Products Support > JFK for FSX/P3D

JFK Version 2 released

<< < (2/6) > >>

Slayer:
First off - Thanks for upgrading this. Your airports are the absolute best there are for FSX bar none. Your attention to detail makes your products shine and you should be proud.

My FPS jumped up dramatically I'd say the 30% estimate is pretty close. I used to get about 25 FPS now it runs about 45. Everything is smooth and textures are way better.

Did that tram move before? I never remember seeing it and always look for cool stuff like that. Also the mirroring effects on the glass are amazing.  Excited to explore this place again and see what else has changed.

I just bought Vancouver a few days ago now I'm torn which to fly this weekend. This upgrade brings it pretty close to that airports standards.

theshack440:
This looks great, thank you for doing this! I look forward to downloading it.

I just have two kind of simple questions. One, did you end up putting in docking systems at T8? And two, did you add gate numbers to the apron around T5? I don't mean to sound picky, these just crossed my mind because it wasn't clear in the released screenshots. Thanks!

virtuali:
Thank you for your comments, for us fps are very important, but of course not at the cost of graphic quality.

We never were entirely happy with previous JFK ground textures, mostly because the default photoreal FSX terrain can look good or blurred depending on system load and/or settings, without any control on our side, but the JFK area is so fps intensive on its own, that we couldn't use the slow FS8 code for ground polygons to control the resolution, like we did in other earlier sceneries such as Zurich, KLAS or LSGG, so we didn't had much choice back then, when the scenery was released.

So, it's good that we finally managed to use the newer methods introduced with KDFW/KLAX/CYVR, removing any FS8/9 code, for an obvious improvement in fps. And here at New York, where it's needed the most.

virtuali:
Some other informations that might be useful to some:

VAS memory usage in JFK V2 is exactly 250MB higher than JFK V1. In the situation of the two posted screenshots, FSX with JFK V1 took 850MB of VAS, while JFK V2 took 1.1 GB. There are no AI in that screen and it's a default airplane, but of course (all else being equal), what we are interested in it's just the *difference* between V1 and V2, and it's 250MB. This is DX9. With DX10, everything goes down. Overall, is FAR less than KLAX or CYVR.

Why VAS is higher in V2, and yet the fps higher too ?

As usual, the answer is always "there's no free lunch": the FS8/9 code is clearly slower than native FSX code, but it's also more compact. Of course, just being compact in memory, doesn't necessarily mean being faster, because to translate FS8/9 code into actual graphics commands, FSX has to do much more work with the CPU than when running FSX code, even if the FS8/9 code is smaller.

The FSX native code and the way the textures/shaders are made also means the scenery takes more GPU memory but, since under DX9 the GPU allocation is copied into the user RAM, the more a scenery uses the GPU, the more VAS will use too. That's why it's best to use DX10, when you have many add-ons running together.

So, by getting rid of FS9 code, you trade some memory for performance, and I'll take fps any day, especially at New York.

If you are short on memory, there are several of solutions to try to recover it (using DX10, using less-memory hungry airplanes, lowering the textures resolution to 2048 or even 1024), but if the scenery is slow, because it's done with FS8/9 code, there's simply nothing you can do about it.

Catchman86:
Wow, that's really interesting. Thanks for enlightening us on the concept. I'd like to know more about these new methods, specifically how you've managed to reduce the load (assuming by running couatl and off-loading some of the processing on to another core). Is there something written on FSDeveloper, etc. where I can learn more?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page