I think I heard that the autopilot NAV systems were difficult to program and the plane had some counter intuitive systems compared to Boeing planes. Of course, this can be said of airbeese as well.EJ

I was also considering in buying the upgrade to Atlanta v2 as I have the older World Airports package. Probably wont as the fps would be too low on my AMD 2,2Ghz GF52000 Ultra machine :( Simflyers should look how the Fly Tampa sceneries are made cause for example Fly Tampa Miami is a wonderful scenery (big airport, great graphics and textures) and the frames are excellent on my computer (20fps). Also the Fly Tampa San Diego KSAN, Tampa KTPA and Dubai OMDB run very smoothly on my computer. Wish Simflyers sceneries would also be as smooth. I will most likely be skipping the further Simflyers sceneries as they are still too much fps killers comparing to other high-end sceneries, unless Simflyers builds less fps-eating sceneries.Jani

The MD-11 flies like a garbage truck, it has weight and balance problems due to the fuel distribution and the FMS was not like most units that our guys had used before. I know the guys who flew it here only liked it for where Delta used it (trip cities)Hornit

Yep. Simflyers sceneries are nice but frame hogs. The Fly Tampa series is much better in terms of fps and even more: the German Airport sceneries which are beautiful are also excellent in the frames department.

Well, I like the version 2 update and it performs very well on my system(P4 3.2Ghz, 1GB RAM and 128MB ATI9800 card). The taxiways have been totally redone showing the black around all the edges...taxiway lighting is now dimmer and more realistic. The static aircraft have been replaced to show what is currently in use (All the MD11's, 727's are gone) The NWA livery and USAir liverys have been updated on there static models as well. The jetways are the newer more modern kind found in their latest sceneries as well. The surroundings have been improved along with the airport buildings. For those having FR problems, there is a display tool that you can use that will allow you to turn off many different objects to help you improved performance. While most people on these forums are of the "glass is half empty" type, I would give them demo a try first before making any final judgement.

What do you consider "performs very well"?Many consider 20-30 FPS "very well"..I sure as heck don't. LOLOf course that is just me and I'm loony. :-lol

I just got the version 2 CD and although I would not give all the airports four stars (there seems to be some variance in quality), I think it is a pretty decent package of hubs for the ATP types at $5 a pop. At some of the airports, the framerates were very good, hitting my lock of 25 FPS (usually on the runway taking off). I'm using Ultimate Traffic, so I used the display tool to get rid of the static aircraft. That might have helped frame rates a bit. Also, some of the airports seem to drop detailed scenery elements like jet ramps once you're far enough away from them, which also seems to conserve frame rates. I running a AMD 64 3200+, 1GB, 128 ATI9800 card. I don't have the new KATL on CD, so I've not tried that airport yet.

What is the point of spending the money for these sceneries if your very next action is to turn of elements of it????There should be no reason to do that. They are supposed to be experts at this so my question is why FlyTampa scenery, and others, just as complex, have little impact on framerates while their sceneries have heavy impact.I offered to mip-map one of their older sceneries in hopes of proving to them that this would at least help the ATI owners but they won't alloy anyone to access their encrypted textures.

Pilots that I've talked to say the MD11 is too tail heavy when landing. I remeber talking to some FEDEX pilots shortly after the MD11 crash (FEDEX KEWR crash that happened a few years ago). I think that's the main problem with the MD11's...

I don't like Simflyers that much either. A few months ago I bought the Las Vegas scenery and I have no runway lights at night, I asked about it in the forums there and have gotten no help at all from them!

To each there own I guess. I happen to love the stuff they put out.

First reaction: Everything sounded like a bit of overkill to me in a negative direction, as I have been a fan of SimFlyers with minor reservations.Second reaction: Happy to see a few replies that tempered my first reaction somewhat in a positive viewpoint from some replies.Third and probable final reaction: I went to the SimFlyers site and prepared to download version two of KATL. Then I realized that it was going to cost me another $8.75 in order to get it, and was astonished to find that the cost for the update was fifteen cents higher than the initial purchase for multiple airports for existing customers with KATL. I have all the SimFlyer airports with the exception of the two in Italy, and the last England offering which I intended to add. If this is what it is going to cost me for each one in order to get fixed and repaired scenery (hopefully), I will have almost another $100 invested in SimFlyers for airport purchases I have already made. Frame rates are not my concern. I use the SimFlyer airports almost exclusively for VatSim flightplans and by far in large have liked their offering. I worked like a dog cataloging plans, plates etc. to that end, and all are saved as both hard copies, GPS, and SB cross referenced to all of these airports.I among others by forum and email have had many communications with them over the Months regarding items, primarily flashing scenery of which they have assured us they are trying to remedy. I am not willing to spend another price which is fifteen cents each higher than the price for the airports (multiple order) to start with for what is a patch to me. IMHO this repair deserves no price at all for prior customers. I realize that SimFlyer's claim may be justified that this is a new offering deserving payment. What I want is for the questionable items in Version 1 to be fixed, and I think this is the responsibility of SimFlyers. My interpretation is that rather than doing this, they chose to just ignore version 1 and come out with a new version at a cost to everybody who wants SimFlyers. My second concern is that I do not know that Version 2 in fact remedied the problems that were in Version 1.Therefore, I regret to say that SimFlyers is being erased from my wish list unless there is some break through of some kind. I feel that I need to take a peak at the Tampa scenery mentioned in the other replies, probably among other offerings.I will add a copy of this to the SimFlyer's forum, however I suspicion that it will not be allowed to remain there which will add to my lack of respect for the time being.Very disappointed!Happy Flying:RTH