" in *EVERY* possible situation, with every possible combination of add-ons and never had to touch sliders, then no, such hardware doesn't exists, and it will probably never exists.

But if you understand that sliders are your friend, and are a tool that should be used and understood, then yes, you can run FSX on any system available today, which a decent CPU and a good video card, without having to go to the (expensive) absolute top-end. Usually, a tier below top-end will serve you just fine. For example, I've chose to buy a GTX670 with 2GB, instead of the GTX680 4GB, because didn't find the cost/benefit ratio to be worth it.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
  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!