Since every polygon you add to the default sim affects framerates, I guess I will pick the scenery and see how much before I pass judgement :rolleyes: .

It's a wonder anything gets developed for the sim with such negativity.

 

It's called a joke, sweetie. 

Wow - I never expected to see a super detailed KMBS done. I've flown out of that airport before on a 737 (I'm from Michigan originally).

 

 Nice, someone that's been there and understands the importantance (yet everyone ignored your response)

 

Ok, so about DCS. It's a different platform, a different sim, a limited coverage (it's not worldwide)

 

When you design something meant to be an asset in a program, you design it to be the best. Then at that point, you can remove elements that cause issues based on the platform. Whether that be FSX, P3D, or XPX. This design isn't useless, it has a point. It's not like they are designing this directly in FSX. They have to start from the best model they can and then make it compatible. Software devs and game devs do this as well.

 

If someone were to design KPDX with transparent glass that would ALSO make sense. Having been in that airport many times. There are many other airports that could use more realism as well, even just Heathrow or Gatwick. Every video I see has blank window textures. If you could even see the CHAIRS in there it would be better.

Since every polygon you add to the default sim affects framerates, I guess I will pick the scenery and see how much before I pass judgement :rolleyes: .

It's a wonder anything gets developed for the sim with such negativity.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. The positive thinking brigade would have you believe however that human ingenuity is fed entirely by wishful thinking.

 

The more complex scenery gets the more it becomes incumbent upon the consumer to start asking himself "Am I going to be able to play this without an OOM?" then you read about those poor sods in the PMDG 777 forum who have to go through all kinds of little tricks and habits to ensure they don't OOM. "Remember guys, save and reload at TOD."

 

I was reading a review of the Aerosoft EIDW thinking perhaps I might want to pick that up, then I read the amount of VAS the reviewer was chewing up with it. I then come to the natural conclusion that you ahve a choice with FSX these days, as everything becomes increasingly high quality and professional:

 

"Do I want the best of everything, or do I want a sim I can fire up and fly without having to be paranoid about my game crashing?" which leads me to the conclusion that FSX is so inadequate for the potential in the community as its evolved to this point that its a shame such a great airport has to be put into a sim where I'll inevitably feel a groan of disappointment at the inevitable VAS issues it'll give me with its immaculate and perfect modeling of the ticket desk or the frame rates I'll get when I pan my view around to see all the perfectly modeled yuppies sipping their Starbucks as they wait to see their flight taxi into the stand.

 

Now if the designer is saying he's perfected reducing the drain this kind of thing will have on the sim while radically improving the final product's visual fidelity then I will still be skeptical, but hopeful. If its just the same as everything else then I must reiterate my groan of dissatisfaction with the limitations of FSX.

 

Doesn't change the fact that its a beautiful piece of scenery, or that it would be even better if it were in a sim that would let us still get a playable framerate.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. The positive thinking brigade would have you believe however that human ingenuity is fed entirely by wishful thinking.

 

The more complex scenery gets the more it becomes incumbent upon the consumer to start asking himself "Am I going to be able to play this without an OOM?" then you read about those poor sods in the PMDG 777 forum who have to go through all kinds of little tricks and habits to ensure they don't OOM. "Remember guys, save and reload at TOD."

 

I was reading a review of the Aerosoft EIDW thinking perhaps I might want to pick that up, then I read the amount of VAS the reviewer was chewing up with it. I then come to the natural conclusion that you ahve a choice with FSX these days, as everything becomes increasingly high quality and professional:

 

"Do I want the best of everything, or do I want a sim I can fire up and fly without having to be paranoid about my game crashing?" which leads me to the conclusion that FSX is so inadequate for the potential in the community as its evolved to this point that its a shame such a great airport has to be put into a sim where I'll inevitably feel a groan of disappointment at the inevitable VAS issues it'll give me with its immaculate and perfect modeling of the ticket desk or the frame rates I'll get when I pan my view around to see all the perfectly modeled yuppies sipping their Starbucks as they wait to see their flight taxi into the stand.

 

Now if the designer is saying he's perfected reducing the drain this kind of thing will have on the sim while radically improving the final product's visual fidelity then I will still be skeptical, but hopeful. If its just the same as everything else then I must reiterate my groan of dissatisfaction with the limitations of FSX.

 

Doesn't change the fact that its a beautiful piece of scenery, or that it would be even better if it were in a sim that would let us still get a playable framerate.

For those speculating about the intentions of the developer without reading information from the official website...

 

All WDS products come with a comprehensive control panel enabling you to configure each airport to blend seamlessly with either default scenery or Orbx FTX GLOBAL (with or without VECTOR). This means the photo-real airport ground textures will be completely tailored depending on your selection, so that the airport fits seamlessly with your chosen surrounding environment.

 

All WDS releases come with full DX10 mode compliance for FSX as standard, and are designed for complete compatibility with Prepar3Dv2.

 

Compatibility with other vendors scenery products is also made possible, thanks to the development of an alternative autogen system. This results in WDS airports being free of the requirement to swap autogen files before flights. Just install and fly!

 

I see potential for P3D, especially this time next year, to eat this scenery for lunch. 2015 hardware upgrades can certainly be a factor as well.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. The positive thinking brigade would have you believe however that human ingenuity is fed entirely by wishful thinking.

 

Nope, nothing wrong with being skeptical (I'm a proud skeptic myself), but some of the comments in this thread haven't just been skeptical, they've been dismissive and in some cases even a bit ignorant as well.  Russ White has a pretty solid track record and has developed similar sized airports (I'm thinking PAJN and PAKT, for example) that are solid performers while still offering high detail.  Some seem to be forgetting that this isn't JFK, SFO or LAX, and it isn't located in an area that is, itself, terribly demanding either.

 

And frankly, while there are some folks who's work almost screams OOM before it's even released, the best all around developers do seem to be learning how to do more using fewer resources with some of their latest releases.  I'm stunned every time I fly in or out of Flightbeam's KDEN, for example.  It's a huge airport with wonderful levels of detail yet solid performance even on my modest system.  No "postive thinking brigade" involved here, just experience with Mr. White's efforts to date and experience with what the best developers have been able to do of late.  I don't "know" anything - none of us do - but I'm betting based on track record and experience this will be a very flyable airport for most users.

 

Scott

Nope, nothing wrong with being skeptical (I'm a proud skeptic myself), but some of the comments in this thread haven't just been skeptical, they've been dismissive and in some cases even a bit ignorant as well.  Russ White has a pretty solid track record and has developed similar sized airports (I'm thinking PAJN and PAKT, for example) that are solid performers while still offering high detail.  Some seem to be forgetting that this isn't JFK, SFO or LAX, and it isn't located in an area that is, itself, terribly demanding either.

 

And frankly, while there are some folks who's work almost screams OOM before it's even released, the best all around developers do seem to be learning how to do more using fewer resources with some of their latest releases.  I'm stunned every time I fly in or out of Flightbeam's KDEN, for example.  It's a huge airport with wonderful levels of detail yet solid performance even on my modest system.  No "postive thinking brigade" involved here, just experience with Mr. White's efforts to date and experience with what the best developers have been able to do of late.  I don't "know" anything - none of us do - but I'm betting based on track record and experience this will be a very flyable airport for most users.

 

Scott

 

+1

For those speculating about the intentions of the developer without reading information from the official website...

 

All WDS products come with a comprehensive control panel enabling you to configure each airport to blend seamlessly with either default scenery or Orbx FTX GLOBAL (with or without VECTOR). This means the photo-real airport ground textures will be completely tailored depending on your selection, so that the airport fits seamlessly with your chosen surrounding environment.

 

All WDS releases come with full DX10 mode compliance for FSX as standard, and are designed for complete compatibility with Prepar3Dv2.

 

Compatibility with other vendors scenery products is also made possible, thanks to the development of an alternative autogen system. This results in WDS airports being free of the requirement to swap autogen files before flights. Just install and fly!

 

I see potential for P3D, especially this time next year, to eat this scenery for lunch. 2015 hardware upgrades can certainly be a factor as well.

 

thats awesome! can't wait

Looks nice not really interested though as I'm in the cockpit.

I am from Michigan as well and am looking forward to a quality Michigan airport, I am pretty excited about this!

 

Joe

Just in response to the thread "Most detailed airport for FSX" I think we can all agree this is the clear winner

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/450731-most-detailed-small-airport-for-fsx/page-4#entry3070032

The new screenshots from KMBS look fantastic, capturing the surrounding areas and their atmosphere as represented in this very promising looking, forthcoming scenery-add on real nicely i think:

 

http://forums.wdsims.com/post/kmbs-airport-surrounding-scenery-7080470

Oh my gosh..  :o This looks amazing!!

I can surely understand all the skepticism, this project is very daring to say the least. But even if this isnt the holy grail (yet), every new development starts with a first step. And I have to say, I admire those guys for their progressive thinking and having the guts to jump in.

I'll be following this development for sure, and who knows, in the future our sims might actually look like this. Without people who dare to dream, there wouldnt be much progress, right? :wink:

Very interesting approach to create airport surrounding with a more realistic atmosphere.

 

A sure buy even if it is just to support White pushing the limits.