Sign in to follow this  
virtuali

Why so few airport sceneries for FSX?

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,I'm loving FSX. I think its a big step up from FS9 in many respects but I, like many other people, am put off by the lack of addon software. Since the release of RTM was almost 10 months ago, and SP1 (Which has made the sim a LOT more accessable for people with lower end computers) some time ago, I'm wondering why we havn't seen the influx of scenery addons like we did for FS9?I understand that there are some very good quality aircraft addons (I've got the FLight1 ATR and LevelD 767 myself), but what about all that scenery. For FS9 theres litterally thousands of freeware scenery files. With inbuilt functions like Object Placer and FSX Planner that can do everything AFCAD could plus more, I would have thought scenery design would be within the reach of almost everybody?Anybody with other thoughts?Kael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Kael,I too am eager to see some airport sceneries for FSX. However, I suspect that the changes made to the scenery engine in FSX, has meant that it has become too difficult or complex to create these accept for the very 'experts' and it seems even they are struggling. Even Fly Tampa seem to be steering clear of FSX !I personnally would put a plea to ACES team, to provide a further update to FSX that would address this backward incompatibility. It seems that the FS9 SDK enabled 'flattens', 'excludes' etc. but that these functions no longer work with FSX. I fully appreciate that technology must move on, and presumably the inclusion of the 'round earth' concept in FSX must have some advantages somewhere, although for the life of me I don't see where....when can we see sloping runways etc.! However, it does seem a great shame that techically brilliant add-on sceneries that are less than a year old suddenly become useless!!It is no wonder that FSX is not being crowned as the next great leap forward in Flight Simming, and that 90% of the community seem to have reverted to FS9. This is certainly no way to move a product genre forward.So come on Phil Taylor and the ACES team.....what are you doing about it, as I'm sure the last thing you want to see in less than 12 months time is "FSX RIP" !!!!!Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>With inbuilt functions like Object Placer and FSX Planner that>can do everything AFCAD could plus more, I would have thought>scenery design would be within the reach of almost everybody?>From someone who has designed a couple of airport sceneries for FS, I can tell you that the simple reason is: time. Sure, anyone can do a half-baked airport scenery with 2 hours of work. But to do it properly, it takes at least 15-20 hours of work and research on a larger airport.Also, ADE and FSXPlanner are still beta, and there is still a lot of cross-usage of different tools (AFCAD and decompilers) to achieve a quality result. This adds to dev time.Object Placer is, well, not the greatest tool. ;) And you must remember that with FS2004, the thousands of airport scenery files you see today are the sum total of 3-4 years of development.But TIME (both elapsed time of FSX and time to work on projects) is the main reason in my opinion.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree regarding scenery design. I think scenery design now is much more easy than before, especially changing flattens. And gmax design is the same as before, just with a new gamepack and a different way with textures. In just 5 weeks, I totally enhanced 4 Norwegian airports with Instant Scenery, ADE, SDE, Notepad and SBuilderX, and those are already uploaded here: http://www.flightsim.no/file/FSX/Scenery/Europa/Norge/I plan to upload them to Avsim as well, after a few updates.Personally I think the only reason we still lack FSX payware scenery is that the market for FS9 is still much bigger.PS: Check in at my site and press the FSX button :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I so agree with you Stuart.Fly Tampa doesn't seem too thrilled with FSX for sceneries.. So with the exception of Juliana Intl, they don't seem to be working on making their airports upgraded to FSX. Vouchez is busy with the Airbus project.There is also not much headrooms for complex addons in FSX which is not helping.Aerosoft seems to be on the bandwagon for sceneries in FSX, but even with their awesome sceneries in FSX, the performance issue still sucks.Yeah..I still am waiting to see the benefit of round earth. As far as sloped runways.. Wish FSX supported it. But still there are three sloped runway airports I own and I love them all. Only one of them runs in FSX. LLH's Courchevel. This is one awesome airport addon and compliments VFR Frances Northern ALPS. This is currently my flagship airport for FSX. Right now, this is the best airport for landing. Nothing.. I mean nothing comes close to the experience of landing here in the sim.The FS9 had the Wasserkupe (German Scenery IV) and then the Lukla. Both from Aerosoft.MannyPS: I should add, that with Ultimate Tearrain, night flying in the US is very nice. The need for addon sceneries is not there for night fluing in FSX provided you have Ultimate Terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet many are developers are waiting on the DX 10 release so performace won't be a let down to thier users. And it takes along time to develope good scenery so I would expect the addons to start flooding in a year or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wonder if with the improvement to the default aiport scenery in fsx if the market has perhaps shrunk even more-and requires the product to be unbelievable which can take even more time.e.g. With fs9 I bought add on airports for Detroit and San Diego as the fs9 ones were so lacking. With fsx I am pretty satisfied with the default fsx renditions of these two airports and don't feel a need to buy 3'rd party. To entice me to do so-there would have to really be something exceptional-and that can take quite a bit of time.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing, it has taken quite awhile just to program the new tools needed. These tools don't fall out of the sky ready to use you know... ;)Second, although not an "airport scenery," superior quality is available, as the screenshots below will demonstrate.A new photoreal scenery for FSX.It's the city of Nantes in the west of France:http://marcoh.gratisim.fr/images/nantes-vue1.jpghttp://marcoh.gratisim.fr/images/nantes-vue5.jpgHow about the small town of Le Croisic:http://marcoh.gratisim.fr/images/croisic1.jpgSee http://marcoh.gratisim.fr/ for additional screenshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they only took three and a half years to make it:-hah :-erks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong by my earlier post. I fully appreciate that for people to produce great scenery it takes time, as I am sure was also the case in FS9. I am in awe of all the great programmers and scenery designers out there that have have made this hobby "as real as it gets".I was merely seeking whether anything could be done to help easily convert those great FS9 sceneries, e.g. Swedflight airports, UK2000, Fly Tampa etc. etc. to enable them to be used in FSX.Perhaps one thing may be to create excludes for default airport buildings, but retaining FSX runways and taxiways (since these seem to be the main issue with FS9 sceneries in FSX), and relocating the FS9 add-on scenery buildings to fit the default FSX taxiways/apron.Whilst I recognise this may be a compromise, it would allow many of us to enjoy the look and feel of some of our loved FS9 sceneries in FSX.Is the above not possible? If it is perhaps some of those developers could look into it? It could be a quick win for all.Regards,Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It is no wonder that FSX is not being crowned as the next>great leap forward in Flight Simming, and that 90% of the>community seem to have reverted to FS9.Is that a hidden agenda in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?:-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is the lack of new airport sceneries produced by Cloud9. They were the first to write off FS9, they arrogantly ignored a huge demand for an FS9 version of KMCO. They truly glorified their "FSX native" approach! But after Orlando and Bergen (?!), it has become awfully quiet as far as airports are concerned. It's not only interesting, but also funny. At least other companies are still producing for FS9. And they're selling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and me both know that that is not an airport scenery in the FS9 sense. Not that the product is crap - I'm sure it pleases a lot of people, but it's a new line of products, X. It's a step away from the big airport sceneries. And for people who fly from hub to hub with the bigger aircraft, there's just not much on the market. For those people, there's also not a whole lot in FSX to warrant a switch away from FS9, in my humble opinion. Personally speaking, I do the above and FSX lacks the improvements I was hoping for. Sure, it looks nice in some areas, but cruising at a higher altitude, it all looks the same to me anyway. ;-pSo what left is a detailed airport scenery, with custom aprons, taxiways and runways. I have all that in FS9 and then some. Some great new sceneries (and other addons) have been released lately and more's on the way. The reality is, there's a market for addons for both sims. AES anyone...Heck, look at at the numbers of my last two uploads:- http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...dded&ScanMode=0Updates to the ancient frame hogging plain ugly sceneries of Simflyers for FS9. Each have been downloaded hundreds of times. Niche files, pretty significant numbers. (Look at the rest too, well over a 1000 for the LSZH file, that in your precious FSX era.) Imagine how well that KMCO would have done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small airport, no *squints* AI traffic. And "Sure this is serious hardware (Intel E6700, 4GB, nVidia 8800 GTX, Windows Vista)".I'm not bashing anything, but FSX is more of a spin-off than a sequel. I feel they both cater to a slightly different audience. Most companies have reacted better to that than Cloud9. And that's unfortunate, because you've made some nice sceneries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Aerosoft seems to be on the bandwagon for sceneries in FSX,>>but even with their awesome sceneries in FSX, the>performance>>issue still sucks.>>Please, define better "performance sucks":>>http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=12498>>FSX performance I mean. Blurries etc. Not Aerosoft's sceneries.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You and me both know that that is not an airport>scenery in the FS9 sense. I don't see why the fact that it has a city ON TOP of having an airport, should change the fact that IS an airport scenery. Maybe your are confusing with Cloud9 Xcity Rome, that only had a 3d city + some helipads.I don't get the "airport scenery in the FS9 sense". What does it mean ? Only big airports have the right of citizenship for the "serious simmer" ? It's really funny when, couple of years ago, when all developers insisted redoing the same top-10-by-traffic airports (klax, katl, egll, etc.), people complained because they neglet smaller and interesting places.Now, if a developer tries to do something less obvious, like Bergen or Florence, ( that are BOTH International airport with airliners traffic, BTW ), people complain the same, because "it's no an airport scenery anymore".Florence, with its short runway and city approach (you can't say the city it's not useful to the "serious simmer", because it's an integral part of what the pilot will see on final), it's way more interesting, from an aviation point of view, that a boring landing on the 4km+ rwy at klax.>And for people who fly from hub to hub with>the bigger aircraft, Aviation, even commercial airliner aviation, it's not just "hub to hub", the very point of being an hub it's that, once you get there, some other flight will take you to some place else, smaller. I humbly remind you that the Florence airport has just been upgraded to receive A320 and B737, so it's the perfect place for short-range airliners.>For those people, there's also not a whole lot in FSX to warrant a>switch away from FS9, in my humble opinion. The issue it's, of course, what you are complaining. Lack of enough number of 3rd party addons, comparing to FS9.That's nothing to do with FSX being worse or not, or FSX being slower or not. It has to do with the fact that FSX, being SO MUCH powerful, requires WAY more time to create a scenery. Of course, a scenery that will look different from FS9, enough to warrant the developer some income derived by the fact that people would be prepared to pay again for the scenery.The fact a lot of developers haven't switched to FSX, doesn't have anything to do with what FSX can or can't do. FSX can do everything that is needed to create a detailed scenery. Issues like the famous "round earth" problem, that supposely prevented to create detailed ground at airports, are now fixed with SP1. KMCO was using default textures, Bergen used a mixed approach, but Florence has 100% custom ground textures, because it only works with FSX SP1. There's no technical reason, today, not to do a detailed airport.The issue is entirely commercial. The developers are faced with this dilemma:- Just converting an FS9 scenery will result in a LOT of work, but the scenery will look just the same as in FS9, probably with much worse performances, and many users would expect a free upgrade (because it *looks* the same), so nobody would pay for the LOT of work that went into converting.- Redoing the scenery from scratch in FSX will result in a WHOLE LOT MORE amount of work, and then you have to convince users to buying it again.- With a market divided between FS9 and FSX users, offering an FS9 version as well will result in a ADDITIONAL LOT MORE work, and the more the FSX version is "FSX native", the more work is required to offer an FS9 version, and the less the whole business is commercially viable.That's why, for the time being, you'll see airports for smaller places coming out, because those projects are easier and less risky. Waiting for better times, when all the remaining FS9 user will switch to FSX. Surely, Acceleration+DX10 should represent another boost to user migration towards FSX.I hear you, FSX has been out for 9 months, and we still don't have lot of stuff available. Problem is, if 6 months were enough to create a big airport in FS9 (with some projects, like Vauchez's stuff going on for much more time), it's no longer possible with FSX, if you really want to exploit it the way people expect, meaning fully using new materials, new textures possibilities, etc. It's quite obvious that, with a projected developement time of 9-12 months for a big airport in FSX, and with a major update still to come, no sane developer would bank its time/money before at least being sure FSX would be stable for a couple of years. That's why the smaller places first, it's the only thing that make sense.That's why I'll have to wait at least 2-3 years more before being able to play the next Final Fantasy on the PS3...to many FS9 (sorry, PS2 ) users around, and developing PS3 games it's way more expensive the PS2 games, and the users base is still FS9 (sorry, PS2...)See ? It's not that different. Patience it's the key...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . add to this the fact that many FSX default airports are pretty darned good - take KSEA, for example; I have FT SEA for FS9 - fabulous!, but - to spend another $40 - $50 on an FSX replacement? - no, the existing one is good enough for me, and it's much the same for many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Small airport, no *squints* AI traffic. And what, exactly, AI traffic has to do with the scenery ? If a scenery runs at 68 fps with low AI traffic, and 15 fps with AI at 100%, it's quite clear that it's not the scenery that is affecting the frame rate, because that drop would probably be exactly the same even without the addon scenery. What's the point, then, showing a screenshot with full AI, were the fps would have been low regardless of the scenery being present or not ? Anyway, I remind you that Florence, since has been developed by the same guys that used to work with Cloud9 (me and others, before someone will jump stating I'm not indicating my affiliations clearly enough), is offered with the same Try-before-buy option, so anyone can try the scenery on his own machine, with his own preferred settings.Speaking about AI, yes, AI is really heavy on fps in FSX, mostly because MS default AI are using the same ultra-detailed models they are using for user flyable airplanes.BUT, I remember very well that many people were *already* doing this in FS9, first replacing the default AI traffic with more detailed one (like UT), and THEN replacing the models with other more fps-friendly, because otherwise the fps would drop, even in FS9. It's not a new issue.>And "Sure this is>serious hardware (Intel E6700, 4GB, nVidia 8800 GTX, Windows>Vista)".Fact that FSX requires new hardware, it's quite obvious. Like the fact that the E6700 nowadays is way cheaper than it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually bought Florence and it is a nice little airport(having been there a few times a long time ago. Yes, ACES did create good looking large airports for FSX (lax and ksfo for example). But in FSX, generic looking medium and smaller airports are the rule. With all the extra autogen available I see FSX as more of a regional, small airport sim and as airlines are trying to fly more point to point than hub to hub, this fits right in. Even with Penryns or Barcelonas and nvidia 9 series or ATI r700's, FSX will not be able to max out AI aircraft, cars, ships, weather, lens flare, light bloom, etc. at large airports and large cities. DX10 has more effects like HDR for example that may find its way into FSX. On the other hand, at medium and smaller destinations it will be easier to have an airport and city full of AI and autogen and get decent frame rates which will help make FSX a more immersing experience. Now only if third party add on companies can make realistic regional aircraft that don't suck up 10+fps in VC mode, lol. I would like to see more sceneries in the same 1.2M resolution like the default St. Maarten, Rio and Vegas. Especiallv Carribean islands (there is a lot of opprtunity for third party developers here). For example Tropicalsim has Flamingo Airport for the island of Bonaire (near TNCM). In default FSX, Bonaire is a desert with a few trees, A tank farm, and a generic small airport and no visible houses or roads. This is an example of where an airport+city is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't get the "airport scenery in the FS9 sense". What does it mean?It has to do with scope. The focus has clearly shifted from larger projects to smaller ones. From say EHAM and the city, huge. To Florence, much smaller. I'm not talking about Cloud9 per se, but overall. As you indicate later in your post as well. It's just the way it is. Some people will be okay with it, others won't. Maybe it'll stay this way, maybe we'll see some bigger airports as well in the future.> (you can't say the city it's not useful to the "serious simmer", > because it's an integral part of what the pilot will see on final)I never said such a thing, I was just noting my personal preference and that of a lot of other people.>That's why, for the time being, you'll see airports for>smaller places coming out, because those projects are easier>and less risky. Waiting for better times, when all the>remaining FS9 user will switch to FSX. Surely,>Acceleration+DX10 should represent another boost to user>migration towards FSX.All the remaining users?! There are still people using FS2002 and previous incarnations, don't expect everyone to switch. ;-DBut the rest of that comment is I think the first honest word we've heard about the matter. These are unsure times. The community is still hugely divided. And not as eager to migrate as some say. In the past you and Cloud9 were much more optimistic. Now you're waiting for better times... KMCO was released rather quickly, it may have been the first FSX scenery. But it may also have been a bit presumptuous. You won't admit it, but your comments speak for themselves. I feel maybe just a little vindicated. ;-p > If a scenery runs at 68 fps with low AI traffic, and 15 fps with >AI at 100%, it's quite clear that it's not the scenery that is>affecting the frame rateIf only it were that simple. It's not a question of what's to blame. At the end of the day, I (and I assume I'm not alone) would rather get rid of one small scenery or not buy it, than to say goodbye to AI that populates the entire FS world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Simmers :-) From a developer point of view, I could put here an extended text, full of explanations, but instead of this, just some remarks:- FSX Demo just released:We tried it, as we had a TNCM scenery then, and for our surprise, it looked ok over that demo terrain, just needing some small corrections. We were happy then, the idea was to update every single one of the 90 FS9 sceneries we had done so far to show perfectly at FSX, and at no cost to our users, as we did when we changed from FS2002 to FS2004. Of couse, we spread this intentions up, for the happiness of our users.- FSX about to be released:About one/two months before the release date, the add-on market virtually stopped, for almost everybody. No one was ordering FS9 products, as everybody was eager to have FSX as soon as possible, as FS9 seemed sentenced to death and to be forgotten as an "old stuff" and only FSX "would be able to make everybofy happy" as it represented the progress, the innovation, and things like that. Who would still order FS9 products, if FSX was already almost at our doors and soon there would be tons of FSX adds, as happened when FS9 took FS8's place?Can everybody figure how developers faced this scenario? A breaked market, FS9 projects still under constructions brought to a full stop, FSX products being planed, and no one sure about nothing?- FSX released:Needs no comments about what happened to us all, right? :-roll Developers faced the hard reality, eerything changed, even that demo looked so strange now... where has compatibility gone? Why everything that worked so nice at FS9 has become so useless on FSX? What to do?We spent days and nights working full time here to discover how to plant a scenery in a decent way on FSX. It was very hard, for sure! Is this a complaint of just someone who has not been successful? No. We did it, but at what a cost. We managed to be the first ones with a native FSX scenery on the market, after a very hard work. Soon 6 other sceneries followed this first one, all then working fine, done from scratch, from zero. They were not updates, and we did not charged old customers of previous versions for them. They all had a nice discount or even a free upgrade on some sceneries.- FS9 not died yet?:As FS9 turned again to be the main sim for a (very) large number of simmers, developers became divided again.....what to produce? Still FS9 products? Just FSX new adds? How to do them nice? And the time going by...What to do?- Yes! FS9 still alive:Another surprise for developers. FS9 products starting to sell a lot again...disgusted FSX users giving up, heading for FS9 once more, and ordering (a lot) of FS9 only products. Another factor helping this: the fear (sometimes not real) of performance hit of FSX adds, as the sim alone was already scaring for the majority of us. And the add-on market upside down again. Do everybody think that is easy to project and plan something on a scenario like this?- FS9, FSX on a split world:We took the decision we found to be the finest one: keep producing native FSX sceneries, reworking then to be FS9 fully compatibles too. Every single release of a scenery we have done to FSX had an independent FS9 installer included on the pack. This way, we pleased both FS9 and FSX simmers that use our sceneries. An extra work? Yes, of couse, but a manner to let every sinlge user happy, for sure. This was the best solution for us, I can't say if it's affordable to other devs, as each one has his own working procedure.- FSX SP1 released:Another nice surprise x( After installing it, we discovered that every single FSX scenery we have done, and that used to work so nice, started to have strange ground issues...like floating ramps, txws, lines, a crazy thing... An there we go again....another set of full day and night work, tests, tentatives, searches, and suffer to fix something that was already nice, but was killed by SP1. Thank god we manged to do it one more time, and have just released a banch of updates, covering all 9 FSX sceneries we have done until now. But it was really painfull to do. The strange thing (FSX is full of strange behaviours) is that some procedure that fixed a pos-SP1 issue on a scenery, does not work for another scenery, done exactly the same way of the other one....so, for each of the 9 sceneries a personal correction update, done in a diferent manner, as if the location of where the scenery is, had some influence for that. Very strange thing.It's hard, dear friends, to work like this. Developers, like me, are having a very turbulent life since FSX was released.Everything changed. Making sceneries used to be a very pleasent and enjoyable art. I can't say, right now, if it still is.Ahh... almost forgot: and about that solution of 100x100 meters max grounpolis that seemed to work?Very nice :D We have just done the huge Rio's Intl' airport for FSX and FS9...take a look at the airport area alone at Google Earth, note the size of those runways....very cool to reproduce all that amount of ground using just 100x100 meters squares, doesn't it? :-cool The worst part is that, in 2 or 3 years from now when things become tamed with FSX looking great full of adds like FS9 is now, with everybody flying a lot and having fun (the very way FS9 is now) there will come FSXI and everything will be upside down again :( Excuse for my bad English and long text, but I needed to say this from a long time, I'm really better now. It's finally out of my throat.My best regards,Carlos Pereira.www.tropicalsim.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>All the remaining users?! There are still people using>FS2002 and previous incarnations, don't expect everyone to>switch. ;-DYes, there are still percentage of users still using Windows 98 + IE4, statistics prove that. This, of course, doesn't mean developers should still make software or website compatibile with such standards.>The community is still hugely divided. Yes, but the percentage of *how* much is divided, it's not what FS9 users THINK is. Really, it's not.I keep reading comments about "90% of the community is going back to FS9", without, of course, having any solid evidence. I guess, if *really* 90% of the users went back to FS9, we should have seen it on the actual sales, since at Cloud9 we had 11 products for FS9 and 3 for FSX (not counting the XClass series), with one being the same offered in both versions (Bergen).Don't you think that, if REALLY 90% of the users were going back to FS9, anybody, regardless of his initial expectations and announcements, would already have changed his FSX-only plans ?No, the issue is the community IS divided, but it's not "going back" to FS9. Right now, I'd say it's probably 60%-40% pro FSX, and it slowly improving, towards FSX, of course. The trend is clear, but is not going as fast as we would like, because that is *precisely* the worse situation a commercial developer could find himself into because is still spells clearly "no FS9" anymore, but it's not yet fully geared up for FSX.>In the past you and Cloud9 were much more optimistic.Yes, but this doesn't change a bit the fact that it was right to support FSX, regardless of how fast the transition is happening, there's only one direction to go, and it's not backwards.>KMCO was released rather quickly, it may have been the first FSX>scenery. But it may also have been a bit presumptuous. KMCO is still an important airport and it's FSX native,(and, hopefully) will sell, even in 3 years from now. Being the first FSX scenery, of course, means only that others will eventually outdone it, and that's quite normal. Being an FSX scenery with plenty of lifetime ahead, means also there's still time to eventually improve it.>won't admit it, but your comments speak for themselves. I feel>maybe just a little vindicated. ;-p I don't see how, you are probably going too far, there still no going back to FS9. Rather the opposite: some publishers that initially were devoted to FS9+FSX, are now announcing new products for FSX only, and they are also getting their share of flak, just as Cloud9 last year. This only means we were right from the start, perhaps with *too* much advance, because users complaining for a developer switching into FSX-only mode are far less than last year.But believe me, switching to FSX-only last year, has also brought us some advantadges, regardless of the sales, because we are already doing easily now things that others developers are just starting to grasp (Bergen was the first FSX addon scenery that uses fully customized jetways with inverse kinematics, just like the default ones, Florence it's using 100% custom ground textures, but with FSX effects and materials on top of it ), so I considered it a good investment, and I'd redo it again, if given the chance.>At the end of the day, I (and I assume I'm not alone)>would rather get rid of one small scenery or not buy it, than>to say goodbye to AI that populates the entire FS world.It's exactly the opposite: the AI-induced fps drop it's just the same, regardless if the scenery is active or not. You don't have to get rid of the scenery to enjoy better fps with full AI in exchange, because it's the AI that already did the damage, deleting the scenery will not help at all. You wouldn't expect, I hope, that an addon scenery would auto-magically fix all the default AI and *improves* their performances. That's a job for AI packages, and I always had the impression that people prefer to use dedicated AI packages rather than sceneries that comes with their own AI.Anyway, since the scenery is available as Trial, the whole issue is meaningless, because anybody can try it with the FSX settings he likes more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this