Paris Orly Review

[UKFlyguy 0]

Greetings to all,I've just read the new review of Aerosoft's Orly airport with interest as I originally purchased the scenery on the first day it was released. It was immediately obvious that this scenery was unusable due to terrible performance issues, so I deleted it very quickly and vowed never to buy another Aerosoft scenery unless it was developed by Simmwings or German Airports Team.One comment in this review grabbed my attention as this issue has been a personal concern and irritation of mine for a long time. This is the comment:"The mark of truly worthwhile scenery is when parts that are not that often visited are modeled with equal amounts of effort and detail. Here we see the freight terminals, maintenance areas and aircraft displays modeled with accuracy and with the same level of detail as the frequently visited passenger terminals"As far as I am concerned the above statement sums up the reason why FS users are "demanding" themselves into the realms of unusable products, or products that destroy our pc hardware by overloading it, or ruin the fluidity of our sims. People constantly wanting more, more, more, putting pressure on developers to push the envelope even further every time, are driving this whole hobby into the ground. Case in point, what did we get from Microsoft? FSX, the biggest, bug ridden, poor performing, tweak hungry public beta I've ever seen in the history of our hobby.Going back to the comment in the review, suffice to say I completely disagree with this sentiment. From my point of view, I could care less if carpark 3c and a remote maintenance hangar are modeled in exquisite detail when this causes my takeoffs and landings to be ruined with stutters and jerks and poor perfomance. I actually really like Blue Print sceneries because they don't fiddle about with detail in places you're never going to go in normal aircraft operations, or pointless animations that do nothing but hog resources. And what is the deal with complete modeling of the interior of airport terminals etc? Fine if they were full of virtual people and you could switch to "interior" mode within the sim and walk around, go to the loo, buy a coffee, sit and watch the planes, but what the heck is the benefit of deserted interiors that on the whole have massive performance hits. Look at the latest VTBS, unusable because of all the interior details. I've gone back to the freeware version with no interiors and it works like a dream.I remember once seeing a post on a developer's support forum that almost made me explode. The Developer had just released a new airport and this person had posted a support request entitled something like "URGENT SERIOUS PRODUCT ISSUE, IMMEDIATE SUPPORT REQUIRED" he then went on to say that the last time he visited this airport in real life, a window next to gate something or other was open, and in the scenery, it is closed!! He demanded that this serious issue be resolved. I mean what next? "Oh, the last time I went to Barcelona airport, there was a squashed, empty KFC box on the pavement outside the entrance to terminal B, about 2 feet from the second rubbish bin and you haven't modeled this in your scenery, what kind of developer are you, I want accuracy, detail detail detail"I always think for goodness sake, this is a FLIGHT simulator, not a ground simulator, and I get so frustrated when the two most critcal parts of a virtual flight, takeoff and landing are spoiled by the resources taken up rendering pointless, unnecessary details. A realistic looking environment at an airport is one thing, but do we really and truly need everything modeled down to the smallest detail? I think it's getting ridiculous, and we, as users, have done this. The beasts that are always hungry will end up starving.BestsJG

[Heliguy 7]

Very true UK Guy but the answer to this problem goes back to the classic what kind of simmer am i argument yes you can argue that detail detail detail is the way forward for some people but our likes and hates are all different unfortanly there can never be a perfect product because people would just moan about the parts that are not up to their like just remember that KFC box might be liked by one person and not by another its just how people are and just remember we are all different and our likes differ aswell.

[kiwiflyer45 123]

Greetings to all,I've just read the new review of Aerosoft's Orly airport with interest as I originally purchased the scenery on the first day it was released. It was immediately obvious that this scenery was unusable due to terrible performance issues, so I deleted it very quickly and vowed never to buy another Aerosoft scenery unless it was developed by Simmwings or German Airports Team.One comment in this review grabbed my attention as this issue has been a personal concern and irritation of mine for a long time. This is the comment:"The mark of truly worthwhile scenery is when parts that are not that often visited are modeled with equal amounts of effort and detail. Here we see the freight terminals, maintenance areas and aircraft displays modeled with accuracy and with the same level of detail as the frequently visited passenger terminals"As far as I am concerned the above statement sums up the reason why FS users are "demanding" themselves into the realms of unusable products, or products that destroy our pc hardware by overloading it, or ruin the fluidity of our sims. People constantly wanting more, more, more, putting pressure on developers to push the envelope even further every time, are driving this whole hobby into the ground. Case in point, what did we get from Microsoft? FSX, the biggest, bug ridden, poor performing, tweak hungry public beta I've ever seen in the history of our hobby.Going back to the comment in the review, suffice to say I completely disagree with this sentiment. From my point of view, I could care less if carpark 3c and a remote maintenance hangar are modeled in exquisite detail when this causes my takeoffs and landings to be ruined with stutters and jerks and poor perfomance. I actually really like Blue Print sceneries because they don't fiddle about with detail in places you're never going to go in normal aircraft operations, or pointless animations that do nothing but hog resources. And what is the deal with complete modeling of the interior of airport terminals etc? Fine if they were full of virtual people and you could switch to "interior" mode within the sim and walk around, go to the loo, buy a coffee, sit and watch the planes, but what the heck is the benefit of deserted interiors that on the whole have massive performance hits. Look at the latest VTBS, unusable because of all the interior details. I've gone back to the freeware version with no interiors and it works like a dream.I remember once seeing a post on a developer's support forum that almost made me explode. The Developer had just released a new airport and this person had posted a support request entitled something like "URGENT SERIOUS PRODUCT ISSUE, IMMEDIATE SUPPORT REQUIRED" he then went on to say that the last time he visited this airport in real life, a window next to gate something or other was open, and in the scenery, it is closed!! He demanded that this serious issue be resolved. I mean what next? "Oh, the last time I went to Barcelona airport, there was a squashed, empty KFC box on the pavement outside the entrance to terminal B, about 2 feet from the second rubbish bin and you haven't modeled this in your scenery, what kind of developer are you, I want accuracy, detail detail detail"I always think for goodness sake, this is a FLIGHT simulator, not a ground simulator, and I get so frustrated when the two most critcal parts of a virtual flight, takeoff and landing are spoiled by the resources taken up rendering pointless, unnecessary details. A realistic looking environment at an airport is one thing, but do we really and truly need everything modeled down to the smallest detail? I think it's getting ridiculous, and we, as users, have done this. The beasts that are always hungry will end up starving.BestsJG

I completely agree with you. Every flight simulator product is going to be a compromise between detail and performance, but performance should always be the winner if it's going to be a "flight simulator." One of the joys of real world flying is the sense of freedom you feel with the ability to move in three dimensions with slight pressures of the hands and feet. It's hard to put it into words but you know it when you feel it. When FS starts to stutter and that feeling of fluidity is lost, the illusion of real flight ceases and it becomes something less than a "flight" simulator.I was at an AVSIM conference a few years ago and the lead developer of FS9 was there from Microsoft. We got talking and I suggested to him that instead of constantly pushing the hardware envelope with new editions of FS they should consider sticking with a winner like FS9 for a second two-year cycle by introducing payware upgrades that would fix weaknesses and introduce new features. He gestured out the hangar door where we were talking and said "Until it looks like that, I won't be satisfied." My reply was that absolute realism would be wonderful but if it looked like a slide show it wasn't realistic! Obviously he didn't listen to me - and gave us FSX instead. It's only natural that developers will keep pushing the envelope - so they should. But when details become more important than maintaining fluid FPS, they're missing the point of what the scenery or other product is supposed to do - allow us to "fly" - not just watch a slide show.IMHO :Big Grin: