Jump to content


X-Plane Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Yes SID/STAR procedures would be nice but you rarely get something for nothing. It’s not unlikely that JF are achieving that low FPS by having very simplified flight plans. Making a change like adding SID/STARS might take much of that advantage away. Now perhaps they’ve planned SID/STARS for later versions although I’ve not seen any hint of that in the feedback they’ve given in other forums on the product. If it’s planned as a future development then presumably they can accommodate it within the existing structure. If they didn’t it might mean fundamental changes to the product and often those sort of changes don’t end well. They have said that they were aware that one concern people had around traffic programs was performance issues and I think in the product they’ve produced they’ve provided a solution to that. In other forums there are plenty of suggested features people want, including SID/STARS of course. How many of those can be incorporated without impacting the current performance would be the question. I don’t think that SID/STARS were omitted by oversight by JF. There’s also been comment from people that the schedules aren’t current and JF have talked about the cost of commercial data to support really up to date and full data. Perhaps the same might apply for the navigational data needed for SID/STARS? As you’ve said yourself the price of the package isn’t low (JF are rarely a cheap vendor anyway). Adding in additional licensing costs, in particular if that’s on ongoing cost might be a tipping point for many users in purchasing it.
  2. There’s a big difference between 4 FPS and 8 or more. Traffic packages in terms of simulation are for the most part eye candy. Nothing wrong in that but there’s a personal choice there about the balance between how many frames you’ll trade for increased ‘realism’. My system doesn’t have a small graphics card or weak processor. WT3 has a very large following in X-Plane and many have invested a lot of time with it. Some reviewers are even invested in working with the product. But to me there’s a little snobbery involved here. You ‘can’t be a hard core simmer’ and use GT or its only suitable for ‘newbies’ or those with ‘weak systems’. It’s a trade off. WT3 introduces performance issues and GT is less realistic. But in the end both are eye candy or immersion features, like better clouds or ground traffic vehicles. You pays your money and makes your choice.
  3. ‘But I disagree with you on your other comments’ Your article doesn’t disagree with my comments on the frame rate impact difference between WT3 and GT. That it seems to me is not a small point. The 4-8 FPS you quote can be critical for many users. Even ‘hard core’ ones.
  4. ‘For newcomers and the lazy’ is I think somewhat unfair. WT3 isn’t light on systems and TG generally seems to have a much smaller impact on FPS. That’s going to be a key feature for many. TG has had some teething problems, including issues with the Laminar map. JF have worked hard to resolve issues - and seem to have been successful - but any new purchasers might want to read some of the forums on tips around settings if issues are encountered. JF have also been pretty clear that this is meant to improve immersion but NOT to be a completely realistic simulation of traffic. No doubt it could be improved but there’s also a balance to be maintained in keeping that low systems overhead. Having airports and the skies filled with traffic for a trade off of 2-3 FPS, which most seem to be experiencing, isn’t a bad deal even if it isn’t a totally accurate representation of traffic flows and the like. Clearly many users like WT3 and have a big investment in time with it, and accept the performance trade off, but that doesn’t make TG users ‘lazy’.
  • Create New...