I have throughly been enjoying NGX - and it has transformed my FSX experience. In particular I find myself craving more and more realism and immersion with everything. Somehow, with all the features and details that have been implemented, it feels like FSX is feeling dated, while the NGX is ridiculously modern.

 

For some time I have been considering whether or not buy airport sceneries to increase the immersion and overall experience with the NGX. Up until now I've only been using default sceneries. I have two main concerns, and I would like some opinions from fellow simmers:

 

1. Do 3rd-party add-ons reperesent a substantial FPS hit? Even with default airports, I can never have enough FPS. If so, how much FPS can you expect in general?

2. Do you find that once you get into 3rd party airports, it's hard to fly into default airports because they feel so plain? I know that not all major airports in the world have been modelled by 3rd parties -- do you find this limits where you decide to fly?? Much like the NGX - it sets the bar so high, you cna't find yourself flying anything older.....

 

Would appreciate your comments and suggestions!

 

Sam Kharey

I fly a good mix between standard and addon airports, to help you with the FPS impact we would need to know your system specs but I would highly recommend getting some if you don't have a lower end PC.

As the previous poster has suggested, depends on your pc since i got a mid range pc and have no problems in running all of the fsdteam airports which are good on the fps and i got most of the orbox airports which are quite good to except for ymml and ybbn which are fp eaters so unless you got top of the line pc i stay away from the ymml and ybbn (imo) the orbox airports go quite well with their scenery as well with little impact on fps as well

Have you tried the various AFCAD files yet?

 

They modify the default airports to be correct and have next to no FPS hit. Search the avsim library for Ray Smith, Smith Graphics, Dakota Smith, or Menno C. Robert.

 

Orbx airports tend to decrease FPS. FlyTampa and FSDreamteam can pull it off with a good trade off between extreme detail and fps

 

Do you use default AI? Third party AI models helps fps it seems.

try this for free.........it's awesome!

 

http://www.sunskyjet.com/index.html

I've been in your shoes and, easily over $1000 later, I have to warn you about the addiction.

 

Once you go partially real, it is hard to stay there. I'd say FSDreamTeam, UK2000, and most of the Aerosoft stuff really hit the mark. An easy metric is to see if it is an airport supported by AES. I really find that I need the following:

 

Real weather

Real-ish AI Traffic

Realistic flight planning

Real cockpit procedures

Realistic airports

Improved textures

 

etc. etc. etc.

Expensive hobby.

 

I too feel grief when I know that we are 6 years into FSX and this is the end of the line. Flight has proven to be an abject disappointment that has left the realism junkies out in the cold. Moreover, Xplane is still not mature enough to fit the bill.

 

Flight sim is fractured and balkanized in a way that is not really helping the realism junkies.

 

The safest bet is to stay with FSX and hope that the Lockheed project somehow (and magically) becomes viable.

 

Sadly, I think FSX will afford us a Falcon 4-like existence in a few years. However, I would actually wish for that because it would be that the code had leaked and we could see it updated. Well, that is actually what the Lockheed project is in a way, but it has become a taboo subject (so 'nuff said).

 

Anyhow, back to your question. Once you really get into the high-detail airports, it truly is hard to go back. When you combine those with GSX or AES, it is just heaven.

 

I love Flight Simulator, but I wish the future were more certain. I remember believing we'd see another episode every three year in perpetuity. How naive of me.

 

I remember the FS world feeling like this 10-12 years ago, but the competition drove Microsoft TOWARDs and increase in fidelity, not away from it. Now, things feel even more unstable.

 

My point in mentioning the age of FSX (which you do too) is that I'm not sure I'd embark of dropping $$$ on those sceneries now that things are so uncertain. FSX may run out of juice in 3-4 years and I don't know what will pick up the slack.

 

I hope X plane will, but that remains to be seen.

1. Do 3rd-party add-ons reperesent a substantial FPS hit? Even with default airports, I can never have enough FPS. If so, how much FPS can you expect in general?

 

Not necessarily. it would be fair to suggest that you would need a faily decent system these days to run some of the 3rd party scenery reasonably. You will even find 3rd party scenery on AVSIM & Flightsim.com that in some cases can actually match or exceed payware 3rd party scenery in both performance & realism.

 

But you will find payware 3rd party scenery that performs poorly no matter how powerful your system is...its just a case of doing the research & shopping around.

 

2. Do you find that once you get into 3rd party airports, it's hard to fly into default airports because they feel so plain? I know that not all major airports in the world have been modelled by 3rd parties -- do you find this limits where you decide to fly?? Much like the NGX - it sets the bar so high, you cna't find yourself flying anything older.....

 

Not really. Get hold of ADE (Airport Design Editor) & you can set about 'tweaking' default airports to match the correct RW lighting & NAVAIDs in those ARPTs for which no 3rd party scenery exists.

 

Good luck.

My HDD is full of scenery more so then aircraft. No terrain or landmasses of anysort. Just airports and a few cities. See if you can download some of FSDreamteams demo's and see what you think and get a feel for difference both performance and visual. In terms of visual Flytampa would take it out by a hair over FSD then Aerosoft and all do well with their FPS hit in terms of airport size and scenery density. My two home airports YMML and YMAV are very visually realistic but even my 4.5GHz 2600K has a heart attack when I go near them and to be honest my sim hasn't seen Australia in a long time. If I'm flying for SWA and looking at doing a multi-leg route (eg LAX-LAS-SFO) I'll try and have each airport have some scenery, whether payware quality or just ADE edited it's nice to have them up to date and match the ground charts.

I agree with Jeff. Once you taste really good addon sceneries, it seems somehow pointless to fly elsewhere. So yes, it does become addictive, especially if you go down the Orbx road! All my GA flying is done in Orbx territories that include, Aus, New Zealand, Canada, the Pacific Fjords and the Pacific North West. While I fly the NGX around Europe which is covered with GEX and UTX and a host of Aerosoft and UK2000 airports. One thing I would say is that some of the Aerosoft Mega X airports are real killers on performance, especially in heavy weather with a lot of AI. I'm thinking particulalry of Madrid, Heathrow, Barcelona, Charles de Gaulle. But some of their not so big airports are great, such as Gibraltar, Nice, Faro, Bari to name a few. If you want to get FSX to the highest possible place in realism, then yes, go to addon sceneries, but if you want to stay healthy, with a wad of cash in your bank account, then don't move to the dark side! BTW, I just got myself Bari X from Aerosoft yesterday, and I have to say, the buildings and autogen are simply superb.

Do you find that once you get into 3rd party airports, it's hard to fly into default airports because they feel so plain?

 

That's the issue that puts me off buying even one - where would you stop?

 

I'm a big fan of UTX and GEX to drastically improve vast areas of general landscape at a reasonable price, I couldn't be without either of those those. I couldn't do without Fs2Crew for as many premium aircraft add-ons as possible. And those new aircraft come along with relentless frequency - I'm still learning the 737NGX and am already wondering if we're finally going to get a good Airbus A320.......

 

I'm sick of trying to work the default FSX ATC with the NGX, so I keep wondering about Radar Contact or Pro-ATC, the list goes on & on.

 

If you're then going to start paying for every airport you use [and I agree, how could you take-off from a detailed payware add-on and land at an FSX stock airport], maybe add AES as well, the whole thing becomes prohibitive.

 

 

Somebody else mentioned Ray Smith's free Afcad files, which I'll second very strongly. Some of those add some quite significant bits of airport infrastructure which are missing from the aged stock FSX airports e,g, whole new terminals at Barcelona & Heathrow. I'd stop there unless you lottery numbers came up.

I think the nice thing about FSX was the animated gates and airport vehicles. Something you'd only get in payware FS9 scenery. Personally I'd just get updates AFACD files from the library and install them. Maybe only buy scenery for very big airports.

I agree that getting addons regularly may be expensive, but it depends on an individual's interpretation of expensive. Talking from a personal point of view, I guess on average I may buy one addon a month. So I ask, if this relates to about $40 or £25, £300 a year, is this deemed expensive for a hobby? For me personally, FSX is my hobby and I can think of a ton more hobbies that are considerably more expensive. BTW, isn't the word hobby a lame word?

I will stay with the defaults with enhanced AFCAD free from Ray Smith et. al. Then choose your routes and buy the payware airports for only those routes with the NGX. I have switched to the "dark" side and spent enough money already! The trouble with Airport sceneries is this: they details are pretty much gone after 3 minutes of take off, and unless you let the AP does everything, you will only see the gate and a bit of scenery when taxiing. The payware airports will really pay off when paired off with your favorite flights.

I will stay with the defaults with enhanced AFCAD free from Ray Smith et. al. Then choose your routes and buy the payware airports for only those routes with the NGX. I have switched to the "dark" side and spent enough money already! The trouble with Airport sceneries is this: they details are pretty much gone after 3 minutes of take off, and unless you let the AP does everything, you will only see the gate and a bit of scenery when taxiing. The payware airports will really pay off when paired off with your favorite flights.

Depends on what aircraft you fly if you fly using ga Aircraft than you see the scenery all the time when flying, so if your flying the ngx than probably not worth it. But if you got the any payware ga than its worth it

But for GA keep in mind it's better to buy packs of smaller airfields rather than the big internationals.

 

For example FlyTampas Grenada or Maarten. For those you get 3-5 airports each