Friday, May 17, 2013

FSDT RE:Seattle - "Very Strong Candidate"

Speculation. So I stumbled across a very interesting comment by virtuali of FSDreamteam. Basically, when asked about the possibility of Seattle (KSEA), he states "...KSEA looks a very strong candidate too, maybe next year". He further addresses the general notion that Seattle is very difficult or even impossible based on the demanding location. This should make some simmers very happy! See the full quote inside.

When asked about the possibility of developing Seattle (KSEA) as well as the general notion that Seattle is very difficult/impossible due to the demanding location, virtuali states the following over at at the FSDreamTeam forums:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was said JFK was impossible to make too, years ago. And doing impossible things it's a good way to be motivated to find new ways to do things. So yes, KSEA looks a very strong candidate too, maybe next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presumably he's referring to the next airport following Houston (KIAH) which is 90% certain...

To see the applicable forum thread - click here

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds good to me😊 but would really love see more non american airports from fsdt. Abu Dhabi, Bejiing or Johannesburg...

Anonymous said...

Flytampa already has a KSEA scenery, but it's missing the 3rd runway. However I don't think it's going to be hard for them to do a reboot, and if the price is right they could create some serious competition for FSDT.

IMO What the consumer want is a major US hub airport which is not covered by any quality payware e.g. KMSP, KATL, KDAL, KDEN, KSLC etc.

Mark Hrycenko said...

Yes, but the FlyTampa version is only for FS2004. Plus, FlyTampa has confirmed they will not do Seattle for FSX because of the demanding location and performance difficulties.

Rustam said...

I didn't quite grasp what FSDT implies by "very difficult or even impossible based on the demanding location" but if FPS is what they mean, nothing can express this to me any better than a VFR flight crossing (the heavily autogened) Seattle urban area or even suburbs of the city. Stutters and low FPS are my regular friends along my route (even using the Orbx's PNW)... :)

Quite a subjective opinion, you bet, but that's the way it is!

Anonymous said...

Rustam - I'm not a developer by any means, but I think the intricate terrain levels around the airports hinders many developers from creating the KSEA airport..

p3.

Anonymous said...

The performance issue is a very valid one. We would all like to see Seattle to today's standards but look at FSDT's CYVR - a nightmare in performance for many users. Not sure about KJFK but I assume with Manhattan and sitting on its doorstep it'll also have problems for many. Then there's that addon manager and all the problems it creates - It, alongside the recent performance and compatibility issues are the main things putting me off re-installing and purchasing many more FSDT airports, plus the fact I'm so bored of the same old-style of ageing american airport. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have them all eventually for authenticity but I really am bored with the same old thing for so long now and am looking out for those that build outside the U.S. also such as Flytampa and hopefully Flightbeam someday soon. Fix the issues and make something outside the US not done before and many of us will pounce on your products (Yes, I know al about your 80% US customer suggestion. That's changing by the day and that's entirely up to you, you can wait as long as you like to find that out but its the future, asmuch as its resisted by many at present. I'm with the guy who made the 1st comment. I'd buy any of his suggestions made by FSDT or other quality developer for my upcoming PMDG 777 and 747v2 (these aircraft will change some of your sales patterns to an extent) and GA flights provided performance and compatibility is not to much of an issue for sceneries are starting to get crowded, particularly in some regions (and thus more resource-heavy) and this wlll matter at some point. The Seattle/Vancouver region, as beautiful as it is, is a prime example. A lot depends on your business ethics and more of us are starting to note these things. You'll know what I mean. Don't get me wrong, your work is visually stunning and credit where credit's due. Good luck and hope to be able to support you again one day. I appreciate many others will no matter what and that's perfectly fine too. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Quality sceneries for KATL and KDEN have existed for years now (from ImagineSim).

And yes, I am referring to the 2008 KATL.

Anonymous said...

Its still 32bit software, thats not changing.

After the disastrous CYVR, you'd think he'd know better. But i guess OOMs don't hurt sales.

Anonymous said...

FSDT seem to be loosing it. JFK ran ok, but it was lame visually & had no ground textures.

Mark Hrycenko said...

I disagree - perhaps you didn't have high def textures enabled as the ground is quite nice.

Anonymous said...

Come fall, supposedly P3D V2 will be out as 64-bit and performance will be less of an issue. I'd imagine if they do KSEA, it wouldn't be ready until around that time frame anyways.

Anonymous said...

I think FSDT need to call FlyTampa because a little bird told me they are making KSEA for FSX ....

Anonymous said...

If your blind or using 2006 standards maybe.

Anonymous said...

This airport can easily handle NGX and ORBX surrounding without OOM. (4096er groundtexture and shadows, personally i prefer the 2048er shadows, from the visual point of view)

But you shouldn't select HD textures without monitoring/knowing your actual consumption of video-memory. In cases of less physically VRAM like 1024mb its possible that memory will swap.

If you are using LOD Radius which exceed the native FSX 100% border (= 4,5) than it's your again your fault having OOM.

Anyone with FPS performance issues should check if transparency Anti Aliasing is active (regardless of multisampling or supersampling) => turn it off!

That means no sparse-grid SSAA like it is somnetimes recommended in several Nvidia Inspector setups. (there is also a warning in the FSDT manual)

follow the instructions and enjoy FSDT CYVR. Again a fantastic scenery.

Mark Hrycenko said...

Right, that must be it...

Mark Hrycenko said...

I know they were thinking about it but I'm quite sure they decided against it because of the heavy performance penalty in the Seattle area. They discuss it somewhere in their forum.

Anonymous said...

After Nightmare Team's Vancover. I'll pass on Seattle which is an even slower region.

Todd said...

"A lot depends on your business ethics and more of us are starting to note these things."

How is not making enough non-U.S. airports to satisfy you and a few others an issue of ethics? I think you picked the wrong word to voice your frustration. FSDT is as ethical as they come.

Todd

Anonymous said...

I would rather have SEA over IAH.

Anonymous said...

Although "quality" is debatable.

Anonymous said...

The comment was not for you to understand and it was my comment to FSDT. The business ethic comment didn't refer to this issue (airport selection). Just because you didn't understand it Todd (and I didn't expect everyone to) doesn't mean FSDT wouldn't (whether they are willing to admit it or not). They are nowhere near the worst but they certainly aren't as "ethical as they come"...I can think of many firms that would come more ethical. Not that I owe you an explanation for my personal opinion but just so you know you do not understand it and it still stands whether you agree or like it or not. Your argument has nothing to do with what I say above, you just can't think deeply enough to understand it so convince me and those who know what I'm talking about of nothing.

On a different note, FSDT performance problems should be largely solved once P3D v2 and more convincingly later if and when a P3D 64 bit emerges. This doesn't necessarily apply to future potential compatibility issues in a more crowded sim world. I didn't say I personally have much of a performance issues but that a significant proportion of the community reports it does in general regarding e.g. CYVR.

Lastly, I'm not frustrated in the least...I still have too many existing sceneries that I wish to purchase and that's satisfying me nicely. I'm simply stating where I stand and what I think at this particular point in time so thanks for your concern (I'm sure that's what it was) but its not needed...I'm as happy as Larry. And your comment/pseudo-argument convinces me of zilch. Cheers anyway. See ya!

Mahin Khandaker said...

I would love for Seattle!

Anonymous said...

It's good-enough, and with excellent framerates. Not Vancouverish ones.

DMac10121 said...

That would be truly spectacular/amazing. I would love a KSEA scenery, even if performance would be questionable. For me I just fly a more basic aircraft (Overland, QWSim, even Majestic works great at CYVR in terms of performance). I would buy a Seattle scenery as soon as it came out, just like Vancouver.

Anonymous said...

Yes SEA! Forget about IAH FSDT please!

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.