FSX-MS Seriously thinking to ditch all payware airports...

[Anxu00 176]

Detailed airport scenery is like a good aircraft model.  You only want to buy the ones you really like.  I would stick with the premier developers like FSdreamteam, FlightBeam and only the airports scenery that I really like to have and enjoy.  The killer for me was the ORBX products.  Beautiful yet heavy on VAS and FPS.  I recently had to rebuild my FSX, and this time I was lazy with all the hundred of add-ons that I used to have to reinstall, so I only installed OBBX Global, Vector, REX4, ASN, FSDT and FlightBeam.  Lo and behold the flying experience is smooth.  Now I will probably never going to reinstall the ORBX stuff again.  I was also sick of all the updates to keep track of and apply.  Add-ons have become too much of a chore for me.  So far, I have rediscovered that flight simming is about flying, not looking for a duplication of real world scenery.  A very good simili is good enough for me.

[HawkDsl 50]

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones... I have a big box, run in DX10, and never had CTD's, or OOM's under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

 

I only bought this product because it effects the entire world. I would never throw money at any payware airport... For me personally, that seems ridiculous. The few airports I have are the ones our great community makes and shares. My mind set has been to simulate flight, not airports.

 

I do save a dime for scenery and mesh. I donate to BlueSky, and even went so far as to buy some FSGenesis mesh. Airports are nice I guess... but your not supposed to be there long.

[pilottj 198]

I used to be more aircraft addon focused but over the years I have gotten more scenery focused, having the FTX experience.  As I rebuild my FS install, this time around I plan on installing fewer aircraft, at least at first.  Since I have invested in GTN, I plan on getting my moneys worth out of GTN...TDuking to the far places, and Skylaning into the backwoods places.  I'll still install some fun planes....will never give up the thrill of a Mustang or Tomcat lol,

[Pe11e 812]

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones... I have a big box, run in DX10, and never had CTD's, or OOM's under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

No CTD's or OOM's with payware airports here also,  but that is the least possible problem. My issue is a lot of fuss with payware airports, fps, ground photo texture that doesn't match FTX Global, thinking where to fly next, what to buy next, disabling/enabling airports in the scenery library before every flight (one I forgot to mention). I have a checklist on my yoke what to check before every flight, an 80% of the items are payware airport related.

Oh, I also forgot that you must flatten some addon airport in ORBX Vector tool, one additional check to perform. Too overwhelming!

With default airports you can just load the sim at the gate and start flying, no fuss! You can add GSX or some airports vehicles to populate it, but then you are hurting fps for a small cause.

 

 

 

My mind set has been to simulate flight, not airports.

 

Exactly.

 

I would stick with the premier developers like FSdreamteam, FlightBeam and only the airports scenery that I really like to have and enjoy.

 

I fly in Europe only, so both developers are not a solution, except FSDT Zurich, Geneva, and possibly one or two more. Aerosoft has the best coverage for Europe, but every airport is totally different with FPS and VAS usage, quality generally, because few different developers are working "for them".

[~Craig~ 10]

I bought it too today ........... I'm pretty impressed.

 

The replacement terminals and buildings are good but there's a lot more to it than that;  vastly improved signage, taxi lines, proper branded catering vehicles, etc.

 

 

The concern I have with ZINERTEK - HD AIRPORT GRAPHICS FSX P3D - as much as I really like what it does for the default airports is that is now adds high res textures to all default airport buildings, etc.   As you fly you are going over numerous default airports both large and small and all of those textures are loading and eating up valuable memory.  

 

The highest texture size is 1024, so it's not 'HD' as we'd probably understand it compared to 2048 and 4096 textures, but I believe most default terminals were 512 and 256, so it's a lot more "HD" than those!

 

I do have a small amount of shimmering on the icy runway textures, but I'm 99% sure that's more to do with my set up, etc.

 

I'd certainly recommend it for the money - it will be even better when combined with updated default airport files from the AVSIM library etc.     So that they sort out and improved placements, and then the HD Airport Graphics package sorts out the improved textures.    :Applause:

 

I've got all payware airports deavtivated from the scenery library at this time, and I'm enjoying just flying wherever I fancy, with higher weather and AI settings, and with higher frame rates and smoothness.   This may well be the way forward.

[Pe11e 812]

Cool tease Craig.

 

Can you post some hires screens of various terminals and some GA airport buildings, all in EU? With those you should convince me to buy it.

[garydpoole 183]

 

Really, I'm seriously considering to ditch all payware airports I bought just to free myself from all that thinking before every flight. I mean, I love simming because it's so bloody relaxing, and this payware airports mumbo jumbo made this hobby sometimes so complicated with no reason.

 

Of course I respect that this is your personal opinion. However, I'm sure that if you were, for example, to load up the default EGLL with 100% AI, it would still bring most machines to their knees.

 

My point - it all comes down to realistic expectations. If you want the finesse and accuracy of a well rendered piece of scenery, then given the constraints of the simulator that we are all too aware of,  a compromise, or two (or three...) inevitably has to be made,

 

Regards

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

You know, I didn't know what to expect when I opened this thread, but I'm sure glad I did!

 

Very helpful information. I remember when that product came out for FSX, but I already had so many payware airports...

 

Anyone know if the product works with updated AFCADs?  I'm guessing the answer depends on whether or not the author used default textures or added their own. I'll reach out to the primary AFCAD update guys and ask that they produce updates using both default textures as well as custom. 

[~Craig~ 10]

Anyone know if the product works with updated AFCADs?

 

Yes, with pure AFCAD updates, the product works perfectly.  Obviously where custom models and textures are used alongside updated AFCADs that's a very different thing.

 

 

 

Can you post some hires screens of various terminals and some GA airport buildings, all in EU? With those you should convince me to buy it.

 

Sure no problem but I'm (supposed to be) working deperately on a Uni Essay that is late for the next few days (so what the heck am I doing on AVSIM I know!! :smile:).   But as soon as I can, I'll take some screenies of various airports, so you can see the updated buildings etc.    

 

PS.... this product is not just texture replacements;  it's mostly completely new models too.

[Anxu00 176]

Anyone know if the product works with updated AFCADs?  I'm guessing the answer depends on whether or not the author used default textures or added their own. I'll reach out to the primary AFCAD update guys and ask that they produce updates using both default textures as well as custom. 

If you are asking about the Zinertek product, no it does not affect AFCADs.  

 

 

Aerosoft has the best coverage for Europe, but every airport is totally different with FPS and VAS usage, quality generally, because few different developers are working "for them"

I have not bought any AS scenery yet.  Perhaps some day, precisely because of the inconsistency that you mentioned, as I read the review of their products, I was not sure what to make of them.  

[David Vega 348]

It's all about weight and balance with FSX add-ons when aiming to create a good immersive environment in which to simulate flight.  This not only includes payware airports, but textures, land class, mesh, photoreal, weather injectors, clouds, water, the actual airplane, your hardware, OS, etc.  Too much of all of that weights you down--no flight.  (In Spanish, "no VAS" means you're not going. ^_^ )  So, it's an issue of balancing it with what one would consider immersive enough for a good experience, and that is subjective.  

[jtwhite 36]

I agree with you guys.

What exactly is the purpose of extreme realism at an airport I've never been to in real life, will probably never go to in real life beyond walking into the terminal and onto the plane, and certainly wouldn't fly my little Skymaster into since I don't even have a pilot's license?

If I want an airport to be even the slightest bit "realistic," I use Airport Design Editor to add a few planes here an there, a couple of trucks and cars and a fence or two.

Same as in X-plane, whose airports are almost always bare of buildings and hangars. IF Im going to fly there, I simply fire up World Editor and quickly add a terminal, some fuel trucks and such ... anything, just something to taxi by and up to.

The thrill of flying is managing a proper takeoff, navigating and setting it back on the ground. And if the flight is longer than, oh, 45 minutes, then forget it. Too boring.

I've even raised the issue of whether the sim needs to waste cycles and textures with outside views of the aircraft. I mean, how often in real life do you step outside and admire the view of plane against clouds?

I do love simming though, and you can't blame those with the talent and skills to build an amazingly realistic world inside Flight Sim (just take a look at Orbx's Palm Springs) trying to turn a few dollars. As for me, I save my money for switches and panels and monitors ....

Just sayin'

 

John

[neumanix 113]

I agree 100% with the OP. This is the main reason I've stayed away from FSX for such a long time.

 

I now have FSX-SE and I plan to only use it for GA flying. Sure it would be nice to fly the complex airliners to and from beautiful airports, but when the result of this are

framerates so low that it causes headaches, then I think I'll pass.

 

I can't fly without my TrackIR, which makes high fps even more important, and with the default Maule at a default airport the fps are >100 so I can lock to 60 (or run unlimited) and turn

vsync on for a smooooth ride. Even the A2A cessna manages around 70fps, but not at a complex addon airport.

 

There is for sure a market for simple, low detail, only slightly enhanced, texture improved, super fps friendly airport packages for you developers out there.

[~Craig~ 10]

Ok, here you go, I took a few quick shots, to show you some examples.

 

Please remember - don't measure these as addon airports.... they won't measure up at all if you do.  Remember that these are default airports, with no adjustments at all (not even AFCADs).

 

 

LOWG (Graz) - These quite good ice runway textures are included with the package

 

 

LOWG (Graz) - approaching the terminal, from the runway.  Some new airport building objects.

 

 

LOWG (Graz) - The main terminal

 

 

 

LOWG (Graz) - The main terminal (Night)

 

 

UWUU (Ufa) -  Main terminal(s)

 

 

 

UWUU (Ufa) -  Main terminal(s) (DUSK)

 

 

 

EFRO (Rovaniemi) - Main terminal, jetways, etc, with an AI aircraft parked up

 

 

 

EFRO (Rovaniemi) - Example of the marks, wear & tear, etc, that is added to the default airports.

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

 

 

es, with pure AFCAD updates, the product works perfectly. Obviously where custom models and textures are used alongside updated AFCADs that's a very different thing.

 

Yeah,

 

I'll include both default and custom models in future AFCAD updates, and ask the guys who provide the bulk of the updates to do the same.  I'm sure they won't mind.

 

We just have to get coordinated, and this is a great path for the community to take.

 

Frankly, the amount I've paid for payware airports over many years in FS is staggering, especially compared to EITHER how often I visit (use) those airports AND compared to the cost and use of payware aircraft.  Add the potential VAS issue (which will eventually go away - for the most part, but we're a year or two away from that), and processing hits one takes, this is absolutely a good way forward for most people in the community.

 

Besides, we spend most of our time in the air!

 

Here's something... I voiced an idea a few years ago about the possibility of paying $1 (US) to use a payware airport per day, and if the pilot reached say 30 to 35 visits to that airport they would no longer have to pay the $1.  Maybe STEAM will do this for FSX, I don't know.  There would certainly be more income generated for the scenery developer.  But I don't think that would work with P3D.

 

 

Off to work. Have a great day everyone - and thanks for this topic!