Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Stavanger X Preview

Recommended Posts

Said the man with 2x GTX580

Well if you take the hobby serious you have to be prepaired to invest not just time but money into it dry.gif Besides if your running 3 HD screens you need 2 580's :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Well if you take the hobby serious you have to be prepaired to invest not just time but money into it

Allways, and I do...

But it does not explain why the scenery is so demanding in regards to FPS? Or even if there is space to amend and correct it in future development right?

My best educated guess is that it has to much poly´s to go around, if so the developer needs to take a detail look into where he can efficiently narrow it down to increase

the overall performance.

I dunno of course know how the texture is resampled or even what the normal size is, but I found that texture scaling is a huge FPS gain in FSX.

Anyway, there are always difference in how sceneries are made and the quality of the end product, but I tend to favour performance over eye candy any day of the week.

An great example would be EGLL (London Heathrow) Better performance with UK2000 scenery, but far better eye candy with Aerosoft (no offence intended to either parties)

So, to conclude: My hopes and dreams lay in the making of and airport suite that are more focused on performance than beauty..... But that´s me right :)

Share this post


Link to post

So, to conclude: My hopes and dreams lay in the making of and airport suite that are more focused on performance than beauty..... But that´s me right :)

Simply put, graphics sell. Good frame rates also has a value in sales but far (faaaaaaar) behind how something looks. It's just not possible to do a commercial scenery products and sell it as "looking okay but being very fast'.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dag

The product would not be more than 'okay' until the developer learns the difference between double dotted apron safety lines and pattern A runway holding lines and what can in fact be parked outside of such a defined apron area. Ref the screenshot of the heli-dolly parked outside apron 10 which is shown with a pattern A RWY holding line(!) surround.

Share this post


Link to post

The product would not be more than 'okay' until the developer learns the difference between double dotted apron safety lines and pattern A runway holding lines and what can in fact be parked outside of such a defined apron area. Ref the screenshot of the heli-dolly parked outside apron 10 which is shown with a pattern A RWY holding line(!) surround.

Dag I'll gladly invite you in the beta program of course but let's not judge a project on previews okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Dag

Dag I'll gladly invite you in the beta program of course but let's not judge a project on previews okay?

I'll keep quiet. You would not want me on beta on my own workplace, neither would I.

Share this post


Link to post

I assume that the new gates they recently finished will be there?

can`t wait =D

Share this post


Link to post

Nice work, Jo Erlend. :)

Really looking forward to this one. :D

Cheers.

Stein-Ove

Share this post


Link to post

Hello everybody.

Will you all are waiting for the scenery is released. Here can you get all the Charts for most airports in norway. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Simply put, graphics sell. Good frame rates also has a value in sales but far (faaaaaaar) behind how something looks. It's just not possible to do a commercial scenery products and sell it as "looking okay but being very fast'.

And still it is senseless, no way around that. It IS possible to do a commercial scenery with options for better frame rates. And more should also be done, to assure the airport is up to date with the latest navaids changes, and that navaids are correct. I know a tiny bit about such, after making 30 FSX airports...

Before I buy these days, I therfore listen to the end-users of the scenery, not to salesmen or official reviews ;-)

I am eagerly awaiting this scenery, but rock-hard investigation will be done before purchasing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

And still it is senseless, no way around that. It IS possible to do a commercial scenery with options for better frame rates. And more should also be done, to assure the airport is up to date with the latest navaids changes, and that navaids are correct. I know a tiny bit about such, after making 30 FSX airports...

Before I buy these days, I therfore listen to the end-users of the scenery, not to salesmen or official reviews ;-)

I am eagerly awaiting this scenery, but rock-hard investigation will be done before purchasing.

I think that Aerosoft's trackrecord more than proves you've got nothing to worry about in both performance as well as in visual excellentie.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that Aerosoft's trackrecord more than proves you've got nothing to worry about in both performance as well as in visual excellentie.

Trackrecords proves nothing to me. Absolutely nothing. My only proof is what I already bought, which are a few SLOW sceneries from AS, ESSA being one of them, until I removed the animated (stuttering) stuff. I only hope I can put my own Stavanger scenery to rest, wishing the upcoming scenery gives a frame rate as good as the excellent visuals, which of I'm impresed with.

Share this post


Link to post

The trackrecord of Aerosoft regarding performance really isn't that good. Plenty of sceneries (EBBR, LFPO, EHAM, etc) come to mind that simply don't have very good performance. The sceneries often look very ncie, but they all come at a cost. I'm a bit shocked to hear that performance isn't such a greta concerne to Mathijs, though. Sure, in marketing its important that the scenery looks good, but if we end up with a scenery looks good but runs bad, then all you'll get is the forum running over with complaints. That's also not good for marketing, is it now?

That said, I'll most probably buy Stavanger. I love flying around Scandinavia, and I tend to get every airport that's available in that area. If there are some good connections with other airport, of course.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's particularly fair to say that Aerosoft's products don't perform well.

Aerosoft has delivered many high end ambitious sceneries. I believe they have been developed in an efficient manner.

Aerosoft states the system requirements for their products. It is not their responsibility to ensure the end user has the suitable resources.

If Aerosoft where to make more simplistic sceneries for the sake of fps, it would lead to complaints that they lacked quality and features. They would also slide down the scale of being a high end adding developer, which would be bad for business and reputation.

The FSX sliders should provide sufficient range in performance to suit a vast number of users.

If you want to run the software you need to make sure your hardware is up to it.

I don't have any problems running high end sceneries from any developer, and I certainly wouldn't want to see quality reduced for the sake of fps.

I appreciate that not all users have high end systems, but putting the hardware issue on the developer isn't fair.

Chris

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's just the thing us ALL people do. People tend to mention the bad things a lot, but when it comes to great things they will only tell few people. No matter that Aerosoft pops-out a good scenery every few months, people will remember the few (old) bad ones among the tens of good ones.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's particularly fair to say that Aerosoft's products don't perform well.

[...]

Chris

Which is why I said plenty products don't perform particularly well, as opposed to all Aerosoft products in general, plenty being a very subjective term! As a matter of fact, I can think of a good number that work quite well, such as Madrid Barajas, Budapest Ferihegy, Paris Charles de Gaulle and just about all German airports. To say that my hardware thus must not be good enough though, when the situation is clear that many people experience the performance problems in the earlier mentioned sceneries, even making these sceneries notorious for their low performance, doesn't make sense to me. Aerosoft is up there with the best scenery designers and they only release very highly detailed sceneries. Some of the sceneries are both highly detailed and perform very well, such as many of the German airports (all of which are very good). Also products by Simwings tend to be very well detailed and perform well. For some sceneries this is simply not the case and they return lower FPS then they should be doing. No matter how good your system is, you will see that drop most probably, although it might not affect your flying that much as it affects other's flying.

There are solutions for this kind of thing, you know. OrbX and UK2000 use it all the time, as does FlyTampa. It's called scalability. You provide the user with a small interface, in which he can choose specific parts of the scenery to be displayed or not. Thus the user can "custom taylor" the scenery to his visual and performance needs. It works great and it would be nice if Aerosoft included such tools in their more detailed sceneries also. I mean, having lots of 3D cars is nice, but not if they provide unnecessary FPS loss. At least with OrbX you can disable them.

kaspis: I hope you are not implying that I only complain about the badness of Aerosoft sceneries, because I rarely do that. Heck, have you read the many reviews I wrote for Avsim about Aerosoft sceneries? For as far as I can remember, I have only written positive reviews!

Concluding, I'm not saying Aerosoft sceneries are bad. I'm saying that there are sceneries that perform less well than they probably should, when comparing them to other sceneries of similar complexity. That's all I'm saying, honestly...

Share this post


Link to post

No problems Thralni. I've seen your reviews on occasion and I know you like Aerosoft products (else you wouldn't be here).

Indeed a conscientious approach from developers is welcome. It wasn't so much you, I just wanted to make the point that people are quick to blame the developer and not their hardware.

Regards,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post

That's true of course, chris. You've got people around that try get FSX running on an Apple II and then blame the developers for the bad performance they have...

Share this post


Link to post

The previews look absolutly fantastic! Stavanger will be a nice destination from Keflavik. Now that's rockhard!

Share this post


Link to post

As long as I don't see too extreme autogen exclusion I am perfectly pleased with my addons. I have an I 7 920 and a ATI 5870 what I would call upper midrange hardware and can pull my sliders in most cases where I want them to have ( to the right). The only megaairport I have performance problems with is Budapes, but that is not so much an issue for me as I don't fly there very often. I don't have a problem though with a software that in maybe two years still looks nice.:big_boss_s:

Share this post


Link to post

Very impressive!

Cant wait to gently put down my little NG on this airport.

Have Trondheim and loves that one too. My credit card is ready for this one... :)

Share this post


Link to post

Guys. I hate you. You are created my lovely Norge sceneries for FSX only. I am FS9-flyer. I hate you again :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...