I agree with cmpbellsjc that when flying the tubeliners, it really is fantastic to have a good airport scenery that gives you the sense of immersion that you are operating in an airline environment.  I tend to only buy payware airports I know I will be using as hubs for my operations.  For example, paying 30 dollars for an FSDT Hawaii airport seems a bit silly when I am only flying there once or twice a year.

 

For those of you who use the ORBX regions and have FTX Global, I'd encourage you to look at checking the "hybrid" box as this uses a nice balance between showing eyecandy of the regions, but also removing some details to improve FPS.  That being said, my system still struggles flying into KSEA with the Pac NW Orbx region enabled and being that KSEA nearly is always cloudy or rainy has a huge impact on my FPS.

 

Having detailed regional sceneries like the ORBX regions become more important to me when flying low and slow GA.  I don't need a detailed 40 dollar airport, but I need good scenery to enjoy while enroute.

I'm probably the lone minority in this thread but I can't imagine getting rid of my payware airports. Since I mainly fly tubes in the sim, the most interesting parts of my flights are usually the prep setting up the plane, taxi and departure, then arrival and taxi to the gate. I love to be in the most realistic airport environment that is available and the default airports just don't do it for me, mainly because they all more or less look the same with the repetitive building textures, generic or REX ground texture, etc. I hate the over user of the term immersion, but default airports for me are a total immersion killer.

 

In some cases I have to use 3rd party airports for the performance benefits. For example living in Dallas, I usually fly out of KDFW a lot in real life and like to use that airport in the sim as a starting point for probably 75% of my flights. For me the default KDFW not only looks bad, but is a total FPS killer unless I turn the scenery complexity down to normal and lose a lot of detail. I purchased KDFW by FSDT when it came out and it performs much better giving me a steady 25 to 30 FPS where default would be in the teens with the same level of detail. I've had to turn to FSDT and Flightbeam for my large US hubs to get better performance that what default delivers, mainly due to them being optimized better than default airports. Default KJFK or KLAX I'm in the teens, FSDT KJFK or KLAX I'm back to the 25 to 30 FPS range, plus get a better looking experience.

 

Granted I've purchased a few addon airports from Aerosoft that ended up being FPS hogs and had to spend a considerable amount of time re-engineering them using some of the freeware tools to get the performance I require. Even thought I had to spend time fixing them myself, once it's done, it's done and I don't have to live with default options.

 

It's too bad a lot of others in this thread don't get the same performance and enjoyment out of their addon airports that I do, especially if they have spent hard earned dollars on them. They would probably enjoy the sim a lot more with cool looking, realistic renditions of their favorite hubs, although I know some people are just concerned with a good looking VC and flight dynamics and don't really care what the airports look like. But just like everything sim related, your milage may vary. Good thing the sim comes with default airports for those that have too many issues with the 3rd party ones.

 

 

/\   Very interesting and valid points.

I'm probably the lone minority in this thread but I can't imagine getting rid of my payware airports. Since I mainly fly tubes in the sim, the most interesting parts of my flights are usually the prep setting up the plane, taxi and departure, then arrival and taxi to the gate. I love to be in the most realistic airport environment that is available and the default airports just don't do it for me, mainly because they all more or less look the same with the repetitive building textures, generic or REX ground texture, etc. I hate the over user of the term immersion, but default airports for me are a total immersion killer.

 

In some cases I have to use 3rd party airports for the performance benefits. For example living in Dallas, I usually fly out of KDFW a lot in real life and like to use that airport in the sim as a starting point for probably 75% of my flights. For me the default KDFW not only looks bad, but is a total FPS killer unless I turn the scenery complexity down to normal and lose a lot of detail. I purchased KDFW by FSDT when it came out and it performs much better giving me a steady 25 to 30 FPS where default would be in the teens with the same level of detail. I've had to turn to FSDT and Flightbeam for my large US hubs to get better performance that what default delivers, mainly due to them being optimized better than default airports. Default KJFK or KLAX I'm in the teens, FSDT KJFK or KLAX I'm back to the 25 to 30 FPS range, plus get a better looking experience.

 

Granted I've purchased a few addon airports from Aerosoft that ended up being FPS hogs and had to spend a considerable amount of time re-engineering them using some of the freeware tools to get the performance I require. Even thought I had to spend time fixing them myself, once it's done, it's done and I don't have to live with default options.

 

It's too bad a lot of others in this thread don't get the same performance and enjoyment out of their addon airports that I do, especially if they have spent hard earned dollars on them. They would probably enjoy the sim a lot more with cool looking, realistic renditions of their favorite hubs, although I know some people are just concerned with a good looking VC and flight dynamics and don't really care what the airports look like. But just like everything sim related, your milage may vary. Good thing the sim comes with default airports for those that have too many issues with the 3rd party ones.

 

You are not alone.....I really like my addon airports, however, I do not buy an addon airport for every flight so a lot of time I am starting and ending at an addon airport and flying into or out of a default.  In this case the Zinertek textures are nice to have.

A couple of years ago I used IS 2.0 to create Paso Robles airport on Blue Sky photoreal.  Here's the post with pics. 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/396162-instant-studio-20/

 

I got Instant Object Studio and made some custom things after that thread...a terminal, houses, winery buildings.  IOS is well suited for non-complex structures.  When structures get a little complex then it messes up and adds more polygons than are necessary.  Also, adjusting hand placed textures (like windows, doors) is difficult.  So, rule of thumb, if it's complex or needs some accuracy with hand placed textures, use something else like GMax or Blender.  I have no idea how to convert something made in GMax or Blender to FSX.

 

ModelConverterX is your friend for converting GMAX/Blender/Google SketchUp models to FSX/P3D standards.

I have a silly question.  I am actually working on my first Photoreal airport scenery for KAMA-Amarillo.  It is a Southwest Airlines destination and I noticed there is not one single AFCAD file for FSX/P3D for it so I decided this would be my first airport attempt.    I am actually very very close to being done and I am quite happy with it but I would like more variety of buildings than is available.  I did see Instant Scenery 3 but...  do others have to own IS3 to be able to see your airport in all its glory?  I plan to release this to the AVSIM Library but if only I am able to see the upgraded stuff IS3 adds then there is little point in me getting it.    Does it by chance package up only the buildings you use into the BGL file so everyone can see the scenery objects added?

 

 

do others have to own IS3 to be able to see your airport in all its glory? I plan to release this to the AVSIM Library but if only I am able to see the upgraded stuff IS3 adds then there is little point in me getting it. Does it by chance package up only the buildings you use into the BGL file so everyone can see the scenery objects added?

 

You just package up the BGLs and textures.  They don't need Instant Scenery nor Instant Object Studio.

 

Gregg

You just package up the BGLs and textures.  They don't need Instant Scenery nor Instant Object Studio.

 

Gregg

 

SOLD.

SOLD.

 

Ah but, that assumes you're only using default FSX objects.    If you use Instant Scenery to add some objects form other libraries, then obviously people you share your creation with will need to have those objects too.

 

Eg... Instant Scenery will give you access to all of the, for example, Orbx and Aerosoft objects from addon airports you have from those devs.   So if you use those objects in your creations, only people who also own those Orbx and Aerosoft products will be able to see them.

And if you use Orbx objects then distribute them Orbx will not be happy. I suppose the same goes for other creators.

So in fact there is no reason to use this software at all since ADE already lets you drop in object libraries from the default packages and ADE also connects directly to FSX/P3D so you can see what is going on in your world.  You can't see what is going with real time placement but it's a minor thing and takes only a second to reload after placing objects everywhere.

Just GA fly in fsx, and modify rural airfields in Iowa and Minnesota to give it more rural feel. Use Instant Object Studio and Instant Scenery create generic hangers and farm silos and put in cornfields too. In wintertime do the same for Arizona south of Phoenix. Fly short GA flights and payware will never happen in Blue Earth Minnesota or Casa Grande Arizona. Every person dinning preferences like making pizza lol.

So in fact there is no reason to use this software at all since ADE already lets you drop in object libraries from the default packages and ADE also connects directly to FSX/P3D so you can see what is going on in your world.  You can't see what is going with real time placement but it's a minor thing and takes only a second to reload after placing objects everywhere.

 

Partially true but an oversimplification - Instant Scenery can do a lot  lot more than the basic, non-AFCAD type object placement that ADE can do.   (I have and value them both).

 

If you are looking to change runway, taxi, parking space, etc placements, (and maybe the odd object) then ADE is just fine.  But if your main interest is eye candy and putting a lot of objects down, in the most efficient way possible, then IS is a lot better for the job.

Partially true but an oversimplification - Instant Scenery can do a lot  lot more than the basic, non-AFCAD type object placement that ADE can do.   (I have and value them both).

 

If you are looking to change runway, taxi, parking space, etc placements, (and maybe the odd object) then ADE is just fine.  But if your main interest is eye candy and putting a lot of objects down, in the most efficient way possible, then IS is a lot better for the job.

 

Noted.  It does look like it has it's advantages.  I was hoping for a program like that that adds expanded libraries of objects that it will package just what you use into BGL files for release with your add-ons but I guess that is asking a bit too much and taking a bit to much spoon out of the mouths of payware devs.   Oh well.  I shall have to learn 3D modeling and do it myself!  

Anyone installed Instant Scenery 3 in FSX Steam? Really want to improve some airports now that I got the Zinertec textures to play with.

So, 7 months have passed since I ditched payware airports, and I must tell you it's the best move I've done recently. With Zinertek HD Airport Graphics, and some ground vehicles, it is a winner. I'm so relieved without messing with airport configs, scenery library messing, disabling/enabling airports, performance and VAS checking.

 

I know that some of you will say "all of that is not a problem for me, I prepare the iaports for my next flight in a minute", but seriously, just thinking about dozen scenery library inputs and possible DX10 bugs gives me a headache.

 

------------

 

On the other hand, I can't fly GA or VFR without small payware airfields, because small fields in FSX are disastrous. 

I'm beginning to worry about the future of fsx add-ons. There are too many platforms (FSX, FSX Steam, & P3D) that devs have to consider when developing airports.

 

I've noticed that recent releases or updates to airports are now more shimmery and flickery than ever before. Now some airports work better in dx10 than dx9.

 

I just added La Palma and I have flickering textures all over the place. Split X also has issues. Liberia has the same flashing problem.

 

I'm starting to consider avoiding payware airports too.