Am i the only one who thinks that as much as it looks "nice" it's nothing but a bunch of random gathering of texture tiles.I also think they overcharge a heck of a lot for their rather basic sceneries.I mean 40 bucks on a bunch of buildings , poor quality photoreal terrain and some autogen alignment ? give me a break. for the same price you could get PHNL, for example, which is a MUCH MUCH bigger and may i add realistic.I've just spent 20 minutes browsing their forums, and it's evident that there is a vast impact on performence, even when the autogen slider is on normal.I think their main package (NA Blue) was a rashed out.Greg.

Thanks Jig, much appreciated mate! That area needs some work for sure. Can't wait for an fsx version of kpdx and kvuo that rivals flightscenery.

Am i the only one who thinks that as much as it looks "nice" it's nothing but a bunch of random gathering of texture tiles.I also think they overcharge a heck of a lot for their rather basic sceneries.I mean 40 bucks on a bunch of buildings , poor quality photoreal terrain and some autogen alignment ? give me a break. for the same price you could get PHNL, for example, which is a MUCH MUCH bigger and may i add realistic.I've just spent 20 minutes browsing their forums, and it's evident that there is a vast impact on performence, even when the autogen slider is on normal.I think their main package (NA Blue) was a rashed out.Greg.

Yes, you are. PHNL and the Orbx airports are 2 different types of airports that involve different types of design and different types of flying. If You feel this scenery is basic then you are obviously are not part of the target market these products are aimed at.

...I've just spent 20 minutes browsing their forums, and it's evident that there is a vast impact on performence, even when the autogen slider is on normal.I think their main package (NA Blue) was a rashed out....

I scanned the first three pages in the FTX support forum and found 3 posts regarding performance problems. The first one was marked RESOLVED. The second one was due to very low end hardware (T5750 @ 2.00GHz and nVIDIA 8400M GS). The third is resolved.I would say that your information isn't true.I'm downloading PNW at this moment and will do some benchmarking. I'll get back to you with a report in a couple of hours.

I scanned the first three pages in the FTX support forum and found 3 posts regarding performance problems. The first one was marked RESOLVED. The second one was due to very low end hardware (T5750 @ 2.00GHz and nVIDIA 8400M GS). The third is resolved.I would say that your information isn't true.I'm downloading PNW at this moment and will do some benchmarking. I'll get back to you with a report in a couple of hours.

I posted earlier in this thread about performance. Whilst I have decided it's time to upgrade, I've also continued to experiment with my current rig, and have been pleased with the results.In short, I've slowed it down, and results are good. The default Cessna naturally improves sharpness and framerates @ 85 kts - but pleasingly I'm getting great results with the Aerosoft Twotter, too, even a bit quicker. I'm downloading the Kodiak as I type (

Am i the only one who thinks that as much as it looks "nice" it's nothing but a bunch of random gathering of texture tiles.

No, you probably are not "the only one..." There are likely a few others who let $'s alter their perception of reality... :(

it's nothing but a bunch of random gathering of texture tiles.

Sure, my view from the window is also nothing but a bunch of textures ... :(

I've just spent 20 minutes browsing their forums, and it's evident that there is a vast impact on performence, even when the autogen slider is on normal.I think their main package (NA Blue) was a rashed out.

Well I did a simple benchmark test.Average FPS with GEX and UTX

• Over dense urban area (Seattle): 50 fps
• Over rural area: 61 fps

Average FPS with ORBX PNW

• Over dense urban area (Seattle): 32 fps
• Over rural area: 75 fps

Very nice for bush flying. Raised autogen density to very dense and no problems with performance flying in a valley with a lot of trees. Excellent!

Well I did a simple benchmark test.Average FPS with GEX and UTX

• Over dense urban area (Seattle): 50 fps
• Over rural area: 61 fps

Average FPS with ORBX PNW

• Over dense urban area (Seattle): 32 fps
• Over rural area: 75 fps

Very nice for bush flying. Raised autogen density to very dense and no problems with performance flying in a valley with a lot of trees. Excellent!

hey,What settings were you using ?what a/c were you flying ?thanks.

hey,What settings were you using ?what a/c were you flying ?thanks.

Yeah really. I know that was a review of the relative impact of those two scenery packages but I'd love to hear what aircraft and what other settings. I stay fixed at 30 frames in FPS_limiter and stay on that over seattle at 4k feet, but it is in the very frame friendly Cessna 441.

Am i the only one who thinks that as much as it looks "nice" it's nothing but a bunch of random gathering of texture tiles.I also think they overcharge a heck of a lot for their rather basic sceneries.I mean 40 bucks on a bunch of buildings , poor quality photoreal terrain and some autogen alignment ? give me a break. for the same price you could get PHNL, for example, which is a MUCH MUCH bigger and may i add realistic.I've just spent 20 minutes browsing their forums, and it's evident that there is a vast impact on performence, even when the autogen slider is on normal.I think their main package (NA Blue) was a rashed out.Greg.

I've read some utter drivel in these forums, but this post really takes the top prize for uniformed nonsense.To use the expessions "Rather basic sceneries" and "Poor quality photoreal terrain" in conjunction with anything ORBX has produced defies belief.

Just leave it. Some people are simply dead set on not wanting to like PNW for whatever reason and no facts in the world will change their belief. Just wish they would stop spreading false information (aka "lies") about it. It's almost like they want to sabotage the product. I find that offensive, to say the least.

I've read some utter drivel in these forums, but this post really takes the top prize for uniformed nonsense.To use the expessions "Rather basic sceneries" and "Poor quality photoreal terrain" in conjunction with anything ORBX has produced defies belief.

Great way to earn credibility, junior.The face of the matter is - their airport design ad implementaton is O.K. i dont think they should charge as much as they do. there is NOTHING complex about them. take flytam's KBOS scenery. now thats a product i'd gladly buy (aleady did) for 40 bucks, but to charge that amount of money on a bunch of buildings and scattered objects is insane, IMHO.

OldB,In David's absence I am going to remind you of his last communication with you."OldB, this is your last post in this thread, ok?I thought you were adult enough to understand my previous warnings.I expect this one to be clearer."I appreciate all opinions from both sides, but you're just trolling at this point.

Is this a forum where people are able to voice different opinions or not?What you are doing is called censorship, mainly used in countries where freedom of expression is forbidden.You will be buzy with the warnings, look at the last posts in this thread!Just because I dont bow down in hysterical pre-teen amazement because of a new scenery for a computer-game, YOU ask me to grow up!It should be the other way around, shouldn't it...?The United States is going bankrupt, and all the fools can do is celebrate a new scenery for a game! LOL!Holy cow, it's time for me to get outahere...!

No comment.This guy is out.