Great thanks Sir.

Seriously, Sir, I would have a hard time producing a more insulting text than yours.There's nothing wrong with critics or a simple 'dislike', but that wording actually shows .. I don't know. Where's the constructive part then? I mean, besides the advise to switch to 'more talented people', stop rushing and maybe avoid 'camouflaged cartoon texture(s)'.Preferences are different, but the wording may still stay polite.

Way better. The high hopes may hit many of us, especially when waiting for some time. I'm happy with it, maybe except for the price point, which marks a peak in my scenery list for the single airports so far.Nevertheless, I'm ok with it (the price + the scenery appearance and performance + service = package) but would state a wish to not go much further on the $ in mid-terms.

I think i'll give this one a miss as ive never had the urge to fly into KLAX, i fly in and out of KSFO a lot and enjoy that, i do have a discount coupon to use for FSDT so think will give PHNL a try.

I did notice the decrease in performance with shadows on and the flashing light poles. The shadows were no big deal because I don't use shadows anyway. However, I was going to let Umberto know about the poles. I'm so glad, and in a way it was predictable, that these minor issues would be fixed with a patch. Thanks!

Guys how does the texture work and performance compare to Flightbeams KSFO? Flightbeams has set the bar higher IMHO.

Seriously, Sir, I would have a hard time producing a more insulting text than yours.There's nothing wrong with critics or a simple 'dislike', but that wording actually shows .. I don't know. Where's the constructive part then? I mean, besides the advise to switch to 'more talented people', stop rushing and maybe avoid 'camouflaged cartoon texture(s)'.Preferences are different, but the wording may still stay polite.

Have to agree with that coolp. That was about one of the rudest posts aimed at a developer I have seen in a while. I can understand a post expressing a disappointment, but that was a little over the top.

Guys how does the texture work and performance compare to Flightbeams KSFO? Flightbeams has set the bar higher IMHO.

Scott you can download the scenery and try out the demo for about 5min.

Thruster sure has a way with words...... http://forum.avsim.net/topic/340983-fs9-flytampa-athens-is-out/page__hl__athens__fromsearch__1 Sounds like a class act that lad.

Thruster sure has a way with words...... http://forum.avsim.n...__fromsearch__1 Sounds like a class act that lad.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/348764-fsdt-klax-for-fsx-released/page__st__25He does a much better performance here, His Mum must be proud.

Notch it up to his age me thinks. His old mans money? Eiher that or he/she is a kept person.

Guys how does the texture work and performance compare to Flightbeams KSFO? Flightbeams has set the bar higher IMHO.

You are very true about KSFO, an exceptional 'first' for the company and still very, very remarkable on the overall qualities. Well, I think most of us can only judge KLAX with the shadows off at the moment when it comes to performance. Having this in mind, I flew in with my heavies there and still got way over 20 fps (limit is at 30 here) all the time with 100% UT2 AI on at noon, so I'd say that the performance is very good, better than KDFW here. My KSFO area sees a little drop due to the nearby Aerosoft scenery, but, on a pure subjective basis, I'd say that the nice performing KSFO and the now new KLAX are on the same good level when it comes to fps.The texture stuff is preference stuff, so while I may applaud to sharp and nice coloured details, others may find this and that. I still have to explore KLAX of course since the FSDT people tend to build details which take more than my 5 landings. Be aware that KLAX uses 4096 textures, so it may add something to the texture load in the sim. When combined with other 'loady' addons, this adds a bit more to the overall load of our beloved but old FSX engine. Not so much an fps factor, but maybe a stability one.I came in with the Simcheck A300 and the Concorde X so far and it worked fine though.

Be aware that KLAX uses 4096 textures, so it may add something to the texture load in the sim. When combined with other 'loady' addons, this adds a bit more to the overall load of our beloved but old FSX engine. Not so much an fps factor, but maybe a stability one.I came in with the Simcheck A300 and the Concorde X so far and it worked fine though.

Actually in the case of 4096 textures being used here it is supposed to be more efficient as explained by Umberto. Here's why, according to the way Umberto explained it a while back. Rather than using a lot of 1024 sized texture sheets to texture a few different buildings, they used fewer sheets, in this case 4096, and put more artwork on one sheet to make it more efficient. As a rought example, if one terminal and 5 hangers required ten 1042 texture sheets to hold all the texture artwork, they could roll it all up into four 4096 texture sheets. So its not like the textures are higher def like in the case of 4096 cloud textures, but more like they squeezed more stuff into fewer texture sheets, if that makes sense. On the other hand an Orbx airport will use the same amount of 4096 texture sheets as a regular FSDT or FlyTampa airport would use in 1024's to make all the buildings higher def, but the result is a lot more resource intensive. Hence one of the reasons airports like YMML and YBBN suffer from ground blurries and more OOM issues than other addon developers airports.

I see, that makes sense if it's done in that way. Now I don't know how the benefit arises from the use of less texture pieces (it's there in theory of course), but since the performance at KLAX is very good, this may have added something positive to the game of course.Nice trick. You are right, Orbx YBBN still is a beast while the V2 YMML (with the extra dll in place) runs extremely well here and is way better than the former versions there.YBBN actually is my stability benchmark in a way. If I can get my planes in and out of there, the system has proven 'something'.

As a rought example, if one terminal and 5 hangers required ten 1042 texture sheets to hold all the texture artwork, they could roll it all up into four 4096 texture sheets.

That's right. In fact, the ratio is exactly 16x, so 4 4096x4096 textures convey exactly the same information as 64 1024x1024 textures. Which can be easily checked by comparing KDFW to KLAX. At KDFW, we used 52 1024x1024 textures just for the ground, at KLAX only 4 at 4096x4096, and we even squeezed lots of buildings in the remaining space, since 4 4096x4096 equals to 64 1024x1024, and KLAX background it's smaller than KDFW. This means, at the same visual quality, we have 16x less graphic state changes per frame compared if we used 1024 textures (a state change is a fairly expensive operation), and the performance saving allowed us to increase the polygonal complexity of the scenery so, for example, a typical KDFW Terminal building it's about 16-17K polygons, while KLAX terminals are all in the range of 22-27K polygons each. Zurich averaged 7-8K polygons per terminal, and wasn't that much faster (and it's a smaller airport), because it still includes lots of FS8 code, while KDFW and KLAX are 100% FSX native.