looks like a bunch of empty seats to me

I find the idea nice, if they model just that section and don't push things too high like has been said about CS. Their 777 is "overproduced" with insane texturing going on and bringing powerful machines to their knees.

 

As for this 787, i bet it's going to be an awesome aircraft, QW is known for superb modelling and incredible texturing while maintaining good framerate. I'm more worried about the 787's systems (which i don't know anything about) and how deep can they simulate them. I don't care about failures or anything like that, but a proper navigation/climb/descent is essential, i hope they can pull that one off. I guess i'm scared after experiencing Aerosoft's A320

Yeah I agree with CS 777 part, while other of their planes haven't given me any major performance problems CS 777 did seem to do so, at least in v0.8, might be improved a bit now.

Yeah I agree with CS 777 part, while other of their planes haven't given me any major performance problems CS 777 did seem to do so, at least in v0.8, might be improved a bit now.

 

For their VC they use several 8096x8096 bitmaps...

At Schiphol ( most framerate eating airport ) I got 17-24 fps in spotplane view and 15-22 in the VC on my 3 montor setup ( one wide view )

 

I lowered my framerate to 20 and am using 1/3 monitor frequency ( 60/3=20 ) and now I have almost all the time 20 fps and the sim is very fluid.

 

To get better framerate I could resize the 8096 bitmaps to 4096.

I must say very nice!!!

To get better framerate I could resize the 8096 bitmaps to 4096.

 

But they are 4096x4096, FSX cannot even load 8192 pixel textures.

But they are 4096x4096, FSX cannot even load 8192 pixel textures.

 

You are right. My bad !

 

I meant resizing the 4096x4096 bitmaps to 2048x2048 , with the exeption of the bitmap where the mcp is on

I find the idea nice, if they model just that section and don't push things too high like has been said about CS. Their 777 is "overproduced" with insane texturing going on and bringing powerful machines to their knees.

 

As for this 787, i bet it's going to be an awesome aircraft, QW is known for superb modelling and incredible texturing while maintaining good framerate. I'm more worried about the 787's systems (which i don't know anything about) and how deep can they simulate them. I don't care about failures or anything like that, but a proper navigation/climb/descent is essential, i hope they can pull that one off. I guess i'm scared after experiencing Aerosoft's A320

 

Our good-old NaMco, bashing the Aerosoft A-320 again. So, eventually what do you expect to achieve with your false information? For people to lower their standards to yours? Good luck!

Quit flying your single perfect route and go fly some others. You'll know what i mean when you expand your horizons. I had to forget my training so i flew complete SIDs and STARs to see how bad it handles them and how bad it descends. It can't be trusted when you need it and that's the status now.

 

Now back to QW which is what the thread is about.

Wouldn't you rather they didn't build stuff most wont use, and not have to then spend even more time "optimising the living daylights out of it so that performance "isn't that bad", and instead, build the sim, and allow the resources to be used to actually fly it really well instead?

 

That particular resource is not involved in the flying or systems aspects. So this work does not take anything away from the other resources. The 787 modeling was started while the other resources were still working on the Avro.

 

These projects are done in stages, not all the resources work on the product at the same time.

 

Regards.

Ernie.

Sorry mate, I was referring to our (Flight simmers) PC resources, not the resources at QW..

 

So instead of us having our maxed out overclocked PC's running it in a "Not that bad" state, we could have it running in an awesome state, on lower spec machines, thus widening the audience who can enjoy it

 

Sorry mate, I was referring to our (Flight simmers) PC resources, not the resources at QW..

 

Okay.

 

So instead of us having our maxed out overclocked PC's running it in a "Not that bad" state, we could have it running in an awesome state, on lower spec machines, thus widening the audience who can enjoy it

 

I'm sure he meant 'won't be that bad' in the context of additional performance impact rather than

overall performance.

 

IOW this one addition is not going to change your performance from awesome to not that bad.

 

Also one could make your argument against just about every visually appealing feature in the sim.

 

So who's preferences should carry greater weight regarding performance ?