23 minutes ago, turbomax said:

either you offer a demo version (don't know if that is possible) or it is up to the scenery developers to advertise their product's benefits and advantages over their competitor. why haven't virtuali, Flytampa etc. long ago established a benchmark or similar tool, that would allow to compare scenery products and show their expertise expressed in numbers for the critical performance values

Well, you are preaching to the choir here, because we basically started Trial versions like 15 years ago or so. Right now is a bit tricky to do in MSFS, not impossible but, since the platform is still not fully developed, it might be risky to do something that's not entirely standard and *might* stop working with a future update.

So, more than users, it's reviewers that should try to be a bit more focused on the performance/memory aspects. Users can do something about it, for example by commenting on their channels and asking the matter to be discussed.

MSFS DOES have an official performance tool, which indicates interesting info that can give some ideas about optimization, and it also have a fairly complete LOD diagnostic tool, that might give an idea how much care has been put in optimization.

So, instead of seeing a review that skims on performance with just a "I have no fps problems with my system", it might be nice to hear something more. Especially when there are two products covering the same airport that might even be compared side-by-side one against the other in a single review. In this case, a split screen showing the Dev Mode fps monitor on both sides might be very helpful to judge the products and depending on the results, it might affect purchasing decisions, for example:

- The two sceneries are reasonably compared in quality, perhaps one has the edge, but there's no clear winner, so users might want to decide based on technical aspects, because the difference in appearance might not be so obvious.

- One scenery might be visibly better, but might require a LOT more memory. However, an user with a 24GB 3090 monster might not be so worried and decide to go for the better looking version, another user with an 8GB card will likely better choose the lesser version. Both products have a right to exist and be on the market at the same time and possibly be both successful (perhaps the lesser version might be more successful, because it worked better for more users), but it's important that reviewers should make those differences clear.

- There might be cases in which the better looking scenery is ALSO better optimized! This must be known, as widely as possible, because the "good" developer SHOULD be rewarded for what he has achieved, and the "bad" developer should simply learn his lesson and step up his game for the next time, or just trying less complex projects.

 

Quote

Instead, all I ever see are these cinematic hollywood style youtube scenery adverts of super smooth airports with dramatic sound tracks as if it was Apocalypse Now, never a single fps or VRAM number

Quick hint to spot a fake smooth scenery, which has been used far too many times. Pay attention to the runway strobe lights or anything that flashes in general. If they seem to be too quick, it's because the video has been recorded at 1/2 ( or even 1/4 ) frame rate and 1/2 or 1/4 time acceleration, and was then played back at an higher fps, resulting in an incredibly smooth video, even with all settings to the max. I believe one of the popular recorder products for FSX/P3D even had a specific mode to record videos this way, so you won't see any stuttering or low fps.  And let's not even start with color grading or video post processing, which has been abused a lot.

But I have no faith discussing this will result in any change: most people WILL be impressed by flashy videos and will buy based on that, and YouTubers base their business in making videos flashier than their own competition and, when sometimes somebody accuse us of not having videos flashy enough or not doctored enough to be worthy of an Hollywood color grader, most of the time you discover the commenter is another YouTuber who will privately contact you with something like "Hey, I saw your video for that scenery, for only xxxx$ I can make you a better one that will increase your sales"...so, in the end, instead of being a good scenery developer, you need to become a better video editor, or at least spend extra money to have someone making the "flashiest of the flashiers" videos for you.

20 minutes ago, virtuali said:

If they seem to be too quick, it's because the video has been recorded at 1/2 ( or even 1/4 ) frame rate and 1/2 or 1/4 time acceleration,

exactly, and I have pointed that out years ago when I first saw that effect incl airport vehicles racing around, but this is not the customers job, the developers could, before releasing a scenery to any "reviewer" have such honest videos produced and inform customers if they really wanted to. if developers really wanted to provide any performance numbers upfront they could, instead users have to rely on the brave first buyers until those provide honest feedback and fps numbers, like I did in the screenshots for DJJose at DFW here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/615856-im-stumped-msfs-says-installed-but-is-not/?do=findComment&comment=4733795

 

Edited March 7, 20224 yr by turbomax

I had CYYZ from FlyTampa back when I was regularly fying P3D and enjoyed it although it struggled a bit on frame rates.

Went and purchased the MSFS one today and have flown around it with AIG Traffic active -other than the ADE files it was a feast to behold.  Perhaps not as up to date but certainly fantastic textures and good perfomance. Pleased with my purchase.