The tools exist to compare default FSX models with 3rd party FSX models.http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attachmen...40&d=1204907914Here are some 'hard numbers' for two FSX default models and the recent Navion freeware release that Rich and I collaborate on. Note especially that the Navion not only has fewer drawcalls, the total number of Texture Verticies is only 37.5% of the Maule's... ...this is the power of "optimization" at work! :-beerchughttp://img176.imageshack.us/img176/592/dra...mparisonte9.jpg

Of course tools exist Bill and you know we've used them to evaluate where a project can be further optimized.User expectations are unrealistic if the expectation is that counting polys and draw calls will be used in a consumer advocacy/watchdog role.Really folks, you can't break a project down with such a simplistic approach and it is unfair because Project A will of neccessity be more complex than Project B even from the same producer.Many folks eyes gloss over with tech discussions while other see an opportunity to disclose their latest discovery as the new "standard" by which everything should be judged. Folks, this stuff cannot be tied up in a neat little easily accomplished package for everyone to chew on:-)

My credentials are well known. I speak in terms well understood by developers. If you are one, you understand me.

Bent, the lightening up should include you. I am offended by your attack on my credibility earlier.<Anyone who could write that has no business counselling others to "lighten up". Doctor heal thyself.Bob

YEAH! Here I am thinking, what did I do this time!Regards,Mike T.

Are we saying that a certain payware 747-400 is bloated with 32 bit textures and a massive number of drawcalls?That would certainly explain the poor performance. I nearly purchased this one a few months back but after seeing it run on a freinds setup I decided against it. It literally eats FPS, even more so than the 767-300 which is about my limit for performance degredation.

Attack on your credibility? What credibility do you have I never heard an answer and you my friend where doing that yourself. The pot calling the kettle black. Either way I'm not anything but lightened up I just found it kinda funny how you question how much they know when I know both Bill and Michael know what they are talking about and an unknown person, yourself, shows up saying they don't know what they are talking about. Hence the reason I said what I did. And btw it wasn't an attack on your credibility as much as it was on your common sense.

see the next post

I never said Bill doesn't know what he's talking about...silly person. Reread the posts....lol The problem with this thread is that Bill wanted to share his knowledge and the OP asked him not to. And then...in the vacuum of Bill's absense, trivial nonsense began to appear over what designers intentions are, and they should do this and not do that, based on simplistic understanding. If you'll note, Bill's posts add to mine, we together constructed new knowledge for the non-informaed about vertex fracturing. Do you think a resume is more important than ideas? You'd reject good thinking unless it came from the mouth of someone on your "good list"? I've no doubt that Michael Greenblatt could teach me more than most folks about computers, and if he was of a mind too, I'd listen. But not just because he's Michael Greenblatt...but because knowledgeable people make sense, their contributions jell. I recently enjoyed massive improvements in my own computer based on the input of a guy I've never heard of. I followed his advise, because I judged it logical. Many others have advised and I didn't follow their advice...why? Not based on differing fame levels. No...because if you hear solid knowledge you know it. Having said that, if Michael wished to learn about modelling, I'd be happy to teach him. The root issue here, I suspect is that you have to know something about a subject before you can sort out sense from non-sense. I'm accustomed to conversing with folks astute to developers issues. This thread was constructed by non-developers asserting half-knowledge about developement. But......if you aren't a developer yourself, you might not recognize the half-knowledge for what it was. Thus your objection...and...further, its more fun if you can poke at some ol' lazy designer for your troubles. Its less fun to accept that folks learn at their own pace, every designer is just a person in the learning process, everyone wants to do well, and you'll always get a varied level of results, and you, the customer, will just have to live with that.B

The 'Gentlemen' who have handled this thread so diplomatically, and firmly on it's rails, so to speak. Make me feel very proud to be a member of the AVSIM forum and the owner of some of their awesome products. Although the science of what has been discussed is way above my head, I went a 'Googling' and managed to find a very short visual explanation, of the type of work environment that the previously mentioned league of 'Gentlemen' might happen to work in.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7460359.stmWithout being patronising, those MSFS 3PD's that produce such high quality add-ons, for the selling price that they ask, absolutely amaze me. And, if I may add, MSFS is what it is, because of them;AN EXQUISITE EXPERIENCE.

Yes you are correct Bill shared, as he noted, an overly simplific overview of how things work. The OP did not ask him to stop sharing, he asked him not to make this a technical discussion, in which would go over people's heads. At least that's what I got from it. And as far as a vacuum appearing in Bill's absense is simply non-sense as the thread, for the most part, was following along with Michael's responses/ideas/critiques etc. But neither here nor there.Do I think a resume is more important than ideas? Only in the light that someone like yourself, sir, shows up to share the godly undoubtfully excellent knowledge of all the inner workings of flight simulator. I do not have a 'good list' and where you got this impression I'm not sure, that is unless you feel left out because I agree with pretty much everything posted except certain examples in which you posted, which had no answer, no "scientific" sense as you said, or no explaination except your own. So if you consider that a good list then yes, I only agree with people on my good list.Michael has been a really good friend to me the last few years, and he could teach everyone more about their computers than what they think, including the 'know it alls'. Michael understands what the simulator and computer are trying to do and can finely tune them with the best. But this is a non-issue before it turns into flame bait. Now you make the arguement that you know solid knowledge when you hear it, but the sad thing is, if you half read threads like you have in this one I don't see how you can understand anything you read. The thread starts off talking about texture sizes and you start talking about modeling? I dunno maybe it's just myself misreading your intentions.I'm well aware of developer issues, texture issues, hardware issues, operating issues, and user issues. I fully understand what each and every post was about and what people where talking about along with the supposed 'half truths' you speak of. If you are referring to any of my posts, I would like to know how my personal experience and my opinion is considered a half truth when in doubt it is full truth if there is such a thing on how I feel about the overview of developers and the community in general. And just to clarify things one more time for you, I agreed with everyone but certain parts you have talked about, which funny enough once called on it you become defensive talking about how myself particularly either 1, doesn't know anything 2, doesn't agree with anyone or 3, objections? And to clarify even further, I don't have a single issue with my flight sim, besides some bad texturing practices by certain teams, or certain people on those teams, certain freeware developers or whatnot. Which I know how to fix and have fixed. Other than that I would like to see a person that is as happy if not happier with their sim as I am, so I don't base my "troubles" on developers in general, I know exactly who to blame when a plane doesn't preform like it should within the sim, and no I'm not talking about running at 100 frames per second. I'm talking about flat out performance all together.Well I guess to clarify one more time for you, I don't expect people to instantly know everything about everything, it's impossible and will never happen. People acceptably develop, learn, and addapt to changes at their own paces and duely so. But when the thread was started, once again, it was to point something out to the devs both freeware and payware to help them hopefully learn something, or recognize something, or maybe work on things a bit differently. Oh and the last thing, the comment you made about, "you, the customer, will just have to live with that", is pure idiocracy. That is the exact attitude that some developers have taken, and is the exact reason I don't purchase from them anymore, and is the exact reason that eventually will fade into the darkness. Customers vote with their wallets, as you and Michael have commented on in this thread, and you are 100% righton that fact, as a customer I don't have to live with anything I don't like. And many people once they are bit once do not return to the developers that make poorly performing planes regardless of the issues.Now I shall bow out of this thread this time around, as this isn't getting us anywhere and your backhanded complements, and personal attacks are becoming a bit boring quite frankly. In jest, if you wish to hold a conversation any further about this you can continue without merit. Ad praesens ova cras pullis sunt meliora

I also retire from this silly thread...let the cutain fall on such lengthy blather and self serving non-sense.

M that is so George Carlin! It's all so true, so . . . well said!Noel

>e.g.>Given that 1,000 drawcalls >is the recommended drawcall budget for the entire viewport.>>Assuming you're flying from the VC.>>Is > 70MB textures plus > 200 drawcalls,>for the user aircraft alone,>acceptable for single player ?No a/c model, regardless of size should require > 80 drawcalls...Total texture load should be no > 50MB...