Do X-Plane users want Payware airports?

[Mike7777 12]

I wasn't sure about payware airports for quite a while, mainly being concerned about the potential framerate hit.  

 

But when I saw beti-x's CZST Stewart, I pounced on it. Even though it wasn't in an area that I was particularly interested in.  I was really impressed with the outstanding attention to detail and quality.  I figured I should support the guys that are putting out awesome product.  

 

So yes, I'll definitely buy airports of that quality :smile2:

 

In fact, I'd pay $100 for a package of the main airports in the Baltimore/Washington area.  KBWI Baltimore, DCA Reagan National, IAD Dulles International.  

 

I would also pay for Landmark packages.  

[ohsirus 241]

I've purchased KILM- Wilmington NC and CZST- Stewart and both are outstanding! I have some great freeware airports, but they don't match what those two have accomplished. So yeah I will buy quality Airports.

[Robert McDonald 167]

I have purchased a great amount of airports for X-Plane, and I love the work by Tom Curtis.  His Glitter Gulch at KLAS (Las Vegas) is very very nice, and I recommend it highly.  I also have obtained some of the freeware airports.  Clearly, something you pay for is going to (generally) be higher-quality than freeware.

 

I would purchase high quality payware airports as they become available for XPlane 10.  I agree that larger 'hub' airports would probably be the best place to start.

 

And of course, make sure the airports 'work' in 64-bits

 

Cheers!

[alpilotx 505]

And of course, make sure the airports 'work' in 64-bits

Well, the good thing is, that Scenery is usually and mostly OS independent (and thus also 32/64bit independent ... and at least when it comes to memory hunger, 64bit is rather a positive factor than a negative one). I was already asked more than once questions about my HD mesh Scenery v2 (or other sceneries) if they work on Mac too ... well, yes, of course they do. This is always true, as long as your scenery is only data (well, everything that is in DSFs, objects, textures ... its all data).

 

The only exception is - of course - as always: plug-ins ... This is the only "critical" part. But at least they are usually far less heavily used at airports (compared to aircraft), and if they don't work on your platform, they at least don't ruin the whole experience (usually ... of course ... your mileage my wary B) ), as the airport will still look visually as good as it was created. Only some dynamic, plug-in based extras might be missing (of course ... it can still be annoying ... especially if you payed for the "whole package" .... not just the visuals).

[tonywob 4,768]

 

 

Reason for that is simple. Money spent on a plane lasts a lot longer (in terms of time spent on that plane) than money spent on an airport that I may fly into just once or twice given my flying habits.

 

This is so very true in my case. On FSX I was often buying lots of airports, e.g. The ORBX ones. I'd use them a few times and then never return again. It would just sit there filling up disk space. The only airports I use a lot are my home airport, one or two of the surrounding ones, and some of the major airports in Germany. In fact it's the same with CZST and the TruScenery airports, I bought them, used them a few times and generally don't go back unless I'm testing performance or something. However, I will buy good quality airports for X-Plane, even if I only use them a few times.

 

 

 

And just to put the final nail in the coffin, it's often the case that some payware airports suffer quite badly in terms of performance.

 

It's a difficult one this, because people want the airport to look realistic and be atmospheric and feel like a real airport. It's difficult to get it right, on one hand the developer could add so many details that it becomes a very pretty slideshow, and on the other hand, add too little that it doesn't differ much from the freeware version. I always found the UK2000 airports well done in this regards, and also Drzewiecki Design's Polish airports.

 

Also, as already mentioned, the airport should have proper exclusion zones and the developer shouldn't expect users to be adding these themselves, and should include correct taxiway layouts and numbers. This has been a real big pain for me when developing World2XPlane, and lots of support requests are about trees or other items being on the airport grounds colliding with scenery in payware packages.

[wolke85 150]

I'd certainly be willing to pay a reasonable price for high quality airports in X-Plane.

I know:

Making comparisons is not the best way, but honestly speaking:

The quality of 3rd party airports and sceneries has really taken a HUGE step forward over the recent yeary in FSX.

Now please:

Let's not start one of these discussions regarding "X-Plane vs. FSX" here, but i dare saying that we can all agree on the fact that sceneries such as those from ORBX, Flightbeam, Fly Tampa, PacSim, FSDT, 29Palms and many others available for FSX/P3D certainly are great examples of what can be considered to "highest quality payware airports"!

So if similiar products were available for X-Plane it would just be amazing!!

 

I know it won't be an easy undertaking and mabye even commercially risky - but isn't this always the case when developing for X-Plane, which, overall at least, still is a niche product in a niche market.

So:

Why not giving it a try?

I'd certainly purchase one or another!

 

 

 

Also, as already mentioned, the airport should have proper exclusion zones and the developer shouldn't expect users to be adding these themselves, and should include correct taxiway layouts and numbers. This has been a real big pain for me when developing World2XPlane, and lots of support requests are about trees or other items being on the airport grounds colliding with scenery in payware packages.

 

+1

Things like proper exclusion zones and taxiway layouts should certainly be self-evident for any dedicated payware airport-packages!

[Airfighter 150]

 

 

It's a difficult one this, because people want the airport to look realistic and be atmospheric and feel like a real airport. It's difficult to get it right, on one hand the developer could add so many details that it becomes a very pretty slideshow, and on the other hand, add too little that it doesn't differ much from the freeware version. I always found the UK2000 airports well done in this regards, and also Drzewiecki Design's Polish airports.

 

As a developer I would say that scenery development is like a ... balancing act! The problem is not how to make a high quality airport, but how well you can optimize it. X-Plane now gives to developers all the tools to get both high quality and get descent frame rates. I don't think that I should go very technical, but a good knowledge and implementation of these tools can do the job right. 

 

I think that more and more high quality airports will appear in X-Plane! I can say that because I have some inside info (from my team of course!) about what's coming!

[scotchegg 4,161]

I'd much prefer regional scenery like Orbx regions than single airports. I'd pay cold, hard cash for those.

[Robert McDonald 167]

As a developer I would say that scenery development is like a ... balancing act! The problem is not how to make a high quality airport, but how well you can optimize it. X-Plane now gives to developers all the tools to get both high quality and get descent frame rates. I don't think that I should go very technical, but a good knowledge and implementation of these tools can do the job right. 

 

I think that more and more high quality airports will appear in X-Plane! I can say that because I have some inside info (from my team of course!) about what's coming!

 

 

The big drawback of the killer FSX/P3D airports is that they murder frames.  I was able to add all my payware FSX airports to my P3D setup.  I was thrilled.  Then I flew into the Los Angeles basin with KLAX installed, along with Orbx Global and Orbx Vector 1.1.  I had the thrill of experiencing 7 fps.  SEVEN!  That was gosh-awful.  I got so disheartened, I totally removed my entire P3D setup and then reinstalled ONLY P3D basic 2.2.  Of course the frames are super again.  

 

The one thing I wished for about P3D was that they might put "EVERYTHING" into just ONE folder like the brand-X sim does.  That is SO much easier if you discover you thrashed your install, you just restore a backup of that single folder and you're golden, because the entire sim and all the adds live in the brand-X folder.  FSX/P3D are scattered all over your PC, so you're forced to restore your entire disk partition image.  That takes much longer in terms of time, and there are additional dangers (if the image you are restoring from is invalid, you can hose your entire system).

[wolke85 150]

I'd much prefer regional scenery like Orbx regions than single airports. I'd pay cold, hard cash for those.

 

Fully agreed!

But i'd like to have both:

Detailed regional sceneries and detailed airports as well!

And before i have neither of them, i at least want to have detailed airports as a beginning!

:wink:

[tonywob 4,768]

 

 

I'd much prefer regional scenery like Orbx regions than single airports. I'd pay cold, hard cash for those.

 

How about hard cold "time"?. A combination of AlpilotX's HD Mesh v2 and scenery generated from OSM in World2XPlane is getting pretty close, and we just lack regional artwork for some regions and textures. Anyone who has a camera and some time can help out and improve their area, and best of all, it will remain free, no cash required.

[deetee 164]

I doff my hat to those who give up their spare time to create quality freeware, and those like Tony, Andras and many more who innovate to make XP better for all of us.

[MBE007 1]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond to my question. We will take away your comments into our deliberations. In the mean-time any further comments will of course be welcomed  :smile:  :biggrin:

[robb13 22]

Definately would pay for quality airports for XPX. (Who wants to take off and land on a dull windswept paddock with one tin shed). Purchased XPX a year ago but only just got round to looking into it in some detail. The land scenery in XPX is not as good as FSX. The texture of the landscape is better but for some reason in XPX,  generic houses appear along all the roads in rural areas round my region, plus also along the entrance road into local airport which makes the landscape look very odd.). I assume this will get fixed in a patch. If that doesnt happen I probably wont stay with XPX.

[MBE007 1]

 You'll not be able to test the market if you just ask a question to a minority of X-Plane users here on avsim.net. :wink:

 

 

Hi MdMax, perhaps you can really help me here?  How do you advise I get to the majority of X-Plane users to ask my question?