On 6/22/2024 at 10:06 PM, JBDB-MD80 said:

Off topic but

 

Can we get a KDFW scenery next please as no other developer wants to touch it? Thank you for your work anyways X-Codr. If you made a great KDFW, KATL and or LFPG you could retire from scenery development. IMO as they would sell like hotcakes.

Haha, thanks :).

3 hours ago, Greazer said:

Question, who is X-Codr?  Seems like a new mystery dev.  I also hope they can do KATL just like this one.

New to the MSFS large airport market for sure, but I've been developing X-Plane sceneries since 2017, and I've released a few other MSFS products as well (KWYS, 1G4, KSEZ, KBLU, Sedona Red Rocks), all of which you can of course see on my website. Thank you for the suggestion!

1 hour ago, Turpentine said:

Can the interior scenery be turned off to help with framerate?

The interiors cost very little in terms of performance, that being said, while I do recommend against it because solid colored windows look quite boring, I do have a patch available for this on my website (just scroll to the very bottom, the section is title "Patches") MSFS KDEN | X Codr Designs (x-codrdesigns.com)

 

39 minutes ago, X-Codr Designs said:

New to the MSFS large airport market for sure, but I've been developing X-Plane sceneries since 2017, and I've released a few other MSFS products as well

I picked this scenery up yesterday and while I have only done one flight in and looked around briefly it looks great and an improvement on the old Flightbeam KDEN. Great work and I appreciate your engagement and responsiveness here. Hopefully we will see more projects from you!

I'm seeing quite a few inaccuracies on the exteriors.  I'll put together a list and send it to x-codrs,  everything should be easy to fix. 

1st: Gates B64-70 aren't quite right.  There should be a set of gray vents on each raised area,  I believe this houses the HVAC system.  Also the gate numbers on the terminal are in the wrong position. I'm guessing there was a lack of source photos. It's also possible this has changed in the last few months.  You can see they removed markings next to B64 on the ground. 

XCODRS note the structures that sick up are too tall.

Gate signs on terminal are in the wrong spot, should be directly above the gates, also note that gates 61 and 59 are now gates, those structures in front of the gates have been replaced with actual gates and are being used for any airplane from a CRJ200 to a 737.

Also, the interior is completely incorrect. There are no moving walkways and there are large bathrooms on the south side of the finger and none of those chairs to the right should exist.  There is a united club cafe there and a large kiosk but no chairs as those would be blocking the only walkway. 

real life

Concourse C gates appear to be labeled wrong and in the wrong position

AI traffic assignments need to be further refined.  Perhaps radiuses decreased in the B62-71 area so that CRJs and E175s populate instead of 737s.  I'm also noticing a lot of non United at Concourse B,  Never had that issue with FlightBeam.  May need more remote stands so lesser frequenting airlines have a place to park instead of being forced to a united gate. Hopefully Beyond ATC takes care of this problem one day. Its also possible the developer is using SKW "SkyWest which I hate because it will populate Delta Connection, Alaska, and American Eagle as well.

Got some really bizzare stuff with the afcad.  so far I have only seen one traffic flow and that is the airplanes using 7 and 25 and 8 and 26 both directions at the same time so I think the developer needs to look at that. 

I also have a lot of strange behaviors like aircraft lining up then back taxxiing through the dirt and then taking off.  

 

There's also some gnarly bumps going out to 17L on ED. There a a nasty depressed area near the A20s on the north side.  

Overall pretty decent.  Just needs a little more work to be up there with flightbeam.  

Another thing I get is horrible stutters and jitters when using drone.  I was going to make a show case video but its not possible.

The performance is inconsistent and I think the interior needs to be quelled a bit. Note in the shot above I'm getting 35FPS with frame gen on a i713700 and 4080super.  Something is wrong.  I'm going to try re-installing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 20241 yr by aniiran

29 minutes ago, aniiran said:

I'm seeing quite a few inaccuracies on the exteriors.  I'll put together a list and send it to x-codrs,  everything should be easy to fix. 

1st: Gates B64-70 aren't quite right.  There should be a set of gray vents on each raised area,  I believe this houses the HVAC system.  Also the gate numbers on the terminal are in the wrong position. I'm guessing there was a lack of source photos. It's also possible this has changed in the last few months.  You can see they removed markings next to B64 on the ground. 

XCODRS

Gate signs on terminal are in the wrong spot, should be directly above the gates, also note that gates 61 and 59 are now gates, those structures in front of the gates have been replaced with actual gates and are being used for any airplane from a CRJ200 to a 737.

Concourse C gates appear to be labeled wrong and in the wrong position

AI traffic assignments need to be further refined.  Perhaps radiuses decreased in the B62-71 area so that CRJs and E175s populate instead of 737s.  I'm also noticing a lot of non United at Concourse B,  Never had that issue with FlightBeam.  May need more remote stands so lesser frequeting airlines have a place to park instead of being forced to a united gate. Hopefully Beyond ATC takes care of this problem one day. Its also possible the developer is using SKW "skywest which I hate because it will populate Delta Connectrion, Alaska, and American Eagle as well.

Got some really bizzare stuff with the afcad.  so far I have only seen one traffic flow and that is the airplanes using 7 and 25 and 8 and 26 both directions at the same time so I think the developer needs to look at that. 

I also have a lot of strange behaviors like aircraft lining up then back taxxiing through the dirt and then taking off.  

 

There's also some gnarly bumps going out to 17L on ED. There a a nasty depressed area near the A20s on the north side.  

Overall pretty decent.  Just needs a little more work to be up there with flightbeam.  

Another thing I get is horrible stutters and jitters when using drone.  I was going to make a show case video but its not possible.

The performance is inconsistent and I think the interior needs to be quelled a bit. Note in the shot above I'm getting 35FPS with frame gen on a i713700 and 4080super.  Something is wrong.  I'm going to try re-installing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the feedback! 

All the recent layout changes you've mentioned I'll get in the next update (not the current bug fix one). You're absolutely right, it's due to a lack of reference photos, so there's a ton of guess work. Photos like yours are invaluable 🙂.

Regarding concourse C gates: I'm not sure I see what you mean? The gate name, the ground markings, the jetway sign, and the terminal sign all agree, and they agree with what is shown in satellite imagery, and appear to agree with what your photo shows.

Regarding ramp sizes: I just checked this again, the sizes in my gate data are too small for a 737. But, I've repeatedly seen MSFS/traffic addons blatantly violate these (as you see here). I'll try excessively scaling these down, maybe they just have some inaccuracies in their checks...

Regarding airline positions: You may be right about needing remote stands so other traffic can overflow to those. There are common gates that currently have their codes unassigned, so one would expect they'd be used as overflow, but maybe the sim/addons need more.

Regarding AI traffic:
Airport flows are not defined by the airport, if MSFS makes poor choices, that's terrible, but sadly nothing I can do about it. 
I can say with absolute certainty, aircraft should never leave a paved surface. If they do, then either the AI pilot is broken, or there's something else going on. Do you have any addons installed that affect airport data, or the AI pilots?

Regarding bumps: As mentioned in this thread, the terrain issues on the north-west side of Concourse A have been fixed, the update has been sent to Orbx, and a patch was linked. I was not aware of the bumps on ED, but I do see them and will fix them, thank you. So sorry about those!

Regarding performance: That is definitely not in line with what I'd expect, on a 3090 and 7950x3d I get 70-80 with default aircraft and a mix of high-ultra settings. I'm guessing in addition to KDEN and tons of AI traffic, you're also running a very complex aircraft? Would you be willing to post what settings you are using? You may be able to drop your terrain level of detail to get a fair bit of performance back, without loosing much visually. Unfortunately stutters are due to MSFS constantly loading and unloading stuff, and until they implement a system that handles this better, there's not much I can do about this (short of removing tons of detail and using low resolution textures, which then defeats the whole point of the scenery...). I can look into providing a patch that reduces texture resolution significantly, I can't say how much that will help until I actually try it though...

 

 

X-Codrs,  If you need more photos, I will be in Denver for business on Thursday and Friday.  Let me know what you might need a picture of because Denver is huge and it might take me 20 minutes to get from point to point.  

The performance issue was caused by MSFS bumping up tlod to 400 after the last update with out my knowledge I also reverted DLSS version back to 3.7.0 from 3.7.10 now performance is good again.

I was able to force the AI aircraft to use the 35s.  I still see a lot of strange taxiing anomolies when crossing runways and lining up for take off the airplanes don't go straight they like taxi around the center node its very wierd but these could just be MSFS problems.

Let me know if you need any specific information regarding FSLTL aircraft sizes.

What I am seeing at C is that the position of the gate numbers should be directly above where the gate attaches to the terminal.  and the numbers appear to be wrong.  They probabaly reassigned them at some point.  Ill also get you a better picture of B57-59 and the interior of B62-71.

Overall a really good scenery.  i'm glad you are receptive to fixing these minor issues.

Also I forgot to mention. I have a tree exclusion for 10 miles around the airport.  but it's very targeted so it dosen't lose all the trees like flightbeam does.  You are welcome to incorporate it. It was originally made for Asobo Denver and Flightbeam Denver but works fine with your scenery.

https://flightsim.to/file/50266/denver-international-airport-tree-removal

14 hours ago, aniiran said:

I'm seeing quite a few inaccuracies on the exteriors.  I'll put together a list and send it to x-codrs,  everything should be easy to fix. 

1st: Gates B64-70 aren't quite right.  There should be a set of gray vents on each raised area,  I believe this houses the HVAC system.  Also the gate numbers on the terminal are in the wrong position. I'm guessing there was a lack of source photos. It's also possible this has changed in the last few months.  You can see they removed markings next to B64 on the ground. 

 

XCODRS note the structures that sick up are too tall.

 

Gate signs on terminal are in the wrong spot, should be directly above the gates, also note that gates 61 and 59 are now gates, those structures in front of the gates have been replaced with actual gates and are being used for any airplane from a CRJ200 to a 737.

 

Also, the interior is completely incorrect. There are no moving walkways and there are large bathrooms on the south side of the finger and none of those chairs to the right should exist.  There is a united club cafe there and a large kiosk but no chairs as those would be blocking the only walkway. 

 

real life

 

 

Concourse C gates appear to be labeled wrong and in the wrong position

 

AI traffic assignments need to be further refined.  Perhaps radiuses decreased in the B62-71 area so that CRJs and E175s populate instead of 737s.  I'm also noticing a lot of non United at Concourse B,  Never had that issue with FlightBeam.  May need more remote stands so lesser frequenting airlines have a place to park instead of being forced to a united gate. Hopefully Beyond ATC takes care of this problem one day. Its also possible the developer is using SKW "SkyWest which I hate because it will populate Delta Connection, Alaska, and American Eagle as well.

 

Got some really bizzare stuff with the afcad.  so far I have only seen one traffic flow and that is the airplanes using 7 and 25 and 8 and 26 both directions at the same time so I think the developer needs to look at that. 

I also have a lot of strange behaviors like aircraft lining up then back taxxiing through the dirt and then taking off.  

 

 

There's also some gnarly bumps going out to 17L on ED. There a a nasty depressed area near the A20s on the north side.  

Overall pretty decent.  Just needs a little more work to be up there with flightbeam.  

Another thing I get is horrible stutters and jitters when using drone.  I was going to make a show case video but its not possible.

The performance is inconsistent and I think the interior needs to be quelled a bit. Note in the shot above I'm getting 35FPS with frame gen on a i713700 and 4080super.  Something is wrong.  I'm going to try re-installing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also just for safety: Asobo KDEN is deleted, yes?

Edited June 25, 20241 yr by Fiorentoni

Is there any chance you can look at VRAM usage?

I have a RTX 4070 (12 GB) and play at 1440p with AI traffic and I maxed out on VRAM.

I have the FB version and dont max out on VRAM with all the same settings.

Edited June 25, 20241 yr by Danthepilot77

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Also just for safety: Asobo KDEN is deleted, yes?

I guess you guys don't realize I posted again right after with the last x-codr reply.

Edited June 25, 20241 yr by aniiran

Also, if anyone is interested, I have an ADE done for this scenery that has correct gate assigments.

25 minutes ago, Danthepilot77 said:

Also, if anyone is interested, I have an ADE done for this scenery that has correct gate assigments.

I'm interested,  where is it flightsim.to?

 

14 hours ago, X-Codr Designs said:

Thank you for the feedback! 

All the recent layout changes you've mentioned I'll get in the next update (not the current bug fix one). You're absolutely right, it's due to a lack of reference photos, so there's a ton of guess work. Photos like yours are invaluable 🙂.

 

Regarding ramp sizes: I just checked this again, the sizes in my gate data are too small for a 737. But, I've repeatedly seen MSFS/traffic addons blatantly violate these (as you see here). I'll try excessively scaling these down, maybe they just have some inaccuracies in their checks...

Regarding airline positions: You may be right about needing remote stands so other traffic can overflow to those. There are common gates that currently have their codes unassigned, so one would expect they'd be used as overflow, but maybe the sim/addons need more.

Regarding AI traffic:
Airport flows are not defined by the airport, if MSFS makes poor choices, that's terrible, but sadly nothing I can do about it. 
I can say with absolute certainty, aircraft should never leave a paved surface. If they do, then either the AI pilot is broken, or there's something else going on. Do you have any addons installed that affect airport data, or the AI pilots?

Regarding bumps: As mentioned in this thread, the terrain issues on the north-west side of Concourse A have been fixed, the update has been sent to Orbx, and a patch was linked. I was not aware of the bumps on ED, but I do see them and will fix them, thank you. So sorry those!

Also, with ramp sizes the only sizes that need to be changed are the inside in the tight alleyway at B62-70.  Those are all E175 or CRJs, on the other side it is fine to have 737s and A320s. so maybe you can experiment with the inside.  

I totally get it. FSLTL parking assingments are is an exact science, it requires a lot of tweaking.   

Again, it's a great scenery.

5 hours ago, aniiran said:

X-Codrs,  If you need more photos, I will be in Denver for business on Thursday and Friday.  Let me know what you might need a picture of because Denver is huge and it might take me 20 minutes to get from point to point.  

The performance issue was caused by MSFS bumping up tlod to 400 after the last update with out my knowledge I also reverted DLSS version back to 3.7.0 from 3.7.10 now performance is good again.

I was able to force the AI aircraft to use the 35s.  I still see a lot of strange taxiing anomolies when crossing runways and lining up for take off the airplanes don't go straight they like taxi around the center node its very wierd but these could just be MSFS problems.

Let me know if you need any specific information regarding FSLTL aircraft sizes.

What I am seeing at C is that the position of the gate numbers should be directly above where the gate attaches to the terminal.  and the numbers appear to be wrong.  They probabaly reassigned them at some point.  Ill also get you a better picture of B57-59 and the interior of B62-71.

Overall a really good scenery.  i'm glad you are receptive to fixing these minor issues.

Also I forgot to mention. I have a tree exclusion for 10 miles around the airport.  but it's very targeted so it dosen't lose all the trees like flightbeam does.  You are welcome to incorporate it. It was originally made for Asobo Denver and Flightbeam Denver but works fine with your scenery.

https://flightsim.to/file/50266/denver-international-airport-tree-removal

Thank you for the offer! Might have to send you a DM and take you up on that 😄.

Great to hear that terrain LOD was the issue! I've had that happen as well.

It's certainly possible my taxi routes are not as smooth as they could be - FWIW in X-Plane we have very simple routes and the AI are "smart" enough to turn correctly (ironically more complex routes make them taxi much worse), and I applied that same methodology here. MSFS may be different given it's much simpler AI system. I'll definitely do some experimenting and see if I can do anything to make taxiing better/smoother.

Ah yes I see what you mean about the gate numbers now. I'll get those in the feature update.

Thank you for your work and sharing this tree patch! I can certainly mention and link to your file in the manual, looks like it's a fantastic improvement.

2 hours ago, Danthepilot77 said:

Is there any chance you can look at VRAM usage?

I have a RTX 4070 (12 GB) and play at 1440p with AI traffic and I maxed out on VRAM.

I have the FB version and dont max out on VRAM with all the same settings.

Is your performance still OK? MSFS generally does a good job of paging VRAM, but I may make available a patch to halve the texture resolutions for those that need it/prefer it.

6 minutes ago, X-Codr Designs said:

Is your performance still OK? MSFS generally does a good job of paging VRAM, but I may make available a patch to halve the texture resolutions for those that need it/prefer it.

I've been struggling with VRAM maxxing as well turning it into a stutter fest. 5800X3D, 4080 Super (so 16GB VRAM) at 4k resolution. This combo has been able to take pretty much any airport but definitely having issues here. If it's not too much work providing that option would be appreciated.

Edited June 25, 20241 yr by Andrew2448

34 minutes ago, Andrew2448 said:

I've been struggling with VRAM maxxing as well turning it into a stutter fest. 5800X3D, 4080 Super (so 16GB VRAM) at 4k resolution. This combo has been able to take pretty much any airport but definitely having issues here. If it's not too much work providing that option would be appreciated.

Thank you for letting me know, I'll go ahead and get to work on that 👍. I'll let you know when it's available.

2 hours ago, X-Codr Designs said:

Thank you for the offer! Might have to send you a DM and take you up on that 😄.

Great to hear that terrain LOD was the issue! I've had that happen as well.

It's certainly possible my taxi routes are not as smooth as they could be - FWIW in X-Plane we have very simple routes and the AI are "smart" enough to turn correctly (ironically more complex routes make them taxi much worse), and I applied that same methodology here. MSFS may be different given it's much simpler AI system. I'll definitely do some experimenting and see if I can do anything to make taxiing better/smoother.

Ah yes I see what you mean about the gate numbers now. I'll get those in the feature update.

Thank you for your work and sharing this tree patch! I can certainly mention and link to your file in the manual, looks like it's a fantastic improvement.

Is your performance still OK? MSFS generally does a good job of paging VRAM, but I may make available a patch to halve the texture resolutions for those that need it/prefer it.

I don’t know if performance is good because it’s hard to get a good read on fps cause I’m out of vram. A friend of mine has a similar system, he uses 1080p and sounds like it’s good.

i know the 1440p puts me over the limit but i have a 1440p monitor and im kinda forced to stay at 1440. If there’s any way you could reduce some vram that would be great. Like I said, I don’t have vram issues at FB Denver.