Texture sizes

[ramsa329 0]

Which vaccuum would that be Bill?I really hope you are not referring to me.Look I hold you in respect but don't expect me to worship the ground you walk on, because plain fact is I don't.I deal with almost 2000 clients in my work on flight simulators and I don't like being treated by you or anyone else with such a lack of respect which I'm sure doesn't bother you that much since you obviously feel very safe and secure in your "forum".Although in my world it might be different.I encounter problems daily with people from all over the world who are trying to fly FSX with success and whether you like it or not these questions were not "front loaded" or any other "loaded".They come from actual field experience and years of doing this and not only with FSX.Sorry if I had already heard what you were posting and wanted to take it somewhere else. But you would have to believe me a fool (which apparently you do) to do what I do and not read every post and study every report concerning FSX over and over again.Otherwise I and my business could not survive.Apparently there are some people here who simply can't grasp that I actually CARE about my client's money and their sim experience and I actually believe that things can be improved for everyone.I have seen some of the best developers in the business who invested hours and risked their livelihoods suffer because of lack of sales in FSX even when their product could actually help performance.and I don't need to hear from Bob Bernstein about how sales would be hurt.Because Mr Bernstein sales already are hurt.So many myths and misconceptions exist regarding FSX that the odor of failure has pervaded this sim from day 1 and most of it was built and reinforced in forums.The person who should have seen this coming was me and you know what Bill I did. I knew that it would get personalized with sly innuendo like that vacuum remark of yours and Bernstein's remarks.That's the daily bread in the forums and I am not such an idiot that I didn't know this going in after all it's one of the reasons that even though I love FSX and simming and computers that I very rarely post.I would loooooooooooooooooove to get you and your machine in a one on one some day.maybe then you'd learn to respect someone who has devoted their life and livelihood to simming.Good night to all and to all a good night

[N2056 33]

Wow!

[bob.bernstein 0]

I've not been impolite to you, I can only imagine that you are a frustrated person. I have nothing against you, Ramses. Oddly the reverse seems not to be the case.Peace be with you, Bill's a good guy too. His only point is the only way to have developers improve is to teach...which Bill was trying to do before you stopped him. Of course he's completely right.Anything outside of teaching will do little except make you feel heard.<>I must say this is the strangest comment I've read in a long time. Good night to you & play nice.Cheers,Bob

[Guest UlfB]

>I deal with almost 2000 clients in my work on flight>simulators and I don't like being treated by you or anyone>else with such a lack of respect which I'm sure doesn't bother>you that much since you obviously feel very safe and secure in>your "forum".Ramsa,Obviously you represent a commercial interest here on avsim. I would very much appreciate that you use your tag to inform me and other forum members what commercial interest you represent.Ulf B

[ramsa329 0]

Ramses was an Egyptian Pharoah.Third King of the 19th Dynasty. One of Egypt's most prolific rulers; He ruled for 67 years, lived to be over 90 years old, had many wives and somewhere between 100 and 200 children. I am ramsa which is altogether different. Please take note of this because in most societies continually addressing someone improperly when given every chance to address them properly is a no no. LOLI have nothing against you either Bob or against Bill. I have stated over and over and over that I have a deep respect for him and for his knowledge.and of course you think Bill is "right" he appears to agree with you and he's a "good" guy whatever that means.I've never met the man personally and have no idea if he's "good" or not so that platitude just goes on by me.If you were or are involved with development for FSX then that statement about losing money on FSX wouldn't seem so strange.But I find your position and your opinions to be some of the strangest I've ever heard also.You read Mike's post as though he said that we should only use stock planes and conveniently skipped or very briefly objected to all his other points.and he never said any such thing and by doing so you negated any teaching he was doing.I'll openly admit I wanted to stop Bill from a change in forums but not because of what he said but rather how he was saying it.In my field we have people who don't know where the fsx.cfg is or where the scenery.cfg is let alone know anything about texture calls.They want to know why their beloved 747 doesn't perform as well as "other" planes even when they have just spent a lot of money on the "best" equipment out there and done every tweak imaginable including Nick N and fs-gs.I may be wrong but I don't belive that very many people would have gone to another forum filled with such tech speak simply because they don't know what the heck anyone is talking about and may not even feel comfortable being there.I wanted this in their eyes.and in a language they could understand not quotes from ACES which to many people are just this side of Chinese.I understand your point that the developers will do as they wish and will compete against each other rather than set parameters and share those.But I wanted to illustrate the possible pitfalls to the day to day consumer. Oh and by the way I am frustrated so thank you for noticing.Now if we could get everybody else frustrated then there's a good chance that eventually we'll start getting some action or at least some noise.and then maybe someone as important to this community as Bill will really be able to "teach" and explain what went wrong or right.But it's late and my wife and friends already think I went too hard on Bill in my previous post and in my business I need her support.Oh and Bob I admit I get frustrated and even a little angry when I think that such statements as "front loaded" and "vacuum" are directed at me or a post that I started.Seems a little passive aggressive and dare I say it "frustrated". LOLGood Night Bob Sweet dreams.

[ramsa329 0]

Ulf B,I really didn't want to go there but Oh well.www.fs-gs.comLet the games begin !!!

[Guest -BeNt-]

You don't even understand the point of this thread. And who exactly are you to say these guys don't know what they are talking about? What are your credentials versus theirs? What credentials do they have? I don't know neither do you, for all you know these guys are the developers, Bill I know for a fact is one of them, Ramsa runs a long standing flight sim business, what is it that you do exactly?And this thread has nothing to do with get excellent quickly, it started out as a "hey guys this is what I noticed this is what think what do you think type of thread", opened for discussion and quickly got took off topic upon your arrival to the thread, as well as me feeding into you. As Ramsa did I will now bow out of this thread since obviously you aren't going to listen or comprehend anyone else's input, unless of course they 110% agree with you.Boiled down, this thread isn't about how many poly's are in a model, it isn't about a specific designer, it isn't about what we 'think' is happening, it is about what one person, along with a couple others have experienced. This also isn't a discussion of personal attacks nor is it a discussion on the fine art of making high poly count planes, with great looking textures. It's about the mis-appropriation of resources that would better not only the customers of third party vendors/developers but the customers they serve to better the sim experience for all. But some people are too stubborn, even if they know there is a better way, to acknowledge that fact move on and make the changes they need to make future products better. Seems some people think the sim should be design around their airplanes and thats how they build their products.

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

Generalizations are going to cover far more developers in tar with the same brush, and the term loaded questions could as well have been added to the phrasing of the original post, pole results are influenced by how the question is written and the question set shows bias.That there is room for improvement is beyond question and that is effective only where new models are concerned , given your wish to educate the consumer & developer alike i am surprised at the disrespect you show Bill

[Guest UlfB]

Michael Greenblatt,Thanks for the info, but you should give info about this in a tag, as this is a none commercial forum.Ulf B

[ramsa329 0]

I agree it was stupid of me to lose my temper and of course to not apply my signature.I apologize to all concerned especially to Bill.Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com

[bob.bernstein 0]

Ahhh, now we know you are Michael Greenblatt. I've heard much about you, mostly postitive.You are known to have deep knowledge of computers, and how they interact with flightsim. I have also read from your customers reviews that you have a temper, and are somewhat of a "your way or the highway" kind of person. Now I have my own interaction to reflect on.Welcome. Its seemingly hard for you to view the world from my shoes, I do understand your starting point, but my many years of providing addon content for fs have provided me a different sense for the relationship between the core sim and the addons that sell. The conflict between performance and addon complexity and design choices is not at all new for fsx. Do you believe this is all new? FSX added a new level of complexity because much change was overlaid over peoples previous knowledge, but the same issues in a general sense have faced us all ever since Airport and SEE4 in fs version 4.For as long as I remember, developers have been able to add content that would bring any version to its knees. And we have all been guilty of that. Most of us are single proprieters and we have only our own machine and our beta testers machines to gauge performance on. I've only produced scenery, so it may feel different developing for aircraft, but I can say that scenery just gets cooler and cooler as you add more and more content, objects, animations, extra conditional events. And the top products reviewed (which I assume to be the best sellers also) are highly detailed and have always brought my fs performance to its knees, worse than my own work. The only reason to ever stop adding is performance. This is true no matter how wisely or foolishly I develop. This is why my focus on Mike Ts use of "default" aircraft strikes me as off base, as he is suggesting one stop prior to making it as cool as the developer knows how. That's not safe becuase you will lose sales to the developer that doesn't stop at the same point, especilly if both products run well on the developers computer. The biggest difference in the level of detail established in the default aircraft is they were all done by one company. There was not differentiable reward provided the designer of the c172 over the designer of the Baron, they were created as family members and sold as one package, fsx. Of course, if I learn a new concept that lets me develop more wisely, the door is open to more CONTENT...not more performance, as I'll tend to continue to add until my computer performance begins to strain.So, telling me that your customers wish my development was done like Real Air, tells me nothing, unless you tell me how Real Air does it. They aren't going to tell, and I wouldn't expect them too....its a comptetive landscape. Ok...is this equally greek to you? If so, its my last attempt. I make this effort only to re-start our communication. Perhaps this is for no real reason, but I've just heard your name enough to find it intriguing to chat with you.Best,Bob

[n4gix 4,947]

>I apologize to all concerned especially to Bill.Thank you. No harm was intended; nor was any done. I've developed a rather thick skin over the past few decades. Well, at least emotionally. Physically I seem to be suffering from "parchment skin" more and more. I can rip skin on my arms just by looking at it... ;)I would only add a few points of clarification/amplification to my previous post.My use of the the term "vacuum" was in reference to the uselessness of me authoring a post to no one in particular, containing a lot of detailed, technical information.It would be as silly as me lecturing to an empty auditorium...On the other hand, the term "front loaded" did in fact refer to some of your initial post. Beginning a "question" with a "conclusion" is in fact posing a "loaded" question:"...if their (sic) is no perceivable benefit and possibly detrimental side effects..."Nonetheless, I do believe that -overall- more light than heat has been generated by this discussion... ;)

[Ramasurinen 0]

Hi Bob. It's not Mike T, just Mike, well... Mike Johnson actually haha, but Mike will do. :)I'm happy to see this thread salvaged!To address your concerns about my last post I wasn't saying that developers should stop at the limits set by the default aircraft at all, nothing of the sort. I love the innovation you guys bring and I hope to bring some myself around the end of the year, as I'm working on my first FSX aircraft. All I was saying is that there are lessons to be learned from the default planes. People often use the words 'default aircraft' with an invisible snicker it seems, as if they're a joke, or not worth any attention, but from my perspective that's far from the case. Are 3rd party addons mostly better than the stuff Aces comes up with? Yeah, sometimes, but not always. It's a question of resources as it always has been. Aces can't afford to let one person on the team spend a year making a really sweet plane. I'm sure they'd love to though. They just do the best they can with the time they have. :)The value I see in the default planes is as a guide, because they really are quite incredibly well made from a performance vs visuals standpoint. Yes, they've always lacked a bit in functionality and I do understand that more complex gauges and interactions come at a cost, but when I'm concerned about performance I'm primarily concerned about the hit that external models have on fps. That's because I spend *all* of my time in multiplayer, as I mentioned before.For the end user who is a multiplayer fan (with the fastest system money can buy currently) it's a tad depressing to fly along with one of your friends and every time he passes in front of you with a lovely new addon aircraft your FPS heads straight into the single digits. With default aircraft you can be flying along with a whole squadron of friends and everyone gets decent fps. Why? Because Aces specifically planned for that situation when they laid out the resource limits for their planes.I've never been a fan of what I call the 'model train set' mentality when it comes to addon aircraft. I love great and highly detailed VCs and I fully accept the cost that comes with them, but when it comes to external models I look at them once and think "yup, looks like it should" and that's pretty much the last time I look at it unless making a video.I wasn't trying to give anyone a lecture about low poly modeling and waste of resources, but I did feel it was time to mention it as a problem. The fact is that FSX is *much* more demanding than FS9, certainly not news, but because of that I was hoping 3rd party developers would roll up their sleeves a bit and try to help the situation by getting clever with their own resource management for their addons. The reality is that most developers have gone the opposite direction, with really high poly counts and lots of big textures. I guess they feel if it works fine in singleplayer that's good enough. Unfortunately I get the feeling that multiplayer fans like myself and my friends kind of come in at the bottom of the list of priorities in the eyes of most developers. There are exceptions of course, and RealAir aren't the only ones, Aerosoft's Twin Otter is also an example of an aircraft that's fairly lean on resource requirements, and yet looks very good, but there are very few others.Unlike the FS9 days the hardware for FSX isn't going to catch up any time soon. In fact I think FS11 will be out (and hopefully highly performant!) before we see systems that can truly smack FSX down. Until then our performance is in the hands of 3rd party developers to some degree.And yeah, I fly default planes quite often, I love the thrill of 30 fps locked... everywhere... with a bunch of my friends on screen. :)Thanks,-mike

[virtualstuff 758]

>>But then again I don't know anything about GMAX only 3ds>max>>:-lol>>For all practical purposes, they are the same. GMax is simply>Max v3.5 lite... ;)>Bill maybe U missed my :-lol :-lol :-lol ;-) it was mend as funny remark towards myself (I'm aware of the history and the software)>Optimization of a model is not a simple process. It is the end>result of dozens of design decisions working in concert to>produce the best results with the least impact.>I only have a different experience and opinion here!>As it happens, there isn't any "one" technique that's best for>every project... :-lol So true and I never said that I have one approach hence I can even learn you a view new techniques and you can teach probably a view techniques to me for the same process? That's the beauty of sharing knowledge and to learn everyday... Have fun,http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Guest PPSFA]

HaldirThank you for posting that. I too am a multiplayer only user and I have to agree with you that as far as FSX is concerned, we are second class citizens, at least for now. As more and more users discover MP, Im sure the developers will take notice, as that market segment is constantly expanding and not addressing it will cost revenue.I have been watching this thread as a user. It's funny you mention the default planes, as I have just completed beta testing for one of FSX's premiere addons (no names). The overriding issue was how performance was affected by using higer res textures (not plane textures).I tested using some of my addon planes that I use constantly in MP, and saw no difference in performance, in fact it seemed to be improved slightly. I then got curious, since I dont fly the default planes much, but figured I should check them out as a comparision.To say I was shocked was an understatement. I tested in external view, zoomed out to max range from the rear of the plane looking forward, where the FPS hit always is the worst. Where I was getting 20-30 FPS with the addons, I consistantly got 30-50 FPS and even higher at times.I'm no developer, programmer, etc, but I can certainly add and subtract, and the difference I saw was astounding. It tells a story :-)XP Pro SP2-FSX SP2AMD FX60-8800GTS-2 Gigs RAMFEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuffComputer optomized by www.fs-gs.com