Skylink

[virtuali]

I don't know if you cared to read my previous message but, from your response, it's clear that you haven't understood much of it.

If we were happy of making a year 2002 Simflyers-style scenery, than yes, FS9 is clearly very capable of delivering it. But it's 2010, we have to move forward, and with every new scenery, we have to push forward the boundaries of what it's possible.

For THIS airport, there was no other choice, than fully exploit what FSX had to offer, which has never been delivered in such extent, until now. This resulted in the FS9 version being strongly penalized but, for an airport of THAT size, on FS9, it's either this, or it's "Simflyers-quality"

So, what you would think would hurt our reputation more: having an FS9 version that, overall, looked like crap, or having an FS9 version that is just missing some features, but still looks very good and performs adequately ?

[Captain2000]

it's either this, or it's "Simflyers-quality"

I for one am pleased with THIS!  Great work guys.

Kelly

[Ray]

it's either this, or it's "Simflyers-quality"

I for one am pleased with THIS!  Great work guys.

Kelly

+1 

[Thorsten_W]

So, what you would think would hurt our reputation more: having an FS9 version that, overall, looked like crap, or having an FS9 version that is just missing some features, but still looks very good and performs adequately ?

I agree with you here, Umberto!
I understand that there are users that miss the moving environment like LFPG or EDDF by Aerosoft, BUT better have a DFW without moving trains (guys this is a flightsim) than no one!

[JoseAlbanez]

All we are looking for is that you strike the balance between the fullly loaded FSX version with a detailed yet useful experience on FS9. When we make our televisions ( I work for a TV manufacturer) we don't offer just the Top of the Line and the Stripped down budget version of it. We have features accross the line that will be constant to produce an image picture that will keep our reputation as a tier one manufacturer.

But we also offer less features on the lower models in between for those consumers who cannot afford the fully loaded television. The same dogma can be applied to scenery creation where while watering down the FS9 version, the features on it would have allowed the user to enjoy the scenery.

You have stroke this balance before at Honolulu, Zurich, Geneve. So you know what to do and those skills were the one's that gained our loyalty. Believe me I understand you are trying to keep production costs low and max out the limits on FSX to find out how real can it get... but let's get back down to earth and remember that this is a simulator game not a simulator.

thanks

[Dillon]

I look at how terrible Simflyer's version ran and even on today's machines it's still a framerate hog (FSDT is right here in stating how big this airport is and how concessions need to be made for an airport this size in the FS9 environment).  Seeing I'm one of the original requesters of this scenery I'm glade FSDreamteam finally got it done.  I don't need all the features FSX's version has as long as the airport looks good in general.  Concerning the bridges over roads it's true Simflyer's was able to do this with their KPHX scenery which still looks good today.  It's a valid concern that on face value it looks as if developers aren't willing to take the time anymore with FS9 versions of their add-ons.  That being said I'll take this KDFW over nothing at all and be happy with it.

Thanks FSDT for creating KDFW for both sims.  You did a great or should I say outstanding job here.

[virtuali]

You have stroke this balance before at Honolulu, Zurich, Geneve.

Zurich and Geneva are *way* smaller sceneries, the size factor is really crucial (it affects the global overall sharpness) so we were able to reach good ground quality in both sims, without using FSX-only methods.

KDFW couldn't be done in good quality without shaders, and since FS9 doesn't have them, it gets a huge performance hit because of the number of polygons needed to get good detail over such large area.

[Dimon]

Just purchased it (called it sick for 2 last hours of work).

My worst nightmares didn't materialize . The scenery is pretty much on par with KLAS, so I'm happy so far.

It's going to be a rought night for heavy AFCAD corrections.

Thanks FSDT - I hope you can to the same favor for the minority of FS2004 users with KDEN.

[Dillon]

I hope you can to the same favor for the minority of FS2004 users with KDEN.

KDEN??? 

[Dimon]

I hope you can to the same favor for the minority of FS2004 users with KDEN.

KDEN??? 

Well, it's still rumours based on recent virtualli's statement that KDEN might be a good challenge for FSDT.  Personally, I have no objections.

[CX 747-400]

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

He is speaking for himself. I am thrilled that you still think enough of the FS9 users to continue ot make the product for us. THANK YOU!!!!!