I'd be interested to hear some feedback on how it performs and looks in the sim. I know it has a trial you can install, but frankly I would rather just hear some feedback first before I try it myself since it's not an airport I have that much interest in.http://www.imaginesim.com/kden01.htm

I still have to explore it a bit, but the performance is great and happens without any noticeable impact here.I'm no local there, so I can't tell you about special accuracy items. I just bit on that one because I wanted to have detailed hot&high US place in the sim and, so far, I'm happy.Can't say that about all of my Imaginesim buys and this one wasn't my cheapest too.The installation went straight forward, some online serial check. Manual and a ground chart (only) are included, parking guidance works out of the box and you can have some optional static planes if you like to.I'm looking at a good airport here, but no stellar release in the class of Flightbeams KSFO or something while the price is the same.

I'm still running it in demo mode. Like what CP said, nice (even very nice) but not on par with Flightbeam / FSDT. It's on par if not better than their last two new airports - possibly their best offering yet. (Certainly not an ImagineShimmer airport.)It looks ok sitting in the SimSavvy photoscenery, but if I decide to go for it, I might see if I could remove the airport photoscenery to let the undertexture appear - it's a bit "lighter" than the surrounding. Not a biggie.And maybe it's me, but it appear that the VGSI lights on the E-W runways (7 - 25 and 8 - 26) are backwards - the 3D models are properly placed but the "light effects" are aimed the opposite direction. :huh:And shades of Mega Barajas there's a missing wigwag texture!! :(

dupe post

I also agree with CP.I got it along with KIAD, KSJC and WSSS. I have been waiting for a new release to take advantage of the discount. WSSS was the one I was really after and I think it is a little nicer than DEN but it may have to do with the fact that DEN is in the middle of nowhere. The satellite ground textures are a little cheesy in a few places - remind me of early LatinVFR stuff.You will probably have to play with the ADE to get everything in the right place and you will also want to get several runways going. I am seeing big line ups for departure.I really wish all developers would pay more attention to ADE files.

Thanks for the info guys, I guess I will go ahead and install the trial and have a look..I've had ok luck with their stuff. KATL, KCLT, and TJSJ all work fine and perform well, but in all honesty, their airports seem like FS9 airports ported to FSX. I would rate them as a step above BluePrint, but nowhere near as good looking or good performing as FSDT or FlyTampa. The main thing is that the textures all seem very soft and low definition, especially the taxiway, runway, and apron textures. I noticed that you can buy it using the Flight1 wrapper. I wonder if that means that you can get the 30 day refund if not satisfied if you use the Flight1 download rather than the Simmarket one? I would assume so, but I have never bought anything that used the Flight1 wrapper that you couldn't actually buy at the Flight1 website.

I ran the demo version too. And I really don't like the low resolution ground textures. It really look like an FS9 airport in FSX. I fail to understand that. Too bad, I think I'll pass this one...

Well, I just installed the demo and I can say that:a. It looks better then the default version of KDENb. The performance is pretty good, although when the buildings aren't blinking in and out in the demo, it migh be worsec. The airports photo real textures blend pretty well with MegaSceneryEarth Denver area summer textures and night textures. Of course since MSE has no seasonal textures, it might be advisable to disable MSE when you fly there in the winter.However the bad part is:a. The runway and approach lights are HORRIBLE... When your about a mile or more out they look like one solid light. In fact, I think I heard that if you did some of their latest updates, like the update to KATL for example, you would be left with these horrible looking lights. Ugh.. too bad they couldn't have done something else about this part. Glad I never did run the KATL update if that's the result.b. A little bit of extra work might be needed to clean up a shimmer here and there, as well as convert some of the textures to DXT w/mips to improve performance and looks. I didn't bother with that since I just tried the demo, but I would imagine the sale version uses the same textures.c. The textures, namely the taxiway and apron are pretty bland, the runways aren't too bad, but its not as good as FSDT or FlyTampa puts out. The buildings are the same, not blurry, but just bland looking.Overall, it's not too bad, but I think I am going to wait a while on this one. With FSDT posting some new updates for KLAX this evening that make it look like its almost done and PMDG finally wrapping up the NGX, I think I will save my pesos for now and use them on those products. At some point I will probably get KDEN, but its not an airport that I am really interested in that much to spend $30 on at the moment. I'll save it for one of those days when I am bored and need to buy a new airport.

Well, what a massive disappointment that was. Happily purchased my copy (using Flight1 thankfully) and set off on a flight from KLAS to my home town and Imaginesim's new version of KDEN. Fly over on the star seemed relatively ok in getting my first look, but as soon as I turned final to runway 16R my performance went in the toilet. From the smooth 26fps I was seeing at FSDT's KLAS, to 11 on approach to KDEN. Damn. Then managing to get on the ground with the slide show, I was treated to blurry ground textures that really killed the environment for me. Lo res textures covering the taxiways as well as the grounds surrounding them made it look really poor. Taxiing up to the terminals performance continued to get worse, as did the texturing work with in my opinion was minimal 3D structure work. Not seeing much difference between this version and the original FS2002/2004 version in that respect it also looks like the low res, low detail textures were used on the terminals.Sadly, although I really wanted to like this as it is my home airport, I may be using the return offer from Flight1.

I bought a copy from flight1 also....I agree its a FPS hog.How can you return a downloaded product as you state?Thanks

Typical Imaginsim release... Wash all textures through the fsx sdk to add mips to those textures that dont have it to stop the shimmering. Photo scenery around the runways only looks terrible, they should have squared it off and made out just one big square around the field or offered it as a separate download like Blueprint does. If you have just UTX/GEX, you get a bland green grass look around the photoscenery. Performance for me is pretty good though.

I purchased it, and have no performance problems at all. I did mipmap the files that were needed, and overall it's pretty decent. You can't compare it to the quality of Fly Tampa or FSDT, so the value for the money isn't great; but if you like to fly to Denver, it's certainly way better than the default.

Eric and Curt,What kind of framerates are you getting with KDEN....I can only manage 12-15 fps?Mike

I had some freeware there before and the change to the payware did not harm fps at all. But when I enabled the airport vehicles in FSX, this KDEN gave me a huge impact. Running them on a low setting helped though.I'm running Blue Sky Scenery freeware in Colorado, this surely helps the frames and also looks incredible. http://www.blueskyscenery.com/CO.html

Not until they fix their existing product line first---still waiting 2 years later.