In my post I wrote " Doesn't the blame lie partly with the customer themselves ? "

 

So if a developer is nagged by customers to add features to a scenery / aircraft that end up costing frame rates ( and VAS usage ) , it's the developers fault for giving in to demands ? That certainly sounds right ( NOT ) . As you used Aerosoft as an example , consider their AirbusX series . Just compare the original AirbusX ( released in 2010 ) with the AirbusX Extended ( released in 2012 ) and the latest A320/321 ( released in 2014 ) . So much has changed since the original that they have become 3 separate products with added " features " in each version . The minus side is of course that with each feature the frame rates have become more critical , not forgetting that you need a minimum of 18 fps otherwise the FBW system is " broken " . All of these extra features have been asked for / begged for / demanded by the "  customer " ( and are still being made ) , so should Aerosoft have just ignored all " requests " . That wouldn't win them any friends either .

As for scenery , as I mentioned earlier , modelling the interior of the terminal , followed by vast areas surrounding the airport , car parks full of cars ( the list goes on ) are all " features "  that everybody seems to want these days , some developers have made this possible , others are obviously not as proficient .

With the scenery in question it is not even an Aerosoft product , they are just the distributor , so can hardly be held accountable . There are so many factors that affect frame rates , even with similar PC's , what runs at acceptable frames for one , could be a slide show for another . Why else are sites such as AVSIM full of topics on this very subject ?

 

John

Sure it goes both ways you can blame customers for demanding the best looking scenery. But developers like this who ignore and do not fix issues from customers hurt the community even more than demanding customers. The small developer SimBreeze had released 2 updates and a quick hotfix and now their nice looking OMAA scenery works with no performance issues in FSX. Why can't a developer under the Aerosoft banner do this too?

Mathijs Kok has contacted I.D.S and they have announced they are working on an update to MYNN.

No point complaining here about an Aerosoft product. If you're not happy then post on their forums together with some evidence as I did this afternoon and it will be addressed. IDS would be stupid ignoring these complaints if they want to sell more products.

 

I also posted a review of MYNN on their Facebook page and gave it 2 stars. I wasn't alone in my criticism of the fact it eats 1Gb of VAS when the airport is loaded around 15nm out.

Mathijs Kok has contacted I.D.S and they have announced they are working on an update to MYNN.

 

No point complaining here about an Aerosoft product. If you're not happy then post on their forums together with some evidence as I did this afternoon and it will be addressed. IDS would be stupid ignoring these complaints if they want to sell more products.

 

I also posted a review of MYNN on their Facebook page and gave it 2 stars. I wasn't alone in my criticism of the fact it eats 1Gb of VAS when the airport is loaded around 15nm out.

Great that they are fixing this. Too bad Taxi2Gate ignore any support problems they could use a good public shaming too to fix their ways!

Great that they are fixing this. Too bad Taxi2Gate ignore any support problems they could use a good public shaming too to fix their ways!

 

Which T2G airport? I had problems with MMMX but it turned out to be a setting with Ultimate Terrain X Caribbean and Central America. Once I changed it the performance was okay.

 

I have a few of theirs and they're fine.

Which T2G airport? I had problems with MMMX but it turned out to be a setting with Ultimate Terrain X Caribbean and Central America. Once I changed it the performance was okay.

 

I have a few of theirs and they're fine.

Some of their older airports have outstanding issues nothing deal breaking and not oom related but little things

Of course Aerosoft have a degree of responsibility. They're the seller. They should be checking the quality of a product before they market it ensuring the fps and VAS usage are proportional for the size of the airport. I have the same scenery complexity settings for all the airports I fly into so that can't be used as an excuse. This is a tiny airport smaller than Manchester but the VAS consumption is considerably higher?

I don't count on Aerosoft in that respect. Normally anyone who complains about performance at one of their airports Mathijs usually chimes in and says that it performs great on his rig, which he always mentions is under powered by today's standards. He'll then say that it must be something wrong with the users computer, although sometimes it is, and suggest reinstalling Windows and FSX from scratch. I've quit putting faith in their performance reviews and wait for actual nonbiased user reviews from people not associated with Aerosoft.

 

Having said that, I don't have this airport and don't plan on getting it, but if the VAS is high, have you checked the texture folder for the scenery, checking for 32bit textures, textures larger than 1024, and textures with no mip maps? If it's loaded up with a bunch of 32bit textures and or textures larger than 1024, then that could explain the high VAS numbers.

 

I've experienced this at a lot of the airports they publish, namely older ones and have had to spend time converting the 32 bit textures to DXT format and sometimes resizing them and adding mip maps. I know, it's a bit of work and would be nice if the developer optimized them from the start, but the fact is, not all developers do this.

 

Worth checking.

I don't count on Aerosoft in that respect. Normally anyone who complains about performance at one of their airports Mathijs usually chimes in and says that it performs great on his rig, which he always mentions is under powered by today's standards. He'll then say that it must be something wrong with the users computer, although sometimes it is, and suggest reinstalling Windows and FSX from scratch. I've quit putting faith in their performance reviews and wait for actual nonbiased user reviews from people not associated with Aerosoft.

 

A lot has happened since my post here yesterday. Firstly, Mathijs posted on the Aerosoft Nassau thread that he would contact the project manager. Around the same time I flew from TNCM to Nassau and at 15nm out the VAS reduced by a massive 1033Mb but fortunately there was enough remaining for me to land and park. I posted this fact on the thread. Soon after the IDS Nassau developer posted saying they would provide a fix. That's what I call everyone working together to get a result. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/102204-nassau-issues/

 

Having said that, I don't have this airport and don't plan on getting it, but if the VAS is high, have you checked the texture folder for the scenery, checking for 32bit textures, textures larger than 1024, and textures with no mip maps?

No I haven't and I don't have the knowledge to make any changes. In any case isn't this something the developer should do? If they haven't done this I suspect they are not very experienced at creating scenery.

Nice to see them working on it.  I hope they will look the dev will look at KSMF soon after . . .

Great job, Ray.  I was following your comments over on Aerosoft.  I wouldn't be surprised if Mathijs told the dev to "get their #%#@ together or we're not publishing your future work".

No I haven't and I don't have the knowledge to make any changes. In any case isn't this something the developer should do? If they haven't done this I suspect they are not very experienced at creating scenery.

Well yes they should but they don't always. Maybe they don't do it because of lack of experience, but because they don't know how to optimize the sceneries properly or because of lack of time or attention to detail.

 

I've found 32 bit textures and unmipmapped textures in many developers work, including UK2000, LatinVFR, Aerosoft, Simwings, Taxi2Gate, and many others. All these I had to fix myself to make the scenery run and look better.

 

The only sceneries I can usually run out of the box with no texture work needed is FSDT, Flightbeam, and FlyTampa.

For what it's worth there are several nice freeware MYNNs out there. There's really not a lot to it.

You may be interested to know that IGS have released an update of NassauX. I run FSX:SP2 and there was a small increase in available VAS but not enough to prevent an OOM when taxiing to the gate after a flight from JFK. One user with P3D didn't experience an OOM so the base simulator is a factor.

 

The developers do seem very sensitive to criticism and are probably fed up with me but as a paying customer I feel I'm entitled to speak my mind with a product that is failing to deliver.

 

The reason for the large VAS usage is because they have integrated the town & harbour with the airport. It was suggested to them by another user they separate the two and the increase in VAS usage may make a substantial difference.

 

If you want to read more visit this link. http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/102204-nassau-issues/&page=3#comment-758116

Its a waste of money..

 

 

 

That's bad news. I was hoping for a good airport there

 

Am glad I did not pick it up in a recent sale, then.

Ray,

 

I have been following the topic in the Aerosoft forum and IMO you haven't posted anything incorrect or inappropriate there.

 

That Nassau OOM issue in FSX is surprising, considering that the latest Concorde update brought a smaller VAS footprint for that plane.

 

Seeing the issues with Sacramento and Nassau and the reaction by the developer to your posts, I am going to hold off any I.D.S. purchases for the time being.

Thanks Oliver. I didn't think I had crossed the line either but they seem very sensitive to criticism. They're working on a Manchester but if their previous offerings are anything to go buy I don't think Gary Summons has much to worry about.

 

I suspect that unless they get their act together soon they won't be around for long.