Alaska - Forests too sparse?

[HiFlyer 9,361]

I would like to know what settings people are using in game as far as scenery density and etc. It can make a huge difference.

 

*And Jeroen: There was once a post passing on information from a mod on the beta forum regarding how various settings affected the game. though only tangential to this thread, It occurs to me that this would be a great subject for a sticky.

[LHookins 3,103]

All high except for the two scenery ones which are at maximum. I get great frame rates, but not as good as all settings on high. Occasionally when flying at treetop level the frame rate can get lower.

 

Hook

[Bobsk8 12,743]

Jeroen, I *like* FSX, but I have to agree it can have problems. If it didn't, most of us wouldn't be here.

 

What a lot of us find tiresome is the constant demand for details that would drag Flight's performance down to what we had in FSX. People who keep posting these things need to be reminded of the performance hit. If you're going to delete the reminders, then delete the original posts that caused them to be written.

 

Hook

 

That is the point that I have tried to make, but I guess reminding folks of this issue, is repetitive, but so are the constant requests for 100 more tasks that the processor would have to execute.

[RoboRay 126]

What a lot of us find tiresome is the constant demand for details that would drag Flight's performance down to what we had in FSX. People who keep posting these things need to be reminded of the performance hit.

 

As long as performance-degrading enhancements have an on/off selection, I don't see the problem with making them available to the people who do want them.

 

And it would silence a lot of complaints about Flight, even if most of us leave them turned off to boost performance.

 

Letting people decide things for themselves based on their own priorities is rarely a bad thing.

[Guest]

What a lot of us find tiresome is the constant demand for details that would drag Flight's performance down to what we had in FSX. People who keep posting these things need to be reminded of the performance hit. If you're going to delete the reminders, then delete the original posts that caused them to be written.

 

That is the point that I have tried to make, but I guess reminding folks of this issue, is repetitive, but so are the constant requests for 100 more tasks that the processor would have to execute.

 

You clearly didn't read my post well enough. Pointing out to others that adding things may have an impact on performance is no problem at ALL. Feel free to do so if someone (who doesn't know any better) brings this up again. However, please do so WITHOUT making remarks towards FSX (that may offend some people here). That was MY point. If Bob would have left out this...

 

Why, it will look just like MSFS... ..... Thanks but no thanks.;)

 

...I wouldn't have said anything at all.

[Bobsk8 12,743]

You clearly didn't read my post well enough. Pointing out to others that adding things may have an impact on performance is no problem at ALL. Feel free to do so if someone (who doesn't know any better) brings this up again. However, please do so WITHOUT making remarks towards FSX (that may offend some people here). That was MY point. If Bob would have left out this...

 

 

 

...I wouldn't have said anything at all.

 

OK, Point taken!!!

[MommaB 0]

Letting people decide things for themselves based on their own priorities is rarely a bad thing.

That's just not what Flight's about, is it. The stuff that's in there has to work, has to work smoothly, no tweaking, no fuss, for about everybody on all kinds of machines. And you know what, I really like that proposition even though it is limiting in a lot of areas, I'd rather have this stuff done well.

[LHookins 3,103]

Letting people decide things for themselves based on their own priorities is rarely a bad thing

 

What's the first thing you did when you bought FSX? Cranked options to max, right? Then enjoyed the 2 frames per second performance we got at the time. Maybe you didn't do this, but I'll bet most people did.

 

What's the first thing most people are going to do when they get Flight? Crank all the options to max, right? Right now, a low end computer might get 10 frames per second or less with those settings.

 

Yeah. Options are a GOOD thing.

 

Hook

[RoboRay 126]

That's just not what Flight's about, is it. The stuff that's in there has to work, has to work smoothly, no tweaking, no fuss, for about everybody on all kinds of machines.

 

Then I'm not sure why we even have selectable options under the Graphics menu.

 

You can justify having options, or not having options. It's kind of hard to justify having some options but not others and use the same reason for both.

[MommaB 0]

There's a difference between bare essentials and options they'd have to develop for increasingly select groups of users.

[LHookins 3,103]

It's kind of hard to justify having some options but not others and use the same reason for both.

 

I know this is anathma to the community, but the idea isn't to cram as much into a game as possible. It's to put as little as possible in and still get the effect you want. Features cost money, and some features cost a LOT of money. Development costs are an issue.

 

For background, google "feature creep".

 

Hook

[RoboRay 126]

I know this is anathma to the community, but the idea isn't to cram as much into a game as possible. It's to put as little as possible in and still get the effect you want. Features cost money, and some features cost a LOT of money. Development costs are an issue.

 

For background, google "feature creep".

 

Well sure, but that's a totally different argument from the previous fear that people will exceed realistic option settings for their computer.

[LHookins 3,103]

Dang, MommaB! You're posting the same things I am, and getting there before I do, and explaining it better as well! Do you have a background in software development?

 

Hook

[RoboRay 126]

There's a difference between bare essentials and options they'd have to develop for increasingly select groups of users.

 

Then you're getting into deciding what's "bare essentials" and what's "select." There are already a number of things in Flight that I don't consider essential. People have different priorities. Allowing people to decide for themselves what is essential and what is not is a good thing, rather than somebody else dictating it to them.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

What's the first thing you did when you bought FSX? Cranked options to max, right? Then enjoyed the 2 frames per second performance we got at the time. Maybe you didn't do this, but I'll bet most people did.

 

What's the first thing most people are going to do when they get Flight? Crank all the options to max, right? Right now, a low end computer might get 10 frames per second or less with those settings.

 

Yeah. Options are a GOOD thing.

 

Hook

 

Some company's get around that tendency by having "placebo" settings that don't really do much. People get to set things to max and feel good, and people at low don't feel inferior or cheated. Everyone has a great time! :P

 

http://youtu.be/z85n0xSq6DQ