FS DreamTeam addon performance questions

[AlphaInfinity 13]

Hey guys,

 

I am thinking about purchasing some of the fsdreamteam airports for P3d but had some questions regarding performance. Are they fairly comparable to Flightbeam airports(with the exception of KSFO, that one doesn't perform as well as the others). I get excellent performance from FlightBeam KDFW/KPHX.

[pete_auau 1,152]

I didn't realize  that flight bean did kdfw  I know  that fsdt  has  done  that airport?

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

I didn't realize  that flight bean did kdfw  I know  that fsdt  has  done  that airport?

 

FB does not do KDFW but you knew that

[gmoneyprs 2]

OP: they perform well. I have PHNL, CYVR, KIAH and KFLL. I should also note that all 4 of those are in areas that aren't particularly performance-hindering.

 

VAS, however, can be a different story. They are all workable in the sense that you can downsample the textures if needed since FSDT likes to use a bunch of high-def textures (and then also automatically change your texture_max_load, which I don't like). Definitely grab them with the plan of seeing how they work and if you encounter problems, then downsample the textures.

 

Also, I need to strongly note that the ground poly that PHNL uses is not compatible with P3Dv2.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

VAS, however, can be a different story. They are all workable in the sense that you can downsample the textures if needed since FSDT likes to use a bunch of high-def textures (and then also automatically change your texture_max_load, which I don't like).

There are two misconstrued statements in this paragraph.

 

1. They don't use a bunch of HD textures. CYVR has an option in the installer for you to choose the texture sizes that you want to install. If you want HD textures you can choose to install them but it won't install them without your permission.

 

The only airports that come with textures that are 4096 are JFK, LAX, and IAH, but that is only because they are cramming textures for a lot of models into one texture sheet to reduce draw calls. So rather than have a lot of 1024 sized texture sheets which is less efficient, they use a few 4096 sheets and stuff all those 512 or 1024 sized textures into a few sheets which is more efficient, not less efficient.

 

2. They don't automatically change your TML to 2048 or 4096. The only way that changes is if you change it yourself via the fsx.cfg or Addon Manager. I've been using their products for years as well as being a beta tester for them and never had their software just change my TML without me doing it.

 

 

For the OP, all of their sceneries have a free demo that lasts 5 minutes after your flight loads. Download and install the sceneries your interested in and try for yourself and see how they perform. That's a much better way to determine how they will work on your system than the way other people describe how they work on their systems.

 

Personally I have all the sceneries except for the Hawaiian ones and they perform much better than the default versions, especially KDFW, KLAX, KORD and KJFK, since they are much more optimized than the default versions. KDFW which I use most often as my base airport would give me FPS in the teens when maxed out using the default version, while the FSDT version gives me 25 to 30 FPS maxed out using PMDG planes.

[gmoneyprs 2]

There are two misconstrued statements in this paragraph.

 

 

cmpbellsjc at least changed his original language from "false statements" to "misconstrued statements" so that's a start.

 

But why argue with someone (even a FSDT beta tester) when I can simply show the message you'll get when you install KIAH, CYVR, or others (I didn't feel like reinstalling the whole library tonight):

 

 

And yes, I confirmed that the installation does change the TML value in your CFG file so be sure to reset it to whatever you want.

 

Regardless, cmpbellsjc raises a good point: Flightbeam and FSDT both offer fully-function trial versions (I wish more developers would do so) so give it a shot beforehand. I wish my trial-version checklist was a little more comprehensive when I was evaluating PHNL; the ground poly issue slipped by...

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

It's been a long, long, long time since I've had to run one of the installers and I don't recall them ever doing that on the older builds. However, even if the latest batch of installers do that, it only takes a few seconds to open the Addon Manager and move the TML slider back to which ever texture resolution you want and it will stay there for good. So it's essentially a non-issue to change it back to the original value since you don't even have to exit FSX to change it.

 

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, however I don't remember the older installer builds doing that.

 

And yes, I changed it from false to misconstrued, due to thinking that saying false might be too strong. However, what i said about the reasoning for them using the 4096 sized textures to reduce draw calls on their newer sceneries remains true. The opposite would be said it they used 4096 textures for each individual building or model, the it would be a VAS nightmare.

[Ebs 114]

Thanks for the thread, I was also thinking about this as I recently picked up a couple of Flightbeam airports and wondered how FSDT compared in performance (btw, I was an 'addon airport' skeptic before picking up Flightbeam, they are incredible)

 

...Also, the last couple of posts in this thread have been pure gold. Thanks for that too