I don't use UK2000 from Gary Summer, but the forum there is an
interesting benchmark for the furious pace that the scenery designers are
working at to overcome the challenges presented by MS in FSX.
If you believe that MS have worked closely with the "High End" developers at the expense of the "smaller boys" by which I mean Gary and Carl/Mally.
Initially the UK2000 sceneries were unusable due to the ground textures flashing, this presumed flattens not working, however it has been discovered that the "new" FS world isn't FLAT anymore.
Gary found a breakthrough, which meant he just had to re-code his flattens, from flat to curved!
But - from a recent post -
12 Hours later and all has changed
Some one has found what the bug is, and there's a dead easy way to solve it, so all that hard work has now been dumped!
It turns out it was a material fault, by changing one of the material values the problems goes and I don't have to compensate for the earth curve.
I have to laugh really, or else I would cry. On the positive side I don't think that work was wasted, the maths I came up with is one step towards making airports grounds that follow the terrain, which is one step closer to curved airport
I may have a go when I make Bristol.
So having been keen to "work around" the Flatten / Curve problems, he may have stumbled onto the possible answer to sloping runways!
But that's not all! There is some better news regarding scenery ->
I have 2 interesting screen shots, which to me sums up how poorly MS make their scenery structure. Stansted Extreme is 8-10 times more complex than the default Stansted, so you would assume it would run slower yes?.
Image one, my scenery at 20.1 FPS - stable no jumping of frame rates, Image 2 is the MS default at 11-19 FPS jumping around, I can stabilize it at 15fps using a locked FPS. Ok I haven't yet added my animation and the ground clutter but most of it is there.
Of course my older Parts 1-8 are nowhere near as efficient as my new Stansted, so when you compare them to the MS default the gap is not that great.And your theory may be valid for those.
However it is not valid for Glasgow or Stansted. I haven't done an exact polygon count, but suspect the main buildings in the default FSX at Stansted are about 1500, my polygon count for the building is around 25,000. My clutter that's there already (including ground markings) is around 800 object/15000 polygons (will double before release), their clutter is about 50 objects/2000 polygons.
Also the MS clutter objects are still active in my scenery (because the exclude will not remove them yet), so the comparison you see in the screen shots is purely based on the airports buildings and ground markings. They do it the bad official way, using hundreds of separate components each with its own REF point/ distance check/LOD levels/ Library object etc etc and I do it in logical fast way treating the whole airport as one object.
MS still don't get it, that its the processing of the objects by the FS engine itself that is causing FSX to run slowly, take away all that stuff and just have a big list to send to the graphics card and there's a massive speed increase.
I had to laugh yesterday when I was reading a review on a Cheap £70 Graphics card, and the reviewer was saying that not to bother with the card, because the performance was terrible and only 45fps on Doom3
If we get 45fps on FS were in heaven..........
If you want to read the complete thread go to: