Aerosoft HeathrowX vs UK2000 Heathrow Xtreme 3

[shamrockflyer 647]

 If so, that really surprises me.

It also surprises me! Aerosoft are pretty notorious for 'bad' framerate airports, it appears lately that the aiports they have released are pretty frame rate friendly. Yes I am experiencing significantly better frame rate than UK2000 Heathrow V3! 

[Christopher Low 5,352]

Mind you, framerate isn't the only issue. It seems that Pete is suffering from OOMs when using the Aerosoft Heathrow package, so the "VAS" problem rears its ugly head again. Having said that, I have just tried loading UK2000 Heathrow Xtreme version 3 with a payware plane, every item in my Scenery Menu ticked (including VFR London X, every single UK2000 Xtreme airport, all three volumes of UK2000 VFR Airfields, all Earth Simulations scenery packages, ORBx Northern Ireland and EGHI Southampton, several SIM720 airports, Scotflight Photo 2.5, and all eight volumes of PlayHorizon England/Scotland/Wales photoscenery), plus ES Treescapes across the entire UK, Ultimate Traffic 2 @ 100%, plenty of additional BGL traffic (including MAIW military packs), detailed clouds at 7/8 broken, cloud and cockpit shadows, Autogen and Scenery Complexity set to maximum, LOD radius at Ultra, and water at high.......and I suffered an OOM before the airport had even finished loading!

 

I will of course back off from these settings to a significant degree, but I thought you all might be interested.

[SpeedBird219 183]

So, it's better because it looks more accurate...or just because it's better on the frames?

[garydpoole 183]

Hi all

 

Anyone know if the 'famous' Mirtle Avenue has been modeled on the final approach to 27L ?

 

Gary

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'd like to know:

 

1) Does it look better than UK2000?

2) Does it perform better?

3) VAS with NGX?

 

Finally,

I noticed black loading textures in the video review when panning around the airport.

 

Is anyone else having slow loading textures?

[Hirdy2013 104]

Yes

Yes

3.4 is as high as I've got with the NGX.

 

I use ut2 25%, asn, as textures, orbx eu, global, open lc, 2048 textures, 5lod etc etc.

 

No ooms for me. Recently flew CYUL to EGLL in pmdg t7, no problems

[CFIJose 5,485]

Yes

Yes

3.4 is as high as I've got with the NGX.

 

I use ut2 25%, asn, as textures, orbx eu, global, open lc, 2048 textures, 5lod etc etc.

 

No ooms for me. Recently flew CYUL to EGLL in pmdg t7, no problems

DX10?

Thanks.

[Hirdy2013 104]

DX9

 

Hirdy

[Bakern 31]

Only look at that at download size scares me from bying it, over 4gb...for one airport, no thanks.

 

Ridiculous in my eyes, my thoughts, will scenery developers ever gonna start building scenery's again, that works with some complex airplanes? Just asking, without been scared to see that dreaded OOM ###### showing up.

 

I think some developers have passed that line for a long time ago, if this trend continuous, i'm out of this race, no way i'm gonna do this hobby just to fight against OOM and not enjoying getting airborne... 

[BeechPapa 32]

Ridiculous in my eyes, my thoughts, will scenery developers ever gonna start building scenery's again, that works with some complex airplanes? Just asking, without been scared to see that dreaded OOM ###### showing up.

 

I think some developers have passed that line for a long time ago, if this trend continuous, i'm out of this race, no way i'm gonna do this hobby just to fight against OOM and not enjoying getting airborne...

 

I agree that it's been getting ridiculous, but no need to drop the hobby, just stop buying heavy add-on scenery. I've found there's alot of freeware that both looks and performs well, and have been flying the 777 into default detailed airports (egll is one of them) for the increased smoothness. Sometimes i just want to have the feeling of flight, gently gliding my way to the pavement, and want the frame rate to get that feeling, regardless of how the terminal looks when I park. There is alot of hype in the community that makes us feel like we need the latest and greatest, and push our systems to the brink with every last feature, but you don't need to engage in that race to have fun flying. I think sometimes we lose sight of the forest for the trees and forget that it's a flight simulator. You can have plenty of fun even in default scenery.

[P*Funk 9]

I agree that it's been getting ridiculous, but no need to drop the hobby, just stop buying heavy add-on scenery. I've found there's alot of freeware that both looks and performs well, and have been flying the 777 into default detailed airports (egll is one of them) for the increased smoothness. Sometimes i just want to have the feeling of flight, gently gliding my way to the pavement, and want the frame rate to get that feeling, regardless of how the terminal looks when I park. There is alot of hype in the community that makes us feel like we need the latest and greatest, and push our systems to the brink with every last feature, but you don't need to engage in that race to have fun flying. I think sometimes we lose sight of the forest for the trees and forget that it's a flight simulator. You can have plenty of fun even in default scenery.

+1

 

I've had a much more enjoyable time flying recently when I said sod it and stopped trying to load up on pretty pretty scenery, instead focusing on accurate up to date AFCADs mostly from freeware and allowing myself to have excellent frames in my expensive add on planes. Who really gives a damn about scenery half the time anyway? If I'm in a tubeliner 90% of my time is spent staring at instruments or looking for a runway papi while focusing on whats being said to me or managing a descent while observing charts and what not.

 

I get much more gratification out of my higher frame rates that let me focus on the act of flying rather than geting obsessed with the bottomless pit of min maxing the visuals on an obsolete rendering platform.

 

There are some pretty amazing freeware airports though and they often look nearly as good as payware but with significantly lower frame and VAS hits. There is a LOT of fluff stuck into payware that needn't be there. Stuff you wouldn't even notice if it wasn't there but its there because it MUST be accurate.

 

Less is more, especially when it means more FPS and more smoothness and most importantly more peace of mind. I simply could not be one of those paranoid "Save and reload at TOD" 777 guys.

[ComSimPilot 623]

Guys, 

 

I don't know how you get such a good performance but I am rather dissapointed with the new Heathrow..

 

With the Airbus Xtended in VC I get 16-19 fps, while I get 30fps at FlyTampa Athens.

 

I know Heathrow is huge, but do you have any suggestion to gain more fps? I can't enjoy at all taxing and using TrackIR with shutters..neither

taking-off in a flat external scenery.

 

CPU: i5 3570K @ 4.4Ghz,

GPU: GTX660 OC

[razalom 19]

All the issues I have been having with strange textures and lights has been caused by DX10. Turned it off and its fine. Guess for flights to Heathrow DX10 will have to be off.

[BeechPapa 32]

 

Well said.

[BIGSKY 316]

Why cant I install  Mega Airport London Heathrow Xtended into FSX? I get a cannot find flight simulator message on the installer.

I ran the flight 1 registry repair tool.

Disregard,downloaded P3d Version,DOH!