Poor frame rate performance (and their responses to criticism about that) is definitely Orbx's main shortcoming.I also dared to compare the performance a Flytampa scenery (Vienna) with Orbx's YMML or YBBN on the Orbx forums, and I got a response along the lines that Vienna was visually inferior etc (which is debatable in my opinion).I just bought imaginesim's VHHH and WSSS, and although they are not visually as good as Flytampa or Orbx (although they're still pretty good), they give fantastic frame rates. I get a lot more frames out of those airports on extremely dense settings than I do with everything turned off at YBBN and YMML!!!I still love Orbx products, but I think that Orbx underestimates the importance of performance to the enjoyment of a scenery. I enjoy VHHH and WSSS much more than I enjoy YBBN and YMML.And to put this post in some context, I don't consider my machine to be a dinosaur (I run an i7 920 with a 4850 and 6 GB ram).

Poor frame rate performance (and their responses to criticism about that) is definitely Orbx's main shortcoming.I also dared to compare the performance a Flytampa scenery (Vienna) with Orbx's YMML or YBBN on the Orbx forums, and I got a response along the lines that Vienna was visually inferior etc (which is debatable in my opinion).I just bought imaginesim's VHHH and WSSS, and although they are not visually as good as Flytampa or Orbx (although they're still pretty good), they give fantastic frame rates. I get a lot more frames out of those airports on extremely dense settings than I do with everything turned off at YBBN and YMML!!!I still love Orbx products, but I think that Orbx underestimates the importance of performance to the enjoyment of a scenery. I enjoy VHHH and WSSS much more than I enjoy YBBN and YMML.And to put this post in some context, I don't consider my machine to be a dinosaur (I run an i7 920 with a 4850 and 6 GB ram).

Yeah I agree. I like the ORBX stuff and have bought a fair amount of it after putting it off for ages, but like you mentioned YMML and YBBN just dont perform that well for me either. Actually the performance isn't that bad in the day time, but I have to basically turn of all the features and for YBBN turn off the custom ground poly, which just leaves me with the photoscenery ground texture for the aprons and taxiways, which in my opion just doesn't look that great since it takes forever to completely load.I'll be honest, when they say that FlyTampa and others are not visually as good as theirs, I would tend is disagree also. As far as the texture art work that FSDT or FT do, I think hold up well against anyone, even ORBX. I think the reason they dont want to go the same route is since they are from Australia, they want to try and make the stuff look exactly like it does in person. That's fine, but like you said, if you have a mid to high mid range computer, those two specific airports just dont work that well when using a complex jet, and for some reason on my computer YMML and YBBN are even worse at night time.I also have issues with the PNW package when flying complex a/c because the ground textures wont stay in focus no matter how much I turn down my scenery or autogen sliders. PNW works ok if I stick to low and slow a/c, but the minute I take off in the LDS 767 and look out the window, the ground textures just cant keep up. I have no issue with the ground texturs in that area when using just GEX or even MegaSceneryEarth Seattle tiles, and when I fly in AU SP4 around Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane, the ground texures dont get blurry.I think that until I upgrade my rig, I will probably hold of on getting more of the US region packs for areas that I like to fly airliners in if they perform the same way PNW does when I fly those type of a/c.

Concering FSDT, I downloaded their Honolulu because I love the Hawaii megascenery, but the fps are unacceptable low.

PHNL area has performances problems because of fps heavy default objects, both the city buildings and the Ford island scenery which is very close, are already heavy on fps on their own, even without adding our airport.

It's the same with Zurich.

You shouldn't get the same fps with Zurich and PHNL, you should see at least 10 fps more at Zurich and if you don't, it's not related to the scenery at all but, most likely, the AI you are using, since the AFCAD that comes with the scenery will surely attract way more AI than default. Zurich is surely not known for being fps heavy, this is really the first time I hear this comment.However, Zurich is a 3.5 years old scenery, to get an idea of how what we do now, I suggest downloading KDFW, which is made using a lot of new techniques, and has a zero fps impact compared to the default scenery (some even noticed it's *faster* than the default one), and has several features no other scenery out there has, like fully custom ground in native FSX format AND advanced Shaders, fully custom runway lights including custom PAPIS that works according to FAROS specs (they recognize AI on the runway and flash), fully 3d airport with elevated taxiways, moving jetways at all gates, several types of working docking systems at all gates, THL, RWSL and REL lights which works in conjunction with AIs, and all of this in an airports which is the 2nd larger in area in the US (and of of the larges in the world), without affecting performances too much, and with very sharp ground textures too.

I suggest downloading KDFW, which is made using a lot of new techniques, and has a zero fps impact compared to the default scenery (some even noticed it's *faster* than the default one), and has several features no other scenery out there has, like fully custom ground in native FSX format AND advanced Shaders, fully custom runway lights including custom PAPIS that works according to FAROS specs (they recognize AI on the runway and flash), fully 3d airport with elevated taxiways, moving jetways at all gates, several types of working docking systems at all gates, THL, RWSL and REL lights which works in conjunction with AIs, and all of this in an airports which is the 2nd larger in area in the US (and of of the larges in the world), without affecting performances too much, and with very sharp ground textures too.

Out of all the airports I own, DFW is my favorite airport so far for the reasons you mentioned above, plus the fact that on my rig its actually way faster than the default version. Prior to it comming out, I had to turn my settings way down when flying into or out of DFW, not any longer with your version.The only bad part about making DFW so great is now I wish all the older sceneries got a makeover to make them as nice as that one.Actually I only wish JFK, KORD and KFLL would get updates to make it so the lights on the poles always stayed on like they do at KDFW. For some reason at ORD and FLL the way the lights are coded or LOD'ed sometimes they either dont turn on when you get close, or some will turn on and others wont, this is especially noticable at KFLL on the east and south terminal. At JFK it would be nice to get the ground lighting, namely the taxiway lights to work like DFW's do since it seems like the blue lights only come on when you get near them. I think at all the other FSDT aiports the taxiway lights seem to all stay on regardless of your distance.

I must honestly say that I regard FlyTampa as the pinnacle of FS9/X addon scenery developers. Their products are the bets in every way:- Texturing is great;- Modeling is detailed;- FPS is just about always very good (my performance at their Hong Kong scenery, which is one of the densest sceneries I have, is simple awesome);- Installation is simple and automatic;- there is no copy protection or something of the kind, like Virtuali's Addon Manager.I'll say it again: FT develops doesn't only develop extremely good-looking sceneries that work extremely well, but it also is completely non-invasive, in the sense that no extra modules are installed. This is something I greatly value!Heck, even their FS9 KSEA scenery still looks very good in FSX. If only I knew how to correct some of the issues of that scenery, it'd be perfectly useable in FSX.Look, I don't care which scenery ends up being most detailed if it means performance isn't good. I can't comment on OrbX's airfields, because I don't own any of them. I do have all their NA and AU ground scenery packages and they are great.

Hi Joseph-When I did my review of KBUF back in December, I clearly stated this:

By 'smooth as butter,' I am actually referring to what the performance is like. Now I can run everything pretty much with all sliders to the right (otherwise known as MAXED), and achieve an excellent FPS rate. FlyTampa are known to have detailed yet at the same time FPS friendly, airports and Buffalo is no exception.

Have a read here, http://www.avsim.com...a2/Buffalo.htmlI personally think that FlyTampa make the best international airports. The way ORBX are made, and the FPS impact they have, turn me off as I cannot fly there. FlyTampa's are different! ;)EDIT:When I referred to ORBX airports, I was directing towards YBBN v1.1 and the FPS it had. But on the 20/4/2011 v1.2 was released which gave me a 10FPS boost! Aplogises to Orbx & others about the confusion, I did not mean all their airfields.

Flytampa is awesome! love there texture work and 3d work, there one of the best! the top big guys of scenery design, with fsdt. it looks great and good on frame rates. but it all really depends on what system you have even as optimised as flytampa is or fsdreamteam is. it can take a toll on frame rates if your system cant handle it there is just a ton of things the sim is running at the same time. but very good scenery and very optimized. :(

Orbx YBBN and YMML ran very poorly for me, even on my 4Ghz I7 & GF580. The ground textures are also way too blurry.

Wow, if your having trouble with that rig getting the ground textures to come in, then I can only imagine what you must need to get those two airports to work well when flying a complex a/c. I attributed my problems with those 2 airports not so much to my clock speed, but more to the fact that I only run 2 GB of RAM. However if your GPU and most likely 6GB of faster RAM don't cut it then I dont know what would.It would be nice if they could find a way to optimize their large hubs to work well with mid to upper mid range rigs, or just stick to the regional/smaller GA fields. That's probably why they haven't done YSSY.

Horses for coarses really, isn't it? As a representative from Orbx I am not going to comment any further than that because it would not be fair nor the gentleman thing to do to start a .... vs ..... match.

Horses for coarses really, isn't it? As a representative from Orbx I am not going to comment any further than that because it would not be fair nor the gentleman thing to do to start a .... vs ..... match.

I think ORBX's design philosophy is to a degree the same as Microsoft's when it comes to design, namely build for the future. I am not always comfortable with that because there is always something new around the corner, and what was the latest and greatest at the time can quickly become 'old hat' as technology moves on.Having said that airports like YBBN will still look superb for the foreseeable future and even more so when all the eye candy can be turned up.I am running a i7 920 at 4.0ghz, has anybody tried YBBN at max with a 2600k for example at 5ghz?I have decided to wait for the next releases from Intel so as to get the best bang for the buck so to speak but it would be interesting to hear what the i5 processors can do at somewhere like YBBN, but I suspect nothing more than an incremental increase on what my i7 920 is capable of.Bryan.

Horses for coarses really, isn't it? As a representative from Orbx I am not going to comment any further than that because it would not be fair nor the gentleman thing to do to start a .... vs ..... match.

Really, when you say something like "horses for coarses", you bet you already started the ... vs ... match. If you do not want to start it, then you might as well not post. As I see it, you are calling me coarse for liking FlyTampa sceneries? Sceneries that look good yet are easy on the FPS? Sceneries like Hong Kong which, despite the absurd detail still enables me to get over 25FPS with the PMDG 747?

WOW! I had no idea that mentioning FTX as a wonderful airport developer would create such negativity toward two airports. The two airports mentioned, coupled with the PMDG 747 or JS41000, let us not forget the dense AG, will bring any system down to its knees.To say that FlyTampa is so much better is ludicrous. I recall, not too long ago when my system was yielding in the teens when using FlyTampa. Even though the performance was for some "unacceptable" I knew that better hardware would yield different results.I can assure you that there are many simmers out there whose system is currently experiencing "unacceptable" performance when flying into Tampa Reloaded. Does this make FlyTampa a poor designer because one "NEW" airport doesn't perform well on some systems?FTX airports are among the best available to simmers. If you're having trouble, try lowering the settings on the control panel. Maybe that will give you acceptable performance?

It was meant to say 'horses for courses', the automated function of my iPad replaced my word ;)@Benjamin, little bit of a temper there mate, I was not referring to you at all, nor was I referring to anyone in particular, I was merely trying to say that Orbx is going to stay out of the discussion in a 'versus' match.

First let me say that I respect all developers. Most attempt to put out a working product for our hobby. With that easy point, comes a little bit of the dark side to our hobby. Any airport should be able sustain 20-24 fps with high to maximum settings. It's very tiring to read praise for products that simply do not work on current high end machines. You should count yourself in this category if you have an i7 @ 4.0+.I thought the point of buying an addon was to get better performance? And yes, complex aircraft do tank your fps but they also provide detailed systems that immerse you in your sim.A complex detailed scenery means nothing if you can't use it with existing complex add on aircraft. All I am stating is that we need a scenery to be just as immersive- but to function for all users. Especially mid to high end users.

It's my opinion that there are too many useless things out there. Just like a cabin to walk around in heavily hurts framerates in airplanes, people and other oddities surrounding an airport do the same. While it's nice, I'd rather get the experience of being in a flight simulator, not a world, passenger, and people simulator.