How about a 'lite' version...

[birdguy 3,943]

It's wonderful that developers are able to give u so much detailed scenery these days.  But at what cost?

Orbx's new Charleston scenery is superb.  But the load time!  If I load up my trusty old Kodiak and tell it to go to Charleston I get stuck at 37% on the loading bar for no less than 12 minutes.

I don't want to drive from the Slave Market to the waterfront restaurant where I can see Fort McHenry from the window next to my table.  It's a flight simulator...not a street simulator.  I want to take off from the Charleston  airport and see a reasonable depiction of the city without going to the kitchen to do the breakfast dishes and then vacuuming the living room and getting back just in time to see my aircraft appear at the end of the runway.

I have no problem with those who want to see the block where their house is located and willing to pay the performance price.  But how about a lite version for those of us who just want to get to flying and skipping the super details.

Noel

 

[W2DR 1,859]

I'm with you Noel. This is a FLIGHT simulator, not an eye-candy simulator. Maybe those of us who have held a real-world pilots license see is differently. But, just for me, I've had it with all this scenery "as real as it gets" nonsense.

Edited November 24, 2019 by W2DR
kant spel

[scianoir 610]

I agree and the same comments could be applied to developers who feel the need to provide detailed terminal interiors - the only time I ever see these is if the brakes fail as I am nosing in to a stand!
 

Bill

[Ron Attwood 3,464]

Because it's simpler to make scenery and not be bothered with optimising it properly. Take Jarrad Marshall's airports. Innsbruck and Palm Springs as examples. As much detail as you could wish for AND not a performance wreckers. That man knows how to optimise. 

[Patco Lch 1,464]

I would be happy just with a good rendition of KCHS.

[Reader 2,009]

Isn't there a "lite" version already included with FSX and P3D?

 

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Reader

[FDEdev 955]

That was the beauty from the FlightZone Rhode Island scenery. By far the best and highest performing scenery.  Designed by a pilot for pilots.

Couldn't care less for vending machines etc. in the terminal.  Runway, taxiway, apron and their proximity and a high frame rate, that's the important part! 

[Christopher Low 5,341]

Personally speaking, I think that detailed terminal interiors can make a significant difference to the realism of airport scenery. FlyTampa Copenhagen is a very good example of this, and the framerates are excellent. Of course, this should only be done for those internal areas that are visible from the gates/ramps.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Christopher Low

[birdguy 3,943]

Reader, the default airports and sceneries are, for the most part, lite-lite versions.  There should be sceneries between the default lite-lite and the load time killing super cities.  And there are. Ron mentioned Innsbruck and  Palm Springs.  And there are others.  Portland, Santa Barbara and Bilbao along may others.  Like Ron said, optimization should be a key part of any scenery design as well as testing before release.

I own every Orbx scenery except those released for X-Plane.  They are excellent for the most part.  But Charleston needs some performance work.

Noel

[birdguy 3,943]

I tried a 17 minute flight from Hilton Head to KCHS this afternoon.  About 5 minutes out from CHS the scenery textures go the blurries.  I tried to refresh scenery and got stuck at 12% for 15 minutes before it continued.  The rest of the flight was normal.

My second flight the blurries began at about the same place but I just left them alone.  They continued all the way to CHS.

My second flight I disabled Charleston in the scenery library and flew the same flight with no blurries or nomolies.  I'm going to leave Charleston disabled unit they fix it.

Noel