Nice X - Request Patch, Suggestion or Refund

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Has anyone tried Nvidia looking for new drivers? A new set for the GForce 8 series was released last month.

I heard they have some problems to co-operate with nHancer, so I'm still staying with my a bit aging drivers set.

[RemarkH 80]

I heard they have some problems to co-operate with nHancer, so I'm still staying with my a bit aging drivers set.

Thank you for the tip, but I don't use nHancer.

Servus, Remark

[cmpbllsjc 2]

Yeah, it's not the drivers or nHancer settings. Tried a variety of settings aside from my normal settings. I tried combined and supersampling and also tried with in game AA and a few different settings. No change.

It's the lack of mips and/or the design, but guessing more of a mipping issue.

Or as they say it the indian not the arrow, the indian beging Nice X.

Look guys. This is really simple. If there were problems with our settings FSX would look bad everywhere and at all our add on airports. In my case, the world looks great except at Nice. Plain and simple. No different setting in nHancer or drivers are going to make up for the fact that the aiport doesn't have a lot of mip mapping, its as easy as that.

Why do FSDT and FlyTampa products look so good and this one not? When you open up their work there is a lot of mips.

I don't know if it's because the scenery was developed by the same guy who also did Madeira X. I know a lot of people had issues with these problems there as well.

WIth that being said, I would like to hear from someone here at Aerosoft to discuss what the next course of action is. I really want to get this airport looking as good as all the rest of my airports so I can start using it.

BTW, has anyone notified Peter that things are still not right? I hope he is checking back here.

If not someone will have to send him a PM.

[tulma 4]

I totaly agree.

I think that this addon was not correctly tested. Now, Aerosoft must find a solution quicly.

[Flusipeter 24]

Hello,

we did not see these problems with us to so substantial. The testers likewise not!

Many users and also I see gladly high-dissolved textures, which would look indistinct through mipmaps. With suitable diagram maps and appropriate attitudes is this also no problem!

I but understand also, which you would like!

I could manufacture for users, who like rather the softer and more indistinct, an appropriate texture set with mipmaps.

Am I to make that?

Want their that?

Regards

[macroth72 38]

Am I to make that?

Want their that?

Hello Peter! Thank's for your reply. I think this would be the best solution for all, to provide an optional set of files. So everyone can decide which to use. So all people which are concerned with the shimmering problems can use the new files and the rest stays default. Maybe this could also be done for other sceneries affected by this kind of problems...

thank's!!

[tulma 4]

Hello Peter! Thank's for your reply. I think this would be the best solution for all, to provide an optional set of files. So everyone can decide which to use. So all people which are concerned with the shimmering problems can use the new files and the rest stays default. Maybe this could also be done for other sceneries affected by this kind of problems...

thank's!!

I think too it's would be the best solution. If you can make it, I agree of course. thank you for That

[RemarkH 80]

Am I to make that?

Want their that?

Hello Peter,

if that means, that the balance of flickering, sharpness and FPS would be similar to sceneries of e.g. GAP, FSDT, Simwings

I would be very glad if you would do this!

Servus, Remark

[cmpbllsjc 2]

Sounds good Peter thank you so much for helping us. I was really concerned that we were going to get left high and dry as they say.

To be honest though, other sceneries that I have by FSDreamteam and FlyTampa that have a lot of mip maps from the start, I have never noticed any less texture quality as far as sharpness goes.

Either way, I appreciate that you are going to continue to work to make this better for us. That really says a lot.

Thanks again.

One last thing just to be sure, the flickering is on almost everything, the ground, terminals, hangers, buildings, parking lots, basically every structure. Also the lights on the poles flicker and night.

[sundance70 0]

Hello,

we did not see these problems with us to so substantial. The testers likewise not!

Many users and also I see gladly high-dissolved textures, which would look indistinct through mipmaps. With suitable diagram maps and appropriate attitudes is this also no problem!

I but understand also, which you would like!

I could manufacture for users, who like rather the softer and more indistinct, an appropriate texture set with mipmaps.

Am I to make that?

Want their that?

Regards

Thanks for fixing this Peter.

Regards,

David

[RemarkH 80]

One last thing just to be sure, the flickering is on almost everything, the ground, terminals, hangers, buildings, parking lots, basically every structure. Also the lights on the poles flicker and night.

The only place where I feel the flickering seems to be bearable, are the runway-textures and the white runway-lines (not the yellow lines!).

But that's my personal opinion, and I don't know how other users are thinking about that.

Remark

@Sean

please excuse me hijacking your post!

[tulma 4]

Any news ?

[mr-otin 7]

Hello,

Has anyone of you ever tried to reset the driver to the default settings? The profile that you are currently use can be saved under Profile --> Save. Reset to standard settings and see what happens. When it's looking good, set up higher and higher and find the best solution. This is sometimes better as then you play around in the settings of FSX (or any other game/software). Each system is different even if it is identical in the system specification due to OS patches, drivers, software, etc.

Just my 2 cents

regards Dave

[RemarkH 80]

Just my 2 cents

This would be not 2 cents but as best less than 1 cent, because nobody wants to change his optimized settings only for a landing at Nice

Servus, Remark

[Flusipeter 24]

Hello flightsimmer,

the anti-flicker-update should be made available now soon.

Still another info: If one regards the inteference between fs-representation and monitor pixel during the flight (During completely exact view), then "flicker" with me even the autogenous objects. That is absolutely normal and from there is "Flackern" to get never completely away - it is, the monitor has no more pixels.

Up to the fs-conference in Paderborn!

[cmpbllsjc 2]

Hello,

Has anyone of you ever tried to reset the driver to the default settings? The profile that you are currently use can be saved under Profile --> Save. Reset to standard settings and see what happens. When it's looking good, set up higher and higher and find the best solution. This is sometimes better as then you play around in the settings of FSX (or any other game/software). Each system is different even if it is identical in the system specification due to OS patches, drivers, software, etc.

Just my 2 cents

regards Dave

I have to agree with Remark on this. There is no way I am going to fiddle with my settings in my video card or FSX just to make one scenery work when every other addon airport I own looks great the way it is. My FSX, drivers, and operating system have all been set and optimized by a thrid party that specializes in setting up FSX and FS9 systems. If there were problems they would manifest them in other aiports and sceneries beside just one.

[cmpbllsjc 2]

<br />Hello flightsimmer,<br /><br />the anti-flicker-update should be made available now soon. <br /><br />Still another info: If one regards the inteference between fs-representation and monitor pixel during the flight (During completely exact view), then &quot;flicker&quot; with me even the autogenous objects. That is absolutely normal and from there is &quot;Flackern&quot; to get never completely away - it is, the monitor has no more pixels.  <img src='http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />  <br /><br />Up to the fs-conference in Paderborn!  <img src='http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Peter,

Thanks for the update.

The flicker we are getting is only from the Nice aiport and its contents not any autogen outside of the airport package. Hopefully when you are done the flickering will be cured on all the buildings, terminals, ground tiles, lines/markings, vehicles, etc.

I do have another question while I am at it. Do you the developer or Aerosoft plan to implement the use of LOD techniques like FSDreamteam and a few others do in future aiports. What I mean by LOD techniques is the way they make certain objects only appear when you get a certain distance from them. A good example is FSDreamteams Zurich and Geneva. When you fly into or around those aiports lots of objects like ground vehicles, jetways, and other objects disappear when you get a certain distance away from them to save FPS by not trying to render something you cant really see very well anyway. I can tell you that it works very well. As a test I flew into Zurich which is a much bigger and more complex aiport than Nice X, with clear sky and no traffic and can get about 40 to 50 FPS. Using the same settings and aircraft I tried the same test with Nice X and get about 20 FPS since all the object appear to be rendering or trying to.

I'm not a big fan of Imaginsims aiports, but I just got their version of KATL, Atlanta, today, and it also has the same LOD techniques working for it as well. It's a very big aiport and I get about 40 FPS around it using the same test I did with FSDreateams Zurich and Nice X.

One last question Peter. I noticed that a lot of aiports that work very well on my computer like FlyTampa and FSDreamteam use .dds files for their textures instead on regular BMP files. What is the advantage or difference in using .dds files rather than BMP files for textures? I know that in FS9 it was BMP for textures, but it seems that in FSX more and more developers are using .dds rather than BMP. Can you explain the difference to me and which is better.

Thanks Peter.

[Flusipeter 24]

Hello,

I use LODs with many objects, not with all. The LODs is in such a way selected that one does not see a disappearance. LODs have perhaps also disadvantages, which cannot explain in the context of the forum.

DDS are a little bit faster worked on by Direct X than BMP. The difference to BMP is only maginal.

With 2D-Objekten, which lie on the ground, it is to be used however better with BMPs. Also here I cannot give detailed Informatonen in the context of the forum.

The problems to LODs and DDS/BMP are us well-known and we try the best out to take. Nice is very complex and one can as airlinepilot the scenery density reduce, then details are switched off, that are even better than LODs.

I hope, I could express itself with my small English knowledge understandably?

[cmpbllsjc 2]

Thanks Peter for the reply and yes I understand your English well. Good thing you don't ask me to speak German

[Jon Murchison 18]

I've read all of this topic with interest having just received Nice V1.01 for review so I am assuming that I have the version with some of the fixes? I had only taken a quick look after install to make sure everything was in order so loaded it again a few minutes ago after finishing reading this topic and can confirm the same 'flicker' issue as others.

Overall Nice looks great (the lack of animated air bridges is a disappointment though) but the visual anomaly does make it a little hard on the eyes after awhile. I look forward to seeing what the outcome is and if the texture pack mentioned above resolves things.

Personally I certainly wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water and not fly to/from Nice as a result, but it is odd that Nice is the only add-on by any developer I have that has this type of visual anomaly.

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello Jon,

You must note thought that this is mainly an Issue with Nvidia cards as the vast majority of people who see this okay have ATI cards.

Any updates should be available at the FAQs/Updates Section at www.aerosoft.com

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

I've read all of this topic with interest

Hey, Jon! And I've noticed your name with interest.

Sorry for off-topicing but I must tell you I really enjoyed flying your BAe's (though it was a long time ago)!

Nice to see you are around.

I'm sending greetings to the place where people walk upside down...

Once again sorry for OT.

[cmpbllsjc 2]

Peter,

I forgot to ask you if you could also resize these textures down from 2048X2048 to 1024X1024. As big as they are now at 4.0 MB when you add mip maps to them the grow to over 5MB.

The textures I am requsting you resize to 1024X1024 are below.

LFMN_terminal2_int_LM.dds

LFMN_terminal2_int.dds

LFMN_terminal2_ext_LM.dds

LFMN_terminal2_ext.dds

LFMN_RadarTower_LM.dds

LFMN_RadarTower.dds

LFMN_HangarGroup1_LM.dds

LFMN_HangarGroup1.dds

LFMN_Buildings20b_LM.dds

LFMN_Buildings20b.dds

LFMN_buildings20a_LM.dds

LFMN_buildings20a.dds

You could even resize the terminal2_int.dds and terminal2_int_LM.dds to 512X512 since they appear to be the interior textures. Since we dont spend much time on the inside of these terminals, the loss of a little quality wouldn't matter much and would further help to get us a little more overhead.

Thanks in advance.

[cmpbllsjc 2]

Peter, I have another issue with this aiport and am wondering if there is a memory leak from a missing texture or something.

Here is the problem. When I take off from the aiport the default ground textures start to get really blurry after a few seconds. Also the FPS remain pretty low no matter which direction I look. If I look away from the airport I get about 20 FPS and looking at the airport I get about 13 to 18 FPS. This is also with all AI turned off and weather set to clear.

If I disable Nice X, I am back to 50 to 70 FPS and no ground texture blurring.

I also disabled Ultimate Terrain Europe to make sure that is not causing a problem with Nice X, but it didn't make a difference.

Today, I did a fresh install of the product to make sure that I wasn't missing a texture from the original install, but the problem with low FPS and ground texture blurring outside the airport still remain.

Peter, I have to say I am totally stumped with this airport. I have addon airports from a variety of developers, including German Airports 2 from Aerosoft. of which many are a lot bigger and more detailed than this airport and I dont have any of the issues with such low FPS and ground texture blurring as I do with this airport.

I have gotten to the point where I would just about be willing to hire someone who is either a developer of aiports and sceneries and have them take a look inside of the construction of this airport and see if they can tell me where the problem lies. I almost feel that this aiport has turned into a do it yourself project to get rid of the flickering and now to diagnose the low FPS and performance issues.

I made a post over on another board about this, so if you read other message boards beside this one don't bother replying to my message there.

Thanks for the help. I look forward to hearing back from you.

BTW, you may want to have someone who speaks French have a look at the French forum here since it looks like a few people over there are having some problems as well.

[limp 29]

I'll check out the french forum