LOL! Forget it guys, the only solution to prevent OOMs: do not activate it. I dont want the airports, either. I just bought FSDT JFK V2 a view weeks ago and I am happy with that (and no OOMS !) and still have Aerosofts Manhatten in use.
Speaking for myself on X-Plane, I don't like it because it's far inferior in terms of graphics, which is something important to me.
Now, 64-bit and DX11 is something that is on the horizon with P3D V2 and possible AeroFly FS.
People are far too harsh on developers when it comes to OOMs. They demand something new and groundbreaking, but that will come with OOMs in FSX, nothing developers can do about that except deliver a more inferior product than they wish. I don't have an OOM problem with DD NYC, I use FSX in DX10 mode with the patch that is readily available on AVSIM and that is about the best remedy anyone can deliver with FSX. Don't blame DD for FSX's own shortcomings.
At the same time developers have a responsibility to work within the confines of FSX...so, if this type of project is not feasable within those constraints, don't develop it.
Why can't we blame DD, FSDT or any of the others that develop and release add-ons knowing the limitations of FSX? Most of these very same FSX developers are able to "dumb down" their FSX sceneries to make them compatible with FS9. Why not do the same for FSX (more or less). Why develop and sell something that's not going to work? It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. No wonder scenery developers are leaving the FS community. They spend their entire development budget on something that does not sell forcing them to leave the business.
The same goes for the simmer. The simmer is also trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. We are trying load FSX with the NGX, NYC X, GSX, REX, GEX, Active Sky, the sliders maxed, and an ACARS program. Everyone tries to do but deep down we all know what's going to happen.
FSX has its limitations. We all, the entire FS community, need to deal with it and find that "happy medium."
The simmers need the developers and the developers need the simmers. PLEASE, let's all start working together to save this wonderful hobby.
Sure they can offer 'dumbed' down versions, but developers get flak when they don't have something different the community hasn't seen yet. If DD dumbed down their NYC, they would be getting hammered for making it too much like Aerosoft's and they just wasted time and effort creating a competing NYC without anything much different than what Aerosoft already has. There is no pleasing this community because if it's not one thing to complain about it's another. If that's the case, then I say let the devs push the limits, at least it's opportunity to provide something different.
It s realy quite simple: I couldnt develope a software, that needs a hardware, that doesnt even exists. I have to stay in the limits of the most common hardware or nobody will buy it. On FS businnes, its exactly the same: they have to stay within the limits of the existing FSX/PREP3D engine or no sale! Some scenery developers needs to learn that lesson. It is still a flight- and not a landscape simulator, and thats what the most people will pay for.
But it seems that there are still lots of users that buy from some screenshots only, or the developers wouldnt produce anything that couldnt be work properly.
"Dumbed down" is a bad choice of words. What I was trying to say is FSX sceneries that are ported to FS9 still look great! Isn't that what we really want...a good replacement of the default textures and landclass. Do we really need shadows, puddles, and snow drifts? Like Andreas said, 'its a flight simulator not a landscape simulator.' Yes, I know, landscape and landclass add to realism and I would probably be bored with FSX without third party add-ons. My point, what we are currently receiving from the likes of FlightBeam, FT, FSDT, Aerosoft, and Orbx, in my opinion, is good enough. Actually their work is phenomenal. Wouldn't we all be happy if every airport looked and performed like FB's Washington Dulles? Do we really need to stretch it any further knowing the limits of FSX? I'm all for raising the bar; but please do it within the limits of FSX.
14 comments:
I got an error message looking at the pictures. 'Your computer has run out of available memory'.
Maybe fix NYC X first so I can actually use the damn thing. Until then, no more of my money...
Funny!
LOL! Forget it guys, the only solution to prevent OOMs: do not activate it. I dont want the airports, either. I just bought FSDT JFK V2 a view weeks ago and I am happy with that (and no OOMS !) and still have Aerosofts Manhatten in use.
Actually, it was pretty funny & probably true.
We honestly need a new Flight Simulator, 64bit and DX11. How come no one likes Xplane? Not that I tried it my self.
Speaking for myself on X-Plane, I don't like it because it's far inferior in terms of graphics, which is something important to me.
Now, 64-bit and DX11 is something that is on the horizon with P3D V2 and possible AeroFly FS.
People are far too harsh on developers when it comes to OOMs. They demand something new and groundbreaking, but that will come with OOMs in FSX, nothing developers can do about that except deliver a more inferior product than they wish. I don't have an OOM problem with DD NYC, I use FSX in DX10 mode with the patch that is readily available on AVSIM and that is about the best remedy anyone can deliver with FSX. Don't blame DD for FSX's own shortcomings.
At the same time developers have a responsibility to work within the confines of FSX...so, if this type of project is not feasable within those constraints, don't develop it.
Totally agree with you, Jack.
Why can't we blame DD, FSDT or any of the others that develop and release add-ons knowing the limitations of FSX? Most of these very same FSX developers are able to "dumb down" their FSX sceneries to make them compatible with FS9. Why not do the same for FSX (more or less). Why develop and sell something that's not going to work? It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. No wonder scenery developers are leaving the FS community. They spend their entire development budget on something that does not sell forcing them to leave the business.
The same goes for the simmer. The simmer is also trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. We are trying load FSX with the NGX, NYC X, GSX, REX, GEX, Active Sky, the sliders maxed, and an ACARS program. Everyone tries to do but deep down we all know what's going to happen.
FSX has its limitations. We all, the entire FS community, need to deal with it and find that "happy medium."
The simmers need the developers and the developers need the simmers. PLEASE, let's all start working together to save this wonderful hobby.
Sure they can offer 'dumbed' down versions, but developers get flak when they don't have something different the community hasn't seen yet. If DD dumbed down their NYC, they would be getting hammered for making it too much like Aerosoft's and they just wasted time and effort creating a competing NYC without anything much different than what Aerosoft already has. There is no pleasing this community because if it's not one thing to complain about it's another. If that's the case, then I say let the devs push the limits, at least it's opportunity to provide something different.
:)))
I just want to mention in case the developer is still monitoring this blog, not even NY patch "NY_Tex13" does prevent OOM (DX9)
(LOD 4,5, MS Ultralight aircraft, autogen normal)
It s realy quite simple: I couldnt develope a software, that needs a hardware, that doesnt even exists. I have to stay in the limits of the most common hardware or nobody will buy it. On FS businnes, its exactly the same: they have to stay within the limits of the existing FSX/PREP3D engine or no sale! Some scenery developers needs to learn that lesson. It is still a flight- and not a landscape simulator, and thats what the most people will pay for.
But it seems that there are still lots of users that buy from some screenshots only, or the developers wouldnt produce anything that couldnt be work properly.
"Dumbed down" is a bad choice of words. What I was trying to say is FSX sceneries that are ported to FS9 still look great! Isn't that what we really want...a good replacement of the default textures and landclass. Do we really need shadows, puddles, and snow drifts? Like Andreas said, 'its a flight simulator not a landscape simulator.' Yes, I know, landscape and landclass add to realism and I would probably be bored with FSX without third party add-ons. My point, what we are currently receiving from the likes of FlightBeam, FT, FSDT, Aerosoft, and Orbx, in my opinion, is good enough. Actually their work is phenomenal. Wouldn't we all be happy if every airport looked and performed like FB's Washington Dulles? Do we really need to stretch it any further knowing the limits of FSX? I'm all for raising the bar; but please do it within the limits of FSX.
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.