Tuesday, February 26, 2013

More Drzewiecki La Guardia!!

FS9/FSX/P3D. It's the most hyped set of projects this year and the response from the FS community on ADX has been overwhelming positive abate some concerns regarding FSX performance given the size and scale of all these projects. I am talking about the New York X project by Drzewiecki Design what will include La Guardia, Newark Liberty, JFK, and more! Coupled with the fact that the team is also modeling the most accurate Manhattan ever... yes this is huge! Here's the latest from La Guardia!





Just amazing and lots more here: http://drzewiecki-design.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=226&start=30


Follow us on Twitter! / Like us on Facebook!
AirDailyX -We do things differently!

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just an absolutely amazing team!

Anonymous said...

Great team! Great project! Will buy it for sure!

Anonymous said...

I'll just throw this out there in the event DD checks up on ADX every now and then.

I'm extremely worried about OOM's with this. One solution might be that the user has the ability to shut off certainly parts of this scenery from the scenery library. For example: if I am planning a flight from JFK to Boston I do not necessarily need to have EWR, LGA and parts of Manhattan west of Hudson turned on. I would simply un-check these areas so that they do not load at start-up. This option may help prevent OOM's. Is this possible?

I do this now with Manhattan X, IS LGA, and FSDT JFK. I just un-check what I'm not going to use to prevent OOM's and low frames.

I'm not an expert when it comes to FSX, therefore, this may be completely off the wall. I'll apologize in advance is this is the case.

Anonymous said...

In the meantime, great new freeware KLGA on avsim from Glenn Johnson

Anonymous said...

I have uninstalled Manhattan X because of constant OOMs. I sure hope this product will deliver and not kill memory.

Anonymous said...

This is a good idea.

Anonymous said...

If they manage to remove default stuff which dates to FS8, OOM's will be hardly present.

Anonymous said...

Everytime I hear about OOMs in FSX I wonder... is FSX really worth it? What's the point of pushing the limits, creating FSX native products and freeing from FS9 limitations if in the end, FSX slams against (the OOM and FPS) wall with style?
Long live FS9!

Anonymous said...

That's a very good idea.

Anonymous said...

OOMs come from developers developing inefficiently (ie ridiculous amounts of draw calls and over-usage of 32-bit 4096 textures, among other things). If devs developed in FSX to make it look like FS9, you wouldn't have problems (in fact, it would probably perform the same too if you kept your sliders down to match FS9 graphics), so it's not an FSX issue apart from the fact FSX isn't a 64-bit application. But if you are going to dev for FSX, take advantage of what it can do over FS9, to dev FSX like FS9 is dumb and inept.

That still gets me though, devs take FSX up a level and the FS9 crowd always cry 'See! It's horrible! It's got too many issues!' Reality is if you set up FSX to be just like FS9, you wouldn't have problems, it would perform great, but there would have been no point in making the switch. If you choose to remain on FS9 out of preference, great, but stop this fantasy that FSX is so horrible and is the blame for the issues that arise. Most issues that come out of FSX are from some developers not optimizing their product as effectively as they could. You can push the limits in FSX, problem is, not a lot of devs can pull it off properly.

As a sidenote, I've only ever run into one OOM and that was on a test to see how far I could load the sim down before it quit. It took 32-bit 4096 REX clouds, converting all the textures on the NGX to 32-bit 4096, FSDT YVR, and ORBX PNW. Convert all those textures back to DXT5, no problems at all. People just need to learn how their sim works and how to set it up, another major cause of FSX 'issues,' simple user-error.

Again, FSX only has problems when devs don't optimize their craft and when users overload or don't set it up properly (MOSTLY the latter). Stay with FS9 if you want and get left behind, but you're missing out.

Anonymous said...

I think we should voice this suggestion on DDesign forums, this way the developer can consider making a little tool just for this purpose.

DAndre Newman said...

You know some of your statements are inept right?

Anonymous said...

How so? I'm curious to hear, rather read this.

DAndre Newman said...

A lot of what you say is very true and I agree with you. But you seem to make a stand that FSX's issues rely solely on the developers and that's only partly true. FSX has major issues that will never be worked out. Forget the FS9 people complaining.

I personally know people who have extremely high end systems that complain the same exact same complaints you say FS9ners are complaining about. I even know some of the FSX developers who complain over it also.

Some developers like FSDT I agree are way over doing it, pushing the bar, sure. But a lot of these issues should be perfectly able to run with the high textures.

And even though I now run P3D very well, the major airports in FS9 still look perfectly good with the limited textures. So I think that's why the FS9 people complain, because some of the super high 4096 textures are not worth the head and heartache when FT FS9 textures suffice. Besides no matter how rich you are, no one can run FSX in the same way FS9 can be run. Again, FSX issues.

Hopefully, P3D will clear these humps... hopefully...

DAndre Newman said...

And another quick thing to further my point. I just got a OOM from P3D. I did a flight from KORS to PAKT in the Lionheart Victory. Clear weather few clouds. No car or boat traffic. Just Orbx AI. After I landed about an hour and 45min later I parked the plane, I decided to switch to a prop aircraft to continue a short hop to CZST, after 5 minutes OOM.

I could do a 12 hour flight in FS9 with the PMDG 747 full weather, full AI and run 5 sorties with different aircraft and never hit a OOM. That's my point. FSX is the culprit over all.

DAndre Newman said...

FSX code I mean as it was P3D I was using. :)

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying that FSX doesn't have it's own issues. It comes from a very old, very outdated base code, just like FS9. But that's just it, the two sims share the same core. If I run FSX to look like FS9, it will perform like FS9, that means dropping the FSX sliders to look like FS9 max settings...that's not the point of what I'm driving at though.

FSX is used as scapegoat of sorts for the FS9 crowd way too much though. For the reason you list in that last paragraph, "no one can run FSX in the same way FS9 can be run." A lot of people try to max FSX out and when it inevitably does not work out for them, they blame FSX and FSX alone. I used to be one of those in the FS9 crowd I refer to, I'm speaking from personal experience in getting FSX to run well. All I'm saying is that simmers need to learn to set up the sim properly if they ever expect to get decent results out of FSX.

To the developers, yes, you are always fighting an uphill battle with FSX's old code and that is a problem. But there is a lot that can be done in optimization and efficiency (based on the sim's own limitations) that is NOT being done by a lot of developers. Yes, I agree with you, scenery does not always need 4096 textures, sometimes it does look fine with 2048 or even 1024. Not every part of an aircraft needs to be represented in HD either. I mean, to map a nose gear tire to the ridiculous and over-the-top resolution that McPhat is doing with the Fokker 50, is to immediately commit your product to performance and OOM issues. That's not to say that often, 4096 textures are beneficial and can even help sometimes to reduce draw calls on a model on top of better visuals. There are ways you can develop a product to take advantage of both sides, performance and visuals, unfortunately, a lot of developers don't know how or don't take the time to do it.

I personally, still have never had an OOM in standard operation of FSX, ever. It took a lot in that test I did to finally get my sim to OOM. OOMs are limitable if not avoidable, both on the user and developer levels if done right.

Anonymous said...

The comment above was actually mine :) You can simply use FS Scenery Library for that, no need to make a dedicated tool IMO. The only question is how we divide the files.

Anonymous said...

Guys, I don't know which FSX/P3D are you using but after logging over a thousand hours online in FSX I had not a single CTD. And I was using a home cockpit for that, so 2 PCs and a lot of screens.

Anonymous said...

To your OOM, I would say that's improper use of FSX/P3D, knowing how fragile it can be. Why would you switch planes without restarting the sim? Sure you can do it in FS9, but like you said, "no one can run FSX in the same way FS9 can be run."

User error, and I don't mean to attack you, I'm pointing out that you do have a valid point in that FSX/P3D is problematic, I agree, but if you are going to use those sims, you need to know how to cope with them. I don't get OOMs because I do restart the sim when I switch planes. I don't get OOMs because I run in DX10 mode, which handles textures and memory a little more efficiently than DX9 mode (FSX). Simmers need to learn how to use their sim properly if they expect to run it with minimal issues. Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you or anyone else, but I am saying, before you call my statements 'inept' don't say 'no one can run FSX in the same way FS9 can be run' and then go and try and run FSX like you would run FS9. You're only proving my point to user error.

DAndre Newman said...

Right. But at least you understand. Even if you tried to get FSX to match the look on FS9 sliders wise, you still can't use 100% AI in a thunderstorm at FSDT KJFK in FSX. You will get crap performance, and still risk CTD or OOM. FS9 will still look better and the risks of not being able to finish a flight are nill.

Take this whole New York project for example. The only people with any concern here are FSX users. FS9ners don't care because they are reasonably confident that they can run all these sceneries together.

FS9ners will enjoy these projects better than FSX users, and FSX users will have a slightly better looking environment with far less performance with mostly empty airports... And every one I know who uses the NGX either has AI traffic off or set to nill with clear skies.

I'll will enjoy this product in FS9, and I will continue to enjoy VFR to P3D. It's a very good middle ground. And which is why I am starting a topic to help FS9ners make the move to P3D as a part time sim.

Anonymous said...

No I don't agree. My FSX setup in maxed out on sliders, locked at 30 FPS with full UT2 AI, REX weather loaded with the NGX and 2048 clouds, my frames rarely drop below 25, EVER. Around ORBX England with UK2000 LHR, 25 is the lowest my sim performs. I'm not concerned by this project as an FSX user, I've got my sim set up so I don't get OOMs or bad performance, not unless DDesign completely screws up (which is highly unlikely, given their reputation).

DAndre Newman said...

I gotta sleep! Lets chat more tomorrow! You are keeping me up making me think and its hurting my brain! :)

Anonymous said...

LOL, deal.

Anonymous said...

Let's see if we can communicate in the same language... Full AI or 100% AI means very different things for different people. I have over 1300 airline bgls on my sim. Places like EGLL or KJFK load almost 200 aircraft at certain points of the day. Even with (sub-standard) UT2 installed, the only possible way you have 25 fps with full UT2 in these mega airports is that you have an option ticked to lock FPS and reduce traffic levels accordingly. There is no commercial HW setup available to purchase that can run full custom AI on FSX in these places.
I believe that part of the misconception is that FS9 users are not willing to upgrade to FSX, no matter what. I'm confident that every single FS9 user wishes to move to a better platform (has we have done in the past) but we don't do it because of the compromises. It could AI, it could the OOMs, it could be stability of the platform, whatever. What is true is that in my personal case, the time I dedicate to my sim has to be 100% enjoyable. This means that I want to fly big airliners in to big airports filled with AI, no matter the time of the day. What is the purpose of that high-res textures if we have an empty Heathrow?? Maybe ADX could investigate on the issue, associating FS9 / FSX users and their corresponding ages, myself I face a trade-off while simming. I have a wife and a baby kid to take care off. Everytime I sim I could be with them. When I sim, it has to be worth it, and it sure doesn't feel good to spend time simming just to enjoy OOMs. FS9 delivers 100% of enjoyment, all the time.

Anonymous said...

'No I don't agree. My FSX setup in maxed out on sliders, locked at 30 FPS with full UT2 AI, REX weather loaded with the NGX and 2048 clouds, my frames rarely drop below 25, EVER. Around ORBX England with UK2000 LHR, 25 is the lowest my sim performs. I'm not concerned by this project as an FSX user, I've got my sim set up so I don't get OOMs or bad performance, not unless DDesign completely screws up (which is highly unlikely, given their reputation).'

Really? Your frames seem a little on the high side with all of that "stuff enabled." What are your PC specs?

Post a Comment

Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.