First FSX Payware Scenery ??

[Guest SJDickson]

>I'm not dumb enough to develop for FSX; it's a dead horse only>good for bush flying & giraffe spotting.Is this FlyTampa's official position i.e. FlyTampa will not be developing add-ons for FSX?

[Paul Kane 0]

Well Elvi5, you're confusing cheerleading for FSX with my disgust at your actually talking down a fellow developer IN PUBLIC! In your vain attempt at taking yet another jab at FSX, you actually try to take down another developer in the process. It shows such an absolute lack of character on your part that I am quite frankly blown away.You could have taken the high road and posted your congratulations to Cloud9 and perhaps mentioned what you find lacking, again, in FSX but no, you post "tried it, it sucks, uninstalled....(weak paraphrase but it sums it up).I will NEVER, EVER buy a Fly Tampa product again thanks to you. And I'm sticking with FS9 just so you know. I have KSEA and love it. Too bad I won't be sending you, or your team any more of my money.

[Guest Elvi5]

NO. But right now, unless MS fix FSX soon, it's not possible to build quality scenery to a standard I think is fair to charge customers for. So I'll have to just wait a quarter century for a patch, x-plane or FSXI.

[Guest Elvi5]

You

[GHarrall 494]

>A picture tells more than thousand words:>>>>I find 20.0 fps to be quite flyable...>>>System is Intel E6700, 2GB RAM, GeF 7800 GTX 256 MB.>>Scenery Complexity at Dense>Autogen Complexity at Dense>Light Bloom off>Water Effectx 2.0 Mid>Traffic at default Low setting.>>Tweaks:>>FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.20>TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1200>TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1200>>Original screens were taken at 1600x1200 2x FSAA, 16x Aniso.>>I think it clearly demonstrate it's has a very low impact on>the fps, and it's DOESN'T look like the default one.>>Fortunately, there's no need to arguing, anybody can check it>for himself, thanks to a fully working trial available.I would hope you are getting 20FPS with that system (especially with many 'default' elemements.) It's not representative of most of your potential customers machines though is it?I agree, it looks 100% better than default airport as supplied in FSX, but IMHO there is not enough there for me to pay $25.99 USDThat is my opinion and my choice as a consumer.>>

[Paul Kane 0]

>I perhaps deserved it this time but you've had it in for me>for quite a while haven't you?I don't have it in for you, I just hold you to a higher standard is all.To hear you whine about FSX gives me the mental impression of you sulking off to a corner and sucking your thumb because you're not getting your way. Is it a fair impression? Probably not as I know you'd like nothing else than to not have the shackles applied to has they have. I totally understand that. I personally don't think you need to explain to anyone why you're not going to develop for FSX, except for maybe a cursory explanation to keep the hounds at bay.I respect your work, but not how you've conducted yourself during this release. And I realize that is totally my problem, not yours :-) But it is what it is......And Please don't think I'm an MS cheerleader, I'm not even using FSX. If I had the hardware to run it, I probably would. Truth be told, I'm upset with MS for what they've given us, but you won't find one post by me here where I stoop to bashing them....Instead I've let them know via tell_ms@microsoft.com........

[virtuali 4,421]

>I would hope you are getting 20FPS with that system>(especially with many 'default' elemements.) It's not>representative of most of your potential customers machines>though is it?My graphic card is already outdated ( you get the same performances with *much* cheaper cards nowadays ), and the rest of the system represent what will be considered already entry-level even before the end of the year.My reply was to the wrong and misleading comment about being "unflyable", from someone that has a system BETTER than mine (double the RAM, double GFX card AND faster, very fast single core and we now that FSX doesn't really use the 2nd core ), so, unless he would like to suggest that 20 fps is unflyable, which I respectfully disagree, OR he's better to fix his PC, OR is simply not telling the thruth.>I agree, it looks 100% better than default airport as supplied>in FSX,That's the whole point of an addon in the first place.>but IMHO there is not enough there for me to pay>$25.99 USD>That is my opinion and my choice as a consumer.And who is complaining ??? Of course it's your choice, if I'm going to buy a Quad-Xeon just to encode MP3 faster, that's my choice, I was simply replying to the fact it has been labeled as "unflyable", when clearly it's not.As I've said, it's really good having a Trial, BOTH because customers like you CAN easily made their choice without having to resort to refounds, etc. But it also very good for us, because we can easily dispel the unfounded bashings and misleading posts that could start wrong myths and impressions about a product, something that can always happen when there's no Trial version available.IF we had a product we weren't so sure about it, and we weren't prepared to stand behind it, we wouldn't had a Trial for it...

[GHarrall 494]

Sorry, but there is no single core processor out there that is faster than an E6700.Even in single core applications, you would still wipe the floor with all CPU's other than an X6800. If you don't believe me, look at the benchamrks. Even the old Pentium Extreme Edition can't keep up with the entry level 4mb cache Conroe, the E6600 nevemrmind your E6700.You are one below top of the line with that CPU. Only the X6800 beats it.If the E6700 is considered 'Entry Level' by the end of this year, I will eat my hat!! $650 CAD (with no signs of price dropping) is hardly entry level is it?Just because someone has a P4 at 3.6 Ghz doesn't make it faster than your E6700 at 2.66 GHzI would also suggest that a 7800GTX is still better than 75% of the people on this board have.As to your last point, I was simply stating that as FlyTampa for example only charges $21.50 for a complete airport including custom everything, I find $25.99 to be too steep for just some custom buidlings. I think the community has come to expect more from scenery addons. I realize that this is not your fault, as FSX does not (yet) allow custom items and textures for runways and taxiways etc. It just appears that rushing into supplying 'FSX Pure' is just some marketing hype because no real tools exist yet to do what you REALLY want to do. Only a couple of months ago, supplying anything 'default' in a payware scenery would have been a big no-no. Now because of FSX's current limitations it's ok to do half the work and charge full price? Not right in my book.......(not even if you spent the extra time working on the look of the building models either)

[n4gix 4,948]

>NO. >But right now, unless MS fix FSX soon, it's not possible to>build quality scenery to a standard I think is fair to charge>customers for. >>So I'll have to just wait a quarter century for a patch,>x-plane or FSXI.Since it clearly IS possible to accomplish, it's your own choice to not bother learning how to use shape files to produce textureable ground polys that will conform to the new round-earth model. I can't locate it at present (and would have to get permission to publish in any case), but at least ONE scenery developer HAS adopted the new methodology and has nearly completed his new airport scenery, complete with custom runways, taxiways, aprons, etc. He's even used the shape files to create the smoothly curved transitions between runway-taxiway-aprons.As an aircraft modeler and gauge programmer, I too am facing some major challenges with the new SDK paradigm... I'm being forced to create entirely new "advanced methods" to accomplish the same things I'd already developed for FS2k2 and FS9, so I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the obvious angst expressed by yourself as well as many others... :)...it's just that - at my age and physical condition - there's no possibility for me to get a "real job" at present. I have no choice but to continue onwards, and hopefully upwards! :-lol

[Guest Elvi5]

I don't think you should expect so much from me. I don't represent a giant corporation or even a team. My opinion is as independent as the hundreds of others whining. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. If we all pretended to love FSX & only hand out phony praise, we'd never get a decent version of FS.I hoped FSX would be better as both a simmer & scenery designer.So I am sulking because I didn't get my way. But who did? BushFlyers maybe?Not that there's anything wrong with Bushflying.I'm back with FS9 too. But, only an idiot would think FS9 scenery will sell or download for too much longer. I hope I'm wrong.I think a large amount of people will want to fly the 'lastest' version even if they clunk along at 5-20fps.I ceased scenery design a while ago when it became clear MS was neutering the SDK. After leaving EA I setup near fulltime work on a new project for FlyTampa. That's not going to see the light of day now.I've now gone back to fulltime work in the games industry. Hopefully in the future it'll be worth coming back.

[Guest Elvi5]

Hey Bill,I don't even know what a shape file is :)Unless we can create runways, taxiways, markings etc, 100% within 3DS Max. It's not going to work for me. I need total UVW control.I believe they 'might' be close to a solution to the curved earth problem. At least the SP1 patch was closer but still broken.

[JerryG 1]

Ouch,This is harsh! Why/how can you accuse people who've downloadedand tested the scenery of lying? Have you installed the trial?Have you tested it?I just can't understand why you make a harsh accusation.JerryG

[virtuali 4,421]

>Sorry, but there is no single core processor out there that is >faster than an E6700.I haven't said that. I've said that it's impossible to think a *moderately* slower cpu like the very good FX62 of the OP, but with double ram and a much faster GFX card than mine, would produce drastically different performances, up to a point to claim the scenery it's unflyable. Regardless of the fact that the E6700 has an edge (not that much) over the FSX62>As to your last point, I was simply stating that as FlyTampa>for example only charges $21.50 for a complete airport>including custom everything, We produced quite good and "complete" (more on the definition of "complete" later ) sceneries for FS9. Your comparison would had more sense if someone else will eventually release a better scenery than KMCO, FOR FSX. For better, I mean better looking WITHOUT sacrificing performances that in FSX are an even more sensitive issue than ever.>I realize that this is not>your fault, as FSX does not (yet) allow custom items and>textures for runways and taxiways etc. That's not entirely accurate. It certainly possible to do such things, but it not enough just "having" them. If having to resort to unusual hacks and getting the performance loss associated it's the only way to get it, it's better if you want to use FSX (meaning, not flying over a slideshow ) to forget those, for the time being. When, and IF, either someone will discover a way to get those features back, or MS will fix FSX to make them feasible without an unacceptable fps loss, we already demonstrated many times in the past to be perfectly capable to do detailed ground scenery for FS9, so I don't see any reason to not upgrade current KMCO.>rushing into supplying 'FSX Pure' is just some marketing hype>because no real tools exist yet to do what you REALLY want to>do. The fact the scenery is a 100% full native FSX product it's an undeniable fact. The term was used to make users aware (for good AND for bad) that this product doesn't include a single line of legacy code, and it DOES offer a glimpse of what FSX can do in terms of advanced materials, so it's not just something that has been ported over but it will look in FSX exactly like if it was running in FS9. BTW, what would be the point of running, let's say, our KLAX scenery in FSX, with FS9 graphic, just at 8 fps on a top machine ? Because that is probably the expected peformance loss, even assuming we could get a magical fix from MS that will make multilayered groundwork to work reliably as it was in FS9. Wouldn't be much simpler to use the scenery in FS9, as it was designed to ?>Now because>of FSX's current limitations it's ok to do half the work and>charge full price? Not right in my book.......(not even if you>spent the extra time working on the look of the building>models either)You probably already realized ( in the 2nd part of your sentence) that the 1st part was already wrong. I assure you, developement time for KMCO is perfectly comparable to something like KLAX or KDCA. The "saved" time on the groundwork has been more than offset by the increased time spent on buildings and materials, since the number of textures has increased about four times, not even counting the complexity of having to test how the different layers and properties *interact* with each one.So, even assuming some day we'll be able to get the same amount of ground detail in FSX, since customers will of course expect that detail AND the advanced materials at the same time, developement (hence cost), will increase. I don't know how much time you spent in this hobby but, as a professional developer for FS since 1993 (FS 4.0, back then...), I have to say this entire FS9 vs FSX story, reminds me very much when FS2000 was released, had we used to Country-Wide scenery addons that were popular in the FS5/FS95/FS98 days, like BAO Europe1, were you could buy entire countries for the price of a couple of airports in FS9. I WAS in the developing team for Italy98, and we did ALL the 130 airports in Italy, all with custom 3D buildings and textures, but since the graphic were cruder, we managed to do it in about 6 months time, roughly the same time it took in 2004 to do JUST EHAM for FS9...When FS2000 was released, and multi-texturing started to appear (to be later enhanced in FS2002 ), developers started to warn users about the increase in time needed to do "proper" things, like night lighting, shadows, effects, something that was very new back then. And people, initially, started to complain about being charged for a single or a couple of airports for the same amount you could get a whole COUNTRY, just the year before, in FS98.Eventually, people adapted and nobody today is questioning about being charged for "just an airport". You are not buying a product, in fact, you are buying some fraction of man/hours. If it takes the same 4-5 months to make an entire country in FS98, a collection of 8 airports in FS2000, a single airport in FS2004 or (if the trend will continue like this) a single object in FSXII, expect the pricing to be similar...I'm not saying this will be good, becaus I'm not sure. It might happen that addons for FSX will be somewhat different from FS9. I expect more and more utilities to be developed, maybe something offering more interaction, missions, and the like, probably using default airplanes and scenery. This doesn't necessarily mean the hobby will become worse, it will simply change in some way.