File size

[skywriter]

I've noticed that there are some really huge file sizes on some of the aircraft on this site. I realize many factors dictate the size of some aircraft files,such as the degree of detail. My question is this:are some of the smaller file sizes a result of compression? Some aircraft (fls2k2) have aircraft under 2mb, and look outstanding. As most of us know, smaller file sizes run better frame rates no matter what your op/system. Then you see aircraft with over 20mb, that don't really look that much better. Can these huge files be made smaller after downloading, or can the author do this before posting?

[Hagar]

This has often occurred to me. Being on a 56k connection I limit myself to 10 Mb or under so it's not possible to check out these huge files. Bear in mind that gauges & sound files do not compress much, if at all, when zipped. One aircraft I did try has its own panel & almost 100 3rd party gauges. The aircraft & gauges were posted separately & the gauges zipfile was 10 Mb - much bigger than the rest of the aircraft put together.......! There might also be several different visual model & texture options included. Texture formats & the image resolution also affects the file size. Then there's all the complex docs & images usually included. I'm sure the size of the average downloads could be reduced considerably if the authors wished to do so or knew how. I've always kept the end-users like me in mind when configuring my own files for upload.

When I first started in this hobby all these things were important. Most people seem to think that the bigger files must be better quality but this is not necessarily the case. Some of the finest quality FS98/CFS1 aircraft came out at 500k or less. Adding the all the unnecessary docs & images I mentioned could easily increase this to several Mb.

[microlight]

Couldn't agree more, Doug. I much prefer to get a base model (just one or two liveries maybe), and then add (or update) my own panels and add sounds etc.

The 'bigger-is-better' complexity issue is another reason why I hardly ever fly a number of the blockbuster planes out there:
- the Mach 2 Concorde is pretty, but to me, the upgrade in external prettiness from the FS2000 plane does not make up for the huge loss in frame rate when looking at it from outside. Add RollerBall's BA paint job, and the FS2000 plane looks pretty good!
- the Meljet 777 is not such a frame monster, but still significant. In any case, don't you spend most of the time inside the plane flying it?

T I had thought that the new Posky 757 might be in the same bracket, but on my system at least, it runs fine, DVC and all. So that one is staying. Even so, though, I still use a panel and sounds from different sources, and that's the way I prefer it.

[skywriter]

Yea, I like yourselves have some small file aircraft  that perform and look awesome. Some of these have file sizes under 1mb, and even have photo-realistic cabins.and all the other "goodies" that we all like to see. You guys have brought to light though some things I have'nt considered, and I'll be investigating those things. Thank you very much for the info!