You will like it. A really neat little airport. Big enough for the NGX as well. I have all of Max's airports, he is one of the best.

I couldn't find anything on the flightbeam forum to helprally support :(

Fly tampa would be great though!!

 

 

I agree that a developer like FSdreamteam or Gary Summons could make YSSY with great frames - no question!

 

However, I don't think ORBX would be capable of that - their development techniques result in nice looking, but relatively poor performing airports. They've copped a fair bit of criticism over that, and I think this is one of the main reasons why they ditched the large airport market.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. I bought YMML and YBBN and while I like them and I'm glad to have some nice looking payware for Oz, I feel that the performance and especially the the quality of the ground textures are not up to the standard that FSDreamteam/FlyTampa/Flightbeam and a few others have set.

For ORBX staff to say that they don't want to "compromise" their standards to the level of those excellent competitors is a little arrogant in my view.

 

I live in Sydney and know the airport well. While the terminal buildings are pretty complex in layout I really don't thing they are as complex as airports such as KLAX or EGLL, both of which have multiple payware representations, one of which was done by a single developer (Gary Summons)!

 

It's one thing to make a business decision to not tackle an airport (after originally stating that it would be done by ORBX) and another to claim that it is too complex, too costly and too unprofitable to develop. The former I have no issue with, although I do regret their choice, but the latter annoys me as I worry that it might turn other developers off YSSY, especially as the reasoning seems utterly flawed.

 

I really hope someone steps up to the task. I have my credit card ready, and I bet many others do too.

I have to say I do agree with a few of the posts above.

 

ORBX have made some nice looking airports but IMHO YMML and YBBN are not up to the same standard that, say, FSDT KLAX or some of the UK2000 stuff is. I'm sure the smaller ORBX airports are lovely, but I don't own any to compare.

 

Most of the problem with the ORBX larger airports for me is the ground textures which I think are quite poor. YMML V2 is my home airport but I'm afraid its not quite up to the standard of some other developers.

 

Just my 2c anyway...

Sorry to bring this thread back from a couple days ago, but I just noticed it.

 

I already reviewed YSSY Scope of work last year, it's really not bad at all.

 

YSSY is half the size of KPHX which we're about to finish. KPHX contains twice as many jetways, twice as many buildings, 3 taxiway bridges, a tram system, an entire freeway system going through the middle and covers a HUGE amount of land.

So if YSSY is a monster then I have no words to describe KPHX.

 

Probably about half our development time for this airport for Flightbeam's 1 man dev team.

 

By the way, this is by NO MEANS any confirmation that Flightbeam will be developing YSSY. Our roadmap is currently in review.

You build it, we will come!!

Interesting view point Mir. I'm probably one of the few in the minority, but I hope you DONT do YSSY next. You did such a nice job on on SFO and on your current PHX project, that it would be nice to see the trend continue in for more US airports like Portland, Houston, Minneapolis, Denver (redo of ,Imaginesim), KABQ, Salt Lake, Seattle, Dulles, etc.

I hope you DO do YSSY.

 

It is a major international airport and there will be plenty of people buying it to fly into with the 747 v2, NGX, 777 etc

Interesting view point Mir. I'm probably one of the few in the minority, but I hope you DONT do YSSY next. You did such a nice job on on SFO and on your current PHX project, that it would be nice to see the trend continue in for more US airports like Portland, Houston, Minneapolis, Denver (redo of ,Imaginesim), KABQ, Salt Lake, Seattle, Dulles, etc.

 

I'd have to agree with you on what you said about Mir's view on the difficulty of YSSY. ORBX says it's too big of a project and much to time consuming, yet Mir say's that it would be a lot easier than PHX. I assume that is because ORBX would try to model every single nook and cranny, most of which probably wouldn't be important to the majority of simmers, especially if it comes with a performance cost in the terms of FPS. Like as been mentioned prior, I don't really care if FSDT or FlyTampa is considered watered down or not as accurate as what ORBX produces. What matters most to me is that it's a good representation of what the real airport looks like but more importantly it performs well without having to turn a bunch of features off and/or reduce other settings to make it work well.

 

Frankly, as many other big US airports that have yet to be done as mentioned by Jim, I would rather have FSDT or Flightbeam knock those out prior to YSSY, only because I tend not to fly in Australia very often.

Well for one would like a much better rendition of YSSY than what we currently have. It really is an anomaly that Australia's major international gateway doesn't have a high quality depiction in FSX. With due respect to North American simmers there are heaps of high quality airports for you to choose from and some redress of the US centric bias of our hobby would be appreciated.

 

Bruceb

I find Mir's post here rather enlightening, and I'm glad to hear it's relatively "easy" to make. To be honest, I would like to have YSSY, but I wouldn't care that much. Australia isn't a place I frequent very often, and as many of you said, the bigger OrbX airports have rather bad performance. If I have to make a choice between flying my Aerosoft Airbus X or PMDG NGX into a watered down major OrbX airport or flying them into any LatinVFR, FSDT, Flytampa or Aerosoft airport, I'd go for one of the latter. To be honest, Flightbeam's KSFO doesn't give me good performance at all in FSX. It is some ago that I flew into that place though. I should do it again, I might not have ahd the most optimal settings, but what I remember is that I took off at FSDT KLAX with 18FPS, landed at KSFO with 12.

 

So, if I'd have to choose between Fligthbeam working on YSSY, or some highly requested US airports, I'd probably go with the latter. Memphis, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Houston, Columbus... So many airports out there that I'd like to see badly! Or, what about Toronto. I wouldn't be in favor of for example redoing Imaginesim airports. I'd say get some coverage first, then tackle airports that you think could be done better.

 

Bruce: Not so much US centric. The huge majority of airports is still in Europe. If there is any continent that really needs a facelift, it's Asia, and Africa for sure. Oceania is probably one of the better represented, what with the OrbX coverage...

Bruce: Not so much US centric. The huge majority of airports is still in Europe. If there is any continent that really needs a facelift, it's Asia, and Africa for sure. Oceania is probably one of the better represented, what with the OrbX coverage...

 

In the early days of Orbx that was the case but these days Orbx is much more focused on NA and their older Australian scenery is looking dated.

 

Bruceb

That's true, OrbX is doing lots of NA stuff right now, but I won't go as far as saying that their AU airports look dated. The AU regions do look less detailed than their NA regions, and I'm not sure if that's because the AU regions are older, or because the AU regions are simply less "filled" with roads and such.

I wish anyone who attempts YSSY good luck and deep pockets. We actually have digital pristine 7cm ground imagery and the airport management want us to make it so they have given us access-all-areas to the airport for photos. However, it is one of the most complex and ambitious heavy airports any company could tackle, and I am afraid there would be very little profit in it for Orbx, or most likely, we'll make a loss. The amount of modelling and geometry involved is immense, probably eighteen months or more of work. It's also in a really poorly performing area in FSX so downtown Sydney and Darling Harbour would need an overhaul to replace default models as well. We will not dilute our standards and make a "lite" version, so it's on the back burner for now.

 

That's unfortunate. :(

I always wondered why you guys were not making it.

While I wait for a reputable developer to tackle Sydney, I've been using Ray Smith's AFCAD for FSX. He does a great job updating default FSX airports for those of us who like to fly with AI and want a fairly accurate depiction of the airport's most current layout.

 

I agree. Canberra (YSCB) is one resource hungry airport. I can fly YMML to YBBN and back again, no problem. But if I go to YSCB, I get an OOM warning after landing. Regardless if I trim it down in the control panel or not. Great looking airport, and it is not a big airport by any means. Not their finest work. So, I think they should stick to small airports, and leave the biggies for companies like FB, FSDT etc. It is their forte' after all.

I have a very modern system, but realized that I need to run most ORBX sceneries, especially around larger cities with autogen limited to "Dense". "Very Dense" and "Extremely Dense" have given me OOMs in Brisbane and Seattle, especially.