DFW?

[JFKpilot]

To Umberto:
ORBX/FTX released a service pack for YMML with fsx gmax sdk ground.  This means rain effects without alpha transparency, detail map, etc. Any comment on this technique and feasibility for future airports? They claim this is a 'world-first', but I've been using a freeware scenery on avsim (st-pierre_miquelon.zip) since July 2008 which, the author confirms, uses fsx gamx sdk for ground.  So obviously it can be done; can you shed some light on why it should or shouldn't be used? Thanks in advance.     

[Bruce Hamilton]

At least someone acknowledges the need for KSNA!

Do you mean KSAN?  KSNA is John Wayne-Orange County, and I don't think it would be a big seller.

[newmanix]

And FT already did a KSAN...

I would prefer KBUR over KSNA anyway...

[Bruce Hamilton]

And FT already did a KSAN...

Released in 2003 and never updated.  Would you buy scenery that old?

[newmanix]

I did buy it. For 3 reasons. It's better than the diffault FS9 senery. It is very good quality. It has AES.

Wouldn't you buy it for those reasons? FSDT will not do that airport. They have made it clear, they are doing seneries others were affraid to do yada yada yada... KSAN is too simple for FSDT.

[SirIsaac726]

And FT already did a KSAN...

Released in 2003 and never updated.  Would you buy scenery that old?

Yes.   Just like Newmanix I did.

FlyTampa's quality is just as good as FSDT and even their outdated sceneries (minus KMIA and KTPA as those are unbelievably old) are still very good and relatively light on the frame rates.

[phenocom]

FT has said that they will not make a KSAN for FSX and we need a KSAN for FSX to go with the excellent MegasceneryX for the Socal Area. It would be fantastic if FSDT could do San Diego and Also a FSX Version of KLAX which was brilliantly done in FS9 by Clould 9

[Bruce Hamilton]

Wouldn't you buy it for those reasons?

Yes, if the price would reflect the age of the product.  Only $3 cheaper than their newest sceneries.

[SirIsaac726]

Wouldn't you buy it for those reasons?

Yes, if the price would reflect the age of the product.  Only $3 cheaper than their newest sceneries.

But the price does reflect the quality.  Just because it is an older product doesn't mean the quality in it has decreased and isn't worth the price.  Anyways, it seems wrong to be going on and on about another company's sceneries on FSDT's forums so this is the last I am going to say about this.

[newmanix]

In the case of the price, you guys have a point. I think it's more of a matter of how important that airport is to you....

[virtuali]

ORBX/FTX released a service pack for YMML with fsx gmax sdk ground.  This means rain effects without alpha transparency, detail map, etc.

I really hope it *doesn't* mean this because, not using detail map or alpha transparency, can't be called a "feature", since it lowers the final quality considerably.

Any comment on this technique and feasibility for future airports?

Geneva already HAS rain compatibility, without forfeiting the detail texture, which is why it looks so much better, on top of supporing rain as well.

They claim this is a 'world-first', but I've been using a freeware scenery on avsim (st-pierre_miquelon.zip) since July 2008

"World First" ? We had FSX rain effect compatibility since the Bergen scenery we made for Cloud9 in January 2007, and we also had it on buildings, not "just" on ground...that WAS a "World First", without so much hype.

However, we prefer to decide if having this feature or not, depending on the scenery, putting the best compromise between visual features and performances to be the most important deciding factor.

One should keep in mind this general rule: if we don't do something in a scenery, it's NEVER because we don't know how to do it, it's because we tried it, and decided it didn't fit well with that specific scenery project, either because of performances, or because the general visual impact at *that* particular location, etc. There's no single method that work, that's why we don't always use the same methods but, instead, we choose which method that suits best the project at hand.

Also, the hardware people use keep improving over the time so, it's not said that, what we decided to forfeit in (for example) October 2007 when we released Zurich, might be still rejected on April 2009, when we'll release KLAS. In fact, KLAS will probably be more similar to Geneva than to Zurich...

[JFKpilot]

First of all I want to thank you for being so patient and providing such thorough answers to someone that's always a pain in the ass.   You've got world-class products and service, which is really hard to top.   

I really hope it *doesn't* mean this because, not using detail map or alpha transparency, can't be called a "feature", since it lowers the final quality considerably.

Sorry I meant they don't use transparency for the rain efffects but DO use a detail map, not that it matters.

Geneva already HAS rain compatibility, without forfeiting the detail texture, which is why it looks so much better, on top of supporing rain as well.
"World First" ? We had FSX rain effect compatibility since the Bergen scenery we made for Cloud9 in January 2007, and we also had it on buildings, not "just" on ground...that WAS a "World First", without so much hype.

I think they meant ground with the fsx-gmax sdk, not with the fs2002 gmax sdk you've used since the cloud9 days, which was what I was referring to with the two sceneries I mentioned. Either way, you are right, it's overhyped.  Most people can't tell Geneva / Bergen etc etc have default aprons slightly showing underneath the custom ground, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

However, we prefer to decide if having this feature or not, depending on the scenery, putting the best compromise between visual features and performances to be the most important deciding factor.

This is smart. Most developers use the same techniques over and over. Fsdt clearly knows how to proritize -- for example fs2002 sdk would have been unfeasible at kord or jfk so you used resampled ground instead, and back to fs2002 gmax ground for the smaller lsgg and klas.

One should keep in mind this general rule: if we don't do something in a scenery, it's NEVER because we don't know how to do it, it's because we tried it, and decided it didn't fit well with that specific scenery project, either because of performances, or because the general visual impact at *that* particular location, etc. There's no single method that work, that's why we don't always use the same methods but, instead, we choose which method that suits best the project at hand.

That's a bold statement. Nonetheless it's justified -- you guys are geniuses. Since I'm probably a waste of your precious time I'll refrain from asking any more dumb scenery-related questions.

Also, the hardware people use keep improving over the time so, it's not said that, what we decided to forfeit in (for example) October 2007 when we released Zurich, might be still rejected on April 2009, when we'll release KLAS. In fact, KLAS will probably be more similar to Geneva than to Zurich...

I'm looking forward to it! Hopefully you can squeeze a long life out of fsx.

Thanks again.