KJFK Review on avsim.com - Dispraise?

[Ray]

Hello all,

just came across the review of KJFK of FSDT by Colin McFadden. I don't know with which settings he was testing the scenery, but the ground textures on my system do not nearly look as bad as he complained about they would.

An example given in MacFadden's review:



and on my lousy Pentium III 900 Mhz, 1 GB SDRAM, 128Mb Gpu System in FS9:



Someone should tell him to use the proper settings!   

[virtuali]

You should probably post the same message on Avsim feedback review section.

[Ray]

You should probably post the same message on Avsim feedback review section.

Done. 

[_Dre_]

The reviewer has his facts and his PC all twisted. He stated that the ground textures are the obvious weakness to the scenery (wtf?). He lost all credibility with that statement. If he had taken one look through the screenshot forum he would have quickly realized his PC was a mess and that the scenery is in the top 5 in the "best sceneries ever" category.

[coolcolin09]

Hey guys, I'm Colin McFadden, the AVSIM Reviewer assigned to this project. I contacted support during the making of the review asking what the best settings would be for the scenery, and never received a response. I'm not saying they simply ignored it, but perhaps it was overlooked or wasn't sent correctly? I'm not sure. But I will take the blame for not posting in the forums about it; for that I apologize.

Let me clear some things up, though.

In my review, I NEVER stated that it was a bad scenery, nor did I say it doesn't deserve to be in the top 5 of the "best scenery ever", this scenery could definitely be in the top 3 for that matter! I love it, and I enjoy flying in and out of JFK with it. Perhaps my words about the taxiway textures in the review were a little harsh, but I won't back down about the point I was getting at; and I'll admit it here as well: I wasn't impressed with the taxiway textures...NOT the tarmacs, etc - I'll be sure to revise the review and make that point come across clearer.

The taxiways in this photo are obviously lacking the "crispness" that the Chicago scenery below shows. I'm just stating what I see. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: kinm - FSDT Forums member)


I'm much more impressed with these textures from FSDT's KORD scenery. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: Nick Churchill - FSDT Forums member)


I received input from from other various users as well, all of which admitted that while everything else was awesome, the taxiways clearly lacked the quality of the rest of the scenery.

I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever if you guys would like to give me the best settings to use. I also have no problem in revising my review; let's work together and figure this out. However, I'm just not sure as to how you aren't seeing what I'm seeing? In Ray's photo up top, there is a difference between mine and his, but not too much of a difference. The edges of the textures are definitely a little crisper, but it's not substantially better than the shot I took, is it?

Thanks for your feedback everyone; I'll keep in touch with my editor and edit my review if I find the taxiway textures improve with different settings. Have a great weekend!

- Colin McFadden
   coolcolin09 [at] msn [dot] com

[Bruce Hamilton]

However, I'm just not sure as to how you aren't seeing what I'm seeing? In Ray's photo up top, there is a difference between mine and his, but not too much of a difference. The edges of the textures are definitely a little crisper, but it's not substantially better than the shot I took, is it?

Disregard the edges for a minute, and look at the taxiway leading to runway 4L... The shot you posted is a blurry mess, while the shot Ray posted looks like well worn asphalt.  Check your global max texture slider and set it to massive, then go back and look at Runway 4L.  While you're in settings, check everything else as well... everything should at least be set to normal, dense is even better if your system can handle it.  Don't worry too much about frame rates, your eye can't see much over 20 anyway.

[virtuali]

I contacted support during the making of the review asking what the best settings would be for the scenery, and never received a response. I'm not saying they simply ignored it, but perhaps it was overlooked or wasn't sent correctly?

Hello Colin,

I've just re-checked the email, but I haven't found any email coming from you (tried with address, name, surname, nothing). It must have been lost, perhaps because of some anti-spam filter along the way. The best solution would have been asking on this forum, because it might be more reliable than email.

I wasn't impressed with the taxiway textures...NOT the tarmacs, etc - I'll be sure to revise the review and make that point come across clearer.

The issue is, the screenshot you posted on Avsim are far worse than what can be seen on the scenery, so obviously something must be wrong.

The taxiways in this photo are obviously lacking the "crispness" that the Chicago scenery below shows. I'm just stating what I see. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: kinm - FSDT Forums member)

I'm much more impressed with these textures from FSDT's KORD scenery. (IMAGE COURTESY OF: Nick Churchill - FSDT Forums member)

Sorry, but you are making an unfair comparison, by taking as an example of JFK a screenshot from a random user (who might have or not the correct settings, just like you have), and compare it to KORD, as taken by Nick Churchill, who's very well known to be specialized in taking incredible screenshots, so I'm sure his PC has been set up as best as anyone can, with regard to image quality.

This is how JFK looks here, for example:

I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever if you guys would like to give me the best settings to use.

There are many things that contribute to image crispness on ground. And it changes between FS9 and FSX. Let's assume FSX first:

On FSX

- The Global Texture size slider. This should be always set to "Massive", otherwise 1024x1024 texture will never be used.

- The Texture filter should be set to "Anisotropic"

- The Texture resolution slider on the Scenery settings, which should be set at 30 cm/pixel, since the scenery use this resolution. Anything lower, and you will not see the full res.

On the Video Card

- You should absolutely use Anisotropic filtering, 8x minimum, 16x it's best. On some drivers, you might need to force it on (on nVidia, it's called "Enhance the application setting")


Other settings

- Depending on your settings, it might be that in THIS area (and not on KORD, because the surroundings are way different than NYC), your system is too overloaded, and you are suffering the infamous "blurries" problem, which is your PC that hasn't enough spare cycles left to "catch up" with the scenery, and load the higher resolution textures, so you are always seeing the lowest ones that are supposed to be loaded only on distance. You might check if this is the case, trying to LOWER other settings (like AI traffic, scenery density, etc), OR limit the fps, and let the sim in slew/pause for a minute or so, and see if the higher resolution texture finally appears. Note, this assumes you have already checked out all the previous items above!

Let me know if you can improve your visual quality a bit with these suggestions.

[coolcolin09]

I will be trying these settings tonight and I'll report what I see. But I guess I'm still not getting my point across. The areas around the terminals are great; very high quality. It is the actual black taxiways that I'm talking about. On the taxiways, the yellow lines were painted great, but the actual ground on the black taxiways seem stretched. Any details like oil spots, etc on the taxiways seem big and pixelated.

And I hope you guys don't think I'm bashing this scenery. I really do love it; I'm just trying to point this out and get it cleared up.

[_Dre_]

@ Collin,
          Just wanted to point out that in the comparison shots you posted above that it's two very different surfaces. Ohare obviously being concrete, while the American Terminal's taxiway is worn down (and repaved many times) asphalt (or possibly bitmus) which I think Kappa captured dead on. Also if you look at Virtuali's JBU Terminal shot (which is concrete) it has more definition and sharpness than the asphalt surface which is how it is in real life as well.

[Ray]

Hello Colin,

the initial cause for me to open this thread was that all (four) screenshots you used to emphasize the (Quote: "totally unacceptable") taxiway textures did NOT show the existing hi-res ground textures of the scenery at all! Just like here as well:

Your example:




...and on my outdated system:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/Rhinehornet/KJFK_asphalt_Gates.jpg

I believe I understand the point you want to make clear now, however I think there is a difference between saying "it lacks crispness" and "totally unacceptable". The latter statement, I suspect, was a result of you seeing the ground textures the way you posted in the screenshots of your review.
I believe, and I am by far no scenery design expert, the reason that those particular (taxiway) surfaces covered with tarmac lack the artificial sharpness as the concrete surfaces do, for the simple fact that reproducing (manually repainting) the extraordinary multiple irregularly toned patches (if you wanted to stay realistic) would require months to reproduce, unlike the always repetitive concrete slabs and their seams. I suspect the only other way to do dead-sharp and authentic (!) tarmac surfaces would require aerial images with 10 cm resolution/pixel, and it is questionable if such data exists or is affordable.

Just my 0.02 $. Hope it will work out for you with the new settings.

[RobertW]

Thanks for all your comments with regards to Colin's review as posted at AVSIM.
It is unfortunate that his questions to the developer appear to have gotten lost in the ethernet.
Colin has assured us (as posted in this thread) that he will make an amendment to his review comments.
It was apparent throughout the review that he did like this product, and as a reviewer, called the experience as he saw it.
I appreciate all the help you have afforded him in helping to get his PC settings corrected to give him the best graphical experience possible at JFK.
As soon as Colin has sent me his updated review comments, I'll get the review amended accordingly.

BTW - this is the way forums are supposed to work.....simmers working together for the greater good of the hobby 

Robert Whitwell
Reviews Editor
avsim.com

[mave128]

hey folks,

i understand colin very well when he says that the taxiways look really blurry.
it is fact, and there ain´t no doubt, that in comparisson with kord the ground texture look, let me say
different.
collin pointed this out, and he is right.
to make clear the problem just take a look into this topic:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=967.15

there you will find the answer why fsdt decided to do it this way.

in my opinion the majority of ground textures in the very near don´t look very well.
but if u look at the airport from a higher point of view, the whole scenry looks just amazing!!!

unfortunately fsdt had to make this compromise in order to get this huge mass of different ground colors handeled.

best wishes,
sören

[virtuali]

i understand colin very well when he says that the taxiways look really blurry.

No. They don't look nearly as blurred as in HIS screenshot. Clear proof: look at the SAME area, in Ray's screenshots. So, it's obviously a problem on Colin's PC settings, that is not displaying the full resolution of the scenery.

it is fact, and there ain´t no doubt, that in comparisson with kord the ground texture look, let me say different.

That's only an optical illusion created by the fact that the concrete can be faked more easily than asphalt, because the detail texture for concrete can be made more recognizable, and it can mask the otherwise lower resolution of the photoreal background. KORD and KJFK have the SAME resolution for ground!

collin pointed this out, and he is right.

No. It might have been right, if the scenery really looked like his screenshot. But it doesn't. Look at Ray's screenshots again, and tell me if the resolution it's the same. And see his PC specs...

to make clear the problem just take a look into this topic:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=967.15

there you will find the answer why fsdt decided to do it this way.

That explanation was meant to say why the scenery has a photoreal background + detail texture above it (exactly like KORD), instead of a super hi-res multi-GB photoreal background only, but the scenery is NOT blurred as much as the screenshot that was posted there.

In that screenshot, the photoreal background was not loaded in full res AND the detail texture wasn't even loaded, this probably because of the flatten problem, that we fixed a few days after the release.

Colin's screenshots DO show the detail texure instead (so it already has the updated flatten version), but the photoreal background is WAY more blurred than in reality is. So, it's a different problem compared to the one in thread you mentioned, because in that case it was the detail texture that was entirely missing, probably because of the (already fixed) flatten issue.

This is how the scenery looks like on my PC at the same spot of the thread you pointed out, see the attached picture. The detail texture is clearly visible and the photoreal background has better res anyway.

Yes, KORD might look somewhat better, but ONLY because of the distintive signs/cracks/lines than appear on the detail texture to simulate concrete, which are not obviously present on asphalt, NOT because it has a better background resolution. The explanation was trying to tell that, we can't double the background resolution (quadrupling scenery size) "just" because asphalt is more difficult to fake with details...

However, that KORD looks a little bit (not *that* much) better it's not the main point here, the point is:  KFJK DOES NOT looks as bad as in the Avsim review shots!!!

unfortunately fsdt had to make this compromise in order to get this huge mass of different ground colors handeled.

Yes, of course compromises are always made, but that's doesn't mean the scenery really looks like the screenshot posted on Avsim.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[virtuali]

Another comparison, which I think close the question beyond any doubt:

KJFK 4L from the Avsim review:



KFJK 4L on my PC:

[JamesChams]

Mr. Umberto "Virtuali" Colapicchioni,

Could you please just post your *recommended* settings for FS9/FSX for this scenery (for High/Low end systems), like you did when you/Kappa gave me your .cfg file(s)?   In the updated Manual(s) would be great place to put it for all your scenery products.  This would greatly decrease the confusion, about what are users computer limitations, from a package's settings requirement issues.  And, may end topics that lead to "YAPD" or you trying to convince people of our incorrect knowledge about your products.  I don't think anyone cares; we just want to enjoy and use the products as you intended.

I think I have indicated to you before that I don't care to know everything about FSX and the creation of each and every scenery package after installing and buying it.  *We* users just want it to work and that isn't always clear for people with low end systems or limited knowledge in hardware settings/tweaking.  I, myself, (as an example) have a very high-end system and it "chokes" a little with KJFK; Not at all with KORD, LSZH, Greystone or even FlyTampa's Kai-Tai which, I fully load up with everything to max including all AI types in FSX.  I get average 47-77 FPS even with "high demand" models like Aerosoft's F-16 or CaptainSim's C-130 / 757's on those scenery packages and NO OC'ing or super-cooling liquid utilities are involved. 

But...

The KJFK package has a few, shall we say *gremlins*, that aren't showing up on your test machines but are still unresolved on the open market.  I recently tested the latest download of KJFK with another completely different hardware/system to be used on an FTD at a FBO.  Although, I don't have this exact issue as Colin, I've already indicated the ones that I have and, am sadly, still able to replicate those issues mentioned on the FTD system. 

Perhaps after you're done working out your current projects you can look at these issues.  Please don't continue to tell me that it is a personal issue for this user alone or me for mine.  I have seen issues posted elsewhere that have similar or *newer* problems with this current version of the product.  I'll wait for you to have time to fix it and perhaps between now and then you can resolve Colin's problem(s).

Good Luck!

PS: If users have other opinions you are free to express them but please don't try to argue your point endlessly; I simple don't care.  Like Colin, I want my purchased product to work as advertised.