This scenery sucks

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Apologies for being in the wrong forum, but I cannot cut and paste into the correct section. Anyway...hey fellas, I have posted over on the Aerosoft forum but with little success. However, this question could take on a more general aspect perhaps rather than being aimed at one particular scenery. I have recently purchased Madrid Barajas and although a beautiful airport, the framerates are abysmal. OK, this post is not aimed at being the same boring question about framerates, but more about a particular aspect of poor performing airports. As someone who has no experience about scenery building or airport files etc, I was hoping some of the more experienced of you in this field could offer some advice. As can be seen from my rig, it is a very competent bit of hardware, united with my cfg tweaks and conservative slider settings, I mainatin a very nice balance of smooth flying and good autogen. However, to approach Madrid and get 15 frames, with stuttering approaches is pretty disappointing. Taxiing around the airport is pretty rediculous too. So, my question is, is there any way I can modify or remove certain scenery files so to improve the performance at this airport, or indeed, any other airport that I would like to increase the perfromance at? Thanks guys.

[out 769]

Howard, are you sure you have the latest version of LEMD, which is 1.02?Yes, this addon is known for some performance problems, so maybe the latest version has changed it into better?I cannot confirm myself, as I am so far using it with FS9, where frames DID get improved.By the way already the descriprtion of the FSX 1.01 fix says:This update fix the performance error with the Acceleration Expansion Pack

[isaiah 1]

The first version did suffer from low framerates, the updated version works fine on mine system and I have an I5 2500K like you. In fact your videocard trumps mine, so you should be alright with the latest version.

[ZKOKQ 984]

No problem here with Madrid. Ver 1.02 My System: 2600K@4.5 Gigabyte Z68 UD4-B3, GTX580 1.5GB, 8GB Kingston Memeory @1600MGZ.

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Mmm, nope, my version is 1.02. What is surprising, I find there's no CP to change any aspect of the airport's performance like many other addon airports.EDIT: Although I have V1.02 I decided to download again from the Aerosoft site. After reinstalling, there does seem to have been an improvement??! Unsure why. Maybe it was something else, dunno. It's still not a great airport for performance. It's a shame there is no CP.

[Spook 96]

This is an issue with ALL aerosoft's scenery addons..for me anyway.Im more than convinced it down to thier modeling techniqes..or what program they use to make scenery.The perfect example is UK2000 scenery, heathrow.Its a humongous airport, with loads of parked AI, hundreds of buildings in very high detail, and i can fly in and out, taxi around with no problems what so ever, frames are smooth.(at all uk2000 airports too)Yet, fly into a tiny aerosoft airport like, gibraltar, Andras field(what a joke that is trying to land at such a small scenery...the performance is abismall),Luxembourg, corfu,London city, and my rig just starts digging its own grave.And like you Howard, it annoys me that you dont have the chioce weather the city around the airport can be displayed, or not.Thats a real performance killer, and i only wanted the airport to land my plane at, not drive around a detailed city!As you see below the system reqs.Your PC kicks the living daylights out of the higher ''recommended'' specs. yet you STILL have problems! why? It makes me laugh that the sys specs are just about enought to run FSX at a satisfactory level...how they come to the conclusion those specs will run FSX and this addon is beyond me.Maybe if it was stated what is really required to run this at a satisfactory level, it would damage sales? i dunno..Yes you could turn down things like scenery complexity and autogen, but then you land at an airport you have paid for in high detail, only to find LOADS of the scenery missing..System requirements for FSX:Microsoft Flight Simulator X (SP2/Acceleration Pack)Windows XP(SP2), Windows VistaPentium 3 GHz (Duo2Core Intel strongly advised)1 GB RAM (2 GB recommended)256 MB graphic card (512 MB recommended)Download-Size: 80 MBInstallations-Size: 180 MBOK rant over , sorry theres nothing there that can help you Howard...this is something that has annoyed me for a while.

[Kosta 122]

I have pretty similar experience.Through all my testing, I've come to the conclusion that there are developers who know what they are doing (like fsdt, flytampa, uk2000) and devs who knew and live off the old glory (aerosoft, but only seems specific to some developers inside as and as itself). As was quite good in fs9, but they completely stayed behind with fsx.Just look at fsdt klax and how it performs, and try to imagine as doing that airport while madrid being such a colossal miss...

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Hi Luke, thanks for the reply. I agree with you 100% and also your little rant It does seem bloody rediculous, after having invested so much in the latest hardware and taken hours on end, continually tweaking and testing, to still end up flying with scenery that jerks around like the proverbial drunken idiot on a square wheeled bicycle! Well, to be honest, I don't suppose it's quite that bad, but I'm sure you get my drift and yes, I share your frustration. Although, having recently got my hands on my new rig, my frustration is not as bad as is it has been and apart from the odd scenery I am pretty happy with things.

[Rocky_53 1,579]

I have pretty similar experience.Through all my testing, I've come to the conclusion that there are developers who know what they are doing (like fsdt, flytampa, uk2000) and devs who knew and live off the old glory (aerosoft, but only seems specific to some developers inside as and as itself). As was quite good in fs9, but they completely stayed behind with fsx.Just look at fsdt klax and how it performs, and try to imagine as doing that airport while madrid being such a colossal miss...

Hi Word Not Allowed, sure, I have only recently bought Fly Fampa's Athens and wow, am I glad I did. FSDT has also found their way into my scenery collection with Zurich, although I have to admit, that I do find it quite a big resource hog. As for UK2000, I have also been surprised at their airports and how well they perform. In particular, Bristol, Manchester and Edinburgh. At Bristol in the NGX, in the VC, sat at the end of runway 27, with virtually all the boxes ticked in the airport CP I get 29 frames!! That to me is excellent.

[PingPong 60]

If you want a scenery with nice frames in the same general area, I think their Portugal/Lisbon works quite well(If I remember correctly).

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Sure, I have Faro, which is one of my favourite small airports and I have been thinking about Lisbon too. That is likely to be from the man with a sled and raindeer!

[CFIJose 5,485]

Santorini is also a terrible performer. BUT, Innsbruck is ONE BAD ___ scenery! One of the best indeed.

[Kosta 122]

I would dare any of "good" devs to develop the same scenery as the AS (those which perform badly). I would really be interested into performance difference.In the past, there have been conclusions that UK2000 Heathrow performs better than Aerosoft Heathrow. Also there is FSDT Zurich, Aerosoft also made one, I would also like to know the difference with the same scenery settings.

[ZKOKQ 984]

Word Not Allowed, I have used AS EGLL, and now use UK2K EGLL, a big difference in performance. I think, only speculating here, but AS EGLL feels like a FS9 port over.

[out 769]

Guys, please remember that what you buy as 'Aerosoft' scenery are actually addons published and sold by 'Aerosoft'.In fact there are several different developers working on the addons, like Sim-Wings, Gianni, Dream Factory and others.Only some of the projects are made internally. So we are judging different people under one name.Having written that I must say I own many airports sold by Aerosoft and even tested for some of them.There ARE some problems with performance, reported more than once with more than one of them.EGLL by UK2000 does perform better than the Sim-Wings (known as Aerosoft's) version. I know since I have thoroughly compared both.And I did have performance problems with LEMD, LFPG, LFPO, EHAM, LOWI or LTAI. They were always rather hard on my system.Let's take Frankfurt Main. This is my favourite airport, both in the sim and in reality. I am using the Aerosoft's (German Airports Team to be exact) version since it's the only one to get.Anytime I test a new aircraft, some new addons, a new install or just my new rig (happened second time only), I perform the test at EDDF.But not only because I love it. Also because it is so demanding. The rule is: if I get good frames in Frankfurt, I get them anywhere. As simple as that.Now what else can we do? As long as there is a competitive product, we can switch (I did so with UK2000 EGLL and the other way - stayed with FSDT for LSZH).But who else offers detailed renditions of EDDF, EDDM, EDDT, EDDP, EDDH, LOWI, ESSA, LEMD, LEBL, LEPA, LFPG, LFPO, LFMN, LHBP and many others, especially in Europe?You see, my point is I am aware that not every scenery is made with equal artism in performance optimisation. Here I would vote for FlyTampa, FSDT and UK2000 as the payware masters.But I also buy scenery from other developers like e.g. FSDreamFactory (ESSA, EBBR and EHAM from Aerosoft) because I know I want these airports for my use.Fortunately there are patches being released and that must be made clear. Aerosoft does take care of their genuine customers. There are quite frequent fixes to download. And free updates.And there are people like Oliver Pabst or Rainer Duda who try to help even though they do not take any profit from particular products.Fortunately I am still an FS9 user (and a bit an FSX user again now), so the performance problems touch me less.With my new i5 2500K rig EDDF gives me twice as high frames in FS9 with everything maxed out and tones of addons installed than in FSX with most things cut down.That's one of the reasons I won't drop FS9. Being able to put in literally every addon, slide up to full settings, severe weather and enjoy fluent performance is too nice to be dropped.But even now, even in FS9, I am able to see performance differences between particular products. C'est la vie.