Hello people,I have been wanting to have a "complete" New York scenery, so that when I arrive at NYC, I can see once again what I saw half a year ago when I landed at JFK for real. So, in order to come to this complete NYC experience, I purchases FSDT's KJFK and UT:USA, for the greta night lighting. The only thing did I miss is the beautiful island of Manhattan in all of its glory.I know, FS2004 does have Manhattan scenery, but of course it could be so much better. One problem I have with the default scenery is that when viewed froma s far as JFK, you only see the Empire State building and one or two other skyscrapers. You can imagine that this looks miserable.So I have been eyeing Aerosoft's Manhattan scenery. I read the Avsim review, looked at the shots, and I think it looks very good (NOTE: I am talking about the FS2004 version, NOT the FSX version!). However, I need o know what I'd see when parked at KJFK. If most of the buildings won't be rendered, like with the default scenery, there is absolutely no use for me to purchase it. So, here's my question:Could somebody post a comparison shot of the default and Aerosoft Manhattan sceneries when viewed from KJFK? This is vital for me and will be the determinant for me buying it or not.I thank you in advance, hoping somebody will wan to take the trouble...

I actually see less detail in Manhattan when viewed from JFK using the Aerosoft scenery. I think due to it's complexity, FS only loads it when you get a bit closer. For this reason and also one of performance I stopped using it. You will of course get a much nicer view if you fly any of the approaches over Manhattan into JFK. App's into KLGA and KEWR are also great.

Hello people,I have been wanting to have a "complete" New York scenery, so that when I arrive at NYC, I can see once again what I saw half a year ago when I landed at JFK for real. So, in order to come to this complete NYC experience, I purchases FSDT's KJFK and UT:USA, for the greta night lighting. The only thing did I miss is the beautiful island of Manhattan in all of its glory.I know, FS2004 does have Manhattan scenery, but of course it could be so much better. One problem I have with the default scenery is that when viewed froma s far as JFK, you only see the Empire State building and one or two other skyscrapers. You can imagine that this looks miserable.So I have been eyeing Aerosoft's Manhattan scenery. I read the Avsim review, looked at the shots, and I think it looks very good (NOTE: I am talking about the FS2004 version, NOT the FSX version!). However, I need o know what I'd see when parked at KJFK. If most of the buildings won't be rendered, like with the default scenery, there is absolutely no use for me to purchase it. So, here's my question:Could somebody post a comparison shot of the default and Aerosoft Manhattan sceneries when viewed from KJFK? This is vital for me and will be the determinant for me buying it or not.I thank you in advance, hoping somebody will wan to take the trouble...

Last time I saw it, I believe, it was divided. When at terminal, you see only 3-4 skyscrapers. But sit on the runway close to Manhattan, don't know number right now, suddenely it appeared in all it's glory. I guess it has something to do with FS9's autogen or scenery limit and distance.

That's sad. What I'd really have wanted is to approach JFK at runway 22L, look to my right and see Manhattan in all of its glory. I guess that this won't happen? Maybe, could somebody post a screenshot of Aerosoft Manhattan when viewed from a 22L final approach?By the way, is there any good KEWR scenery? I don't think so, right?

Hi Thralni, I have owned Aerosoft's Manhattan scenery for a couple of years now, and I can attest that it is a phenomenally detailed product that is VASTLY superior to the default scenery, yet barely impacts frame rates. Set the time for dusk when all the lights wink on, take to the air in the default Robinson R22 helicopter, and the three-dimensional dusk city-scape that unfolds before you will surely take your breath away. Many ( but not all) of the sky-scrapers on the tip of Aerosoft Manhattan have rooftop helipads on which you can land, though it took me quite a few hours of practice to make smooth rooftop touch-downs. Also there are a couple of helipads located on jetties along the shores of the Hudson River. For kicks, I occasionally fly the R22 over to the Statue of Liberty, where I set her down amid a cloud of dust in that clearing where the Star Spangled Banner flutters.In addition to FSDT's JFK scenery, I also acquired La Guardia Airport scenery, whose author I don't recall right now. If you aren't a helicopter fan like me, you can depart straight off JFK Runway 31R in the heavy metal jet of your choice, swoop right over the Brooklyn Bridge at 2000 feet AGL, as Manhattan majestically sweeps beneath your trajectory, and make for La Guardia Runway 4 - a landing which will test your skills due to the rather short runway.I could ramble on forever on the exquisite, painstaking rendering of Manhattan by the folks at Aerosoft, but I'll quit now before I get carried away here. Tony

That's sad. What I'd really have wanted is to approach JFK at runway 22L, look to my right and see Manhattan in all of its glory. I guess that this won't happen? Maybe, could somebody post a screenshot of Aerosoft Manhattan when viewed from a 22L final approach?

Nope, don't think so.I know it was only visible from the close side of the runway 13R, the one that is closest to Manhattan. Not even from the terminal. 22L is on the far side of the airport, so, no.

Last time I saw it, I believe, it was divided. When at terminal, you see only 3-4 skyscrapers. But sit on the runway close to Manhattan, don't know number right now, suddenely it appeared in all it's glory. I guess it has something to do with FS9's autogen or scenery limit and distance.

This is due to the rendering limitation in FS9, which limits the number of autogen objects that appear directly when seen from KJFK. But sit on Runway 31R in FSX, and you will see the number of skyscrapers that appear altogether. This obviously, turns FSX into a ice-hardened slideshow, and even causes a CTD when used with FSDT's NYC scenery, AFAIK, if you don't have a strong computer. I actually love the detailed, default scenery by Microsoft but its ground textures and building details could use some help. If only BluePrint was here to help with a smaller version of KJFK and its surroundings. The BluePrint KIAD wasn't as detailed as most sceneries AFAIK, but IMHO it saves more framerates than the FPS produced by the FSDT scenery. I don't see why we can't look at NYC's landmarks from KLGA.Dave.

Last time I saw it, I believe, it was divided. When at terminal, you see only 3-4 skyscrapers. But sit on the runway close to Manhattan, don't know number right now, suddenely it appeared in all it's glory. I guess it has something to do with FS9's autogen or scenery limit and distance.

This is due to the rendering limitation in FS9, which limits the number of autogen objects that appear directly when seen from KJFK. But sit on Runway 31R in FSX, and you will see the number of skyscrapers that appear altogether. This obviously, turns FSX into a ice-hardened slideshow, and even causes a CTD when used with FSDT's NYC scenery, AFAIK, if you don't have a strong computer. I actually love the detailed, default scenery by Microsoft but its ground textures and building details could use some help. If only BluePrint was here to help with a smaller version of KJFK and its surroundings. The BluePrint KIAD wasn't as detailed as most sceneries AFAIK, but IMHO it saves more framerates than the FPS produced by the FSDT scenery. This is my sole expectation if BluePrint were to make a good yet simple scenery of JFK. I don't see why we can't look at NYC's landmarks from KLGA.Dave.

The Aerosoft Manhattan adds a great feeling of being there, even if you can still use the default FS scenery if you fly IFR and don't want any single detail. Unfortunately though, I had to uninstall Aerosoft Manhattan (I am talking about FS9) due to the fact that once you fly in that area and then land in other add-on airports, in many of them you get a horrible ground textures flickering. The problem is known at Aerosoft, but till now they haven't been able to find out what causes it.

It must be my luck of the draw, but I have never expeienced any adverse visual or frame rate side-effects with Aerosoft Manahattan, and that is why I cannot reccommend it highly enough.Tony

I thought "what the hell" and bought Aerosoft manhattan, Imaginesim KEWR and MegaSceneryNY. The result is a very pleasing visual experience - if not for the slideshow it produced when combined with anything more demanding than the default Cessna. So, I'm going to start tweaking what goes activated of the Megascenery. If I don't really need it, it's going to off. First, though, I'll turn of all of the Megascenery to see what primarily causes the drop in FPS: Megascenery of Manhattan.So why did I buy KEWR if I have FSDT KJFK? Mostly because it seems to be less of a framehog and you can see Manhattan in all of its glory from there. looks great!And why not KLGA? Because the long haul aircraft from Europe don't go there, and that's why I primarily wanted NYC so detailed: to see what I saw half a year ago when we approached JFK's 22L.

With the fact that you have absolutely no visual or frame-rate anomalies, this is good news. Owning a strong computer to run sceneries such as the likes of Aerosoft's Manahattan 2004 is the ticket into the ultimate flight sim environment. This is no surprise to me at all. Surprisingly I've run Gottfried Razek's highly-detailed NA sceneries hundreds of times on a weak computer that is only strong enough for FS9, yet still able to run FSX with slight anomalies, and while flying on low-polygon, FS9 small aircraft such as Tim Conrad's Boeing Monoplane in FSX, I've achieved approx. 20-25fps! All sliders are set to the max, including autogen and traffic proximity (World of AI relies on the settings within FSX; if you set the traffic slider on the Traffic menu on the Options panel, World of AI will display all of the aircraft provided within each AI package), as well as scenery and other detail! The places where it dropped significantly however, was on dense airports such as KJFK, with aircraft with high detail such as the default 747-400 (even the PMDG 747-400X wasn't that much of an FPS hog!), which significantly reduced to 5-10 FPS with a 'gateful' of traffic around KJFK. So to conclude, if you fly VFR more than anything else, and fly mostly, or entirely, with either default or slightly middle-to-low-polygon aircraft (not those compatible with AI), even these weak computers can run sceneries such as Aerosoft's sceneries with only slight issues. On the other hand, a stronger computer is required if you rely heavily on aircraft such as Captain Sim's 757 and sceneries such as the FSDT KJFK, as to run properly without problems.Dave/

I purchases FSDT's KJFK and UT:USA (...) I thought "what the hell" and bought Aerosoft manhattan, Imaginesim KEWR and MegaSceneryNY (...) So why did I buy KEWR if I have FSDT KJFK?

It must have been a very memory-precious holiday for you!

It must have been a very memory-precious holiday for you!

It sure was, and I'm dying to go back... I loved it. Wouldn't want to live there for a lengthy amount of time, but another vacation of a week or two would suit me fine indeed :( But , I want to fly more often around America also. I'm not so sure why, because previously it didn't interest me all that much. I suspect the NYC vacation also helped with that... Then I got FlyTampa KBOS and the ball started rolling. Europe is nice, but getting out of there sometimes is also nice :(

The Aerosoft Manhattan adds a great feeling of being there, even if you can still use the default FS scenery if you fly IFR and don't want any single detail. Unfortunately though, I had to uninstall Aerosoft Manhattan (I am talking about FS9) due to the fact that once you fly in that area and then land in other add-on airports, in many of them you get a horrible ground textures flickering. The problem is known at Aerosoft, but till now they haven't been able to find out what causes it.

Wouldn't want to live there for a lengthy amount of time, but another vacation of a week or two would suit me fine indeed (...) Europe is nice, but getting out of there sometimes is also nice

Exactly my thoughts. From my real life trips to the USA I can say I liked the western coast much more, maybe because nature has always impressed me far more than concrete jungles.Coming back to our beloved FS9, you may think of getting FlightScenery Portland one day - an absolute scenery masterpiece. I also happen to fly to C9 LAX, which is both a nice place (I worked in Long Beach for a short time) and a nice addon, especially mixed with the freeware BlueSkyScenery Los Angeles photoscenery (I wish C9 KLAX had AES support). If I finally buy FSDT Honolulu (it's high on my to-buy list) I have some plans about long-hop flights from Europe to Hawaii via the US one day (for now I can't force myself to leave Europe).Sorry for a bit of OT.PS: I have both KORD and KJFK from FSDT and I find them to be top notch addons.I've never bought Aerosoft Manhattan as there are some nice freeware NY area enhancements which suit me well enough in my rare US flights.