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

[1st fltsimguy 466]

Orbx have even perfected the art of making small GA airfields super, super detailed - and I'm not denying their not beautiful - but some of these tiny airfields swallow up as much resource as major airports.

 

Amen!

 

Squamish to name one!

[~Craig~ 10]

Squamish to name one!

 

The worst for me was Skagit Regional, I was getting constantly low frames and stutters at that (now uninstalled) airport - even in an Alabeo! ... I was able to run large airports like FlyTampa just perfectly, but Orbx Skagit was one of the toughest performers I've ever come across!

[Patco Lch 1,465]

Hey guys! FYI Tropical Sim is 30% off at Sim Market!

[toddl 14]

This is an interesting thread and timely for me.  I just had to replace my MOBO so I have a clean install of FSX.  I decided only to install the PMDG 777 and 737 and not install FTX Global or Vector or any of my many airport add-ons.  I have a very robust machine but like others I previously had VAS problems on occasion depending upon aircraft, scenery and weather combinations.  Now all I have installed is FSX. PMDG, ASN and REX Texture Direct ( with clouds etc set to their lowest settings) and it is nice to just hop into the 777 and have great frame rates and fly 14 plus hours without even having to worry about a VAS problem.  With that said I do miss my add on airports as they added a level of realism I enjoy but I don't miss the hassle and uncertainty of flights with it.  Default FSX sure ain't as pretty without the scenery but for me lately it's all about the flying. Also, as an aside, the actual Level-D sims I have flown in don't have airport scenery as realistic as some of my add-ons so I placate myself by saying my visuals are at least consistent with I have experienced in that regard. With that said the type of flying I tend to do (long haul at 30K plus feet) lends itself to such a set up.  If I were to stick to legs of 5 hours and under I think I would feel differently as in the past flights of that duration seldom posed a problem for me even with all my add-ons.  To each his own!  

 

Finally, this is not a knock on scenery developers who have made and will continue to make outstanding contributions to our hobby.  I will continue to support them and I hope we all do the same.  I am sure as time progresses I will be tempted to install my airports again and buy some new ones.  After all, it is just a couple of clicks in the Scenery Configurator if you don't want to use them....

 

Regards,

 

Todd L

[tttocs 301]

What Orbx does with their region airports is to basically look at the real airport layout and find buildings and textures that are similar to the real world ones, but that exist in the (ever growing) Orbx libs and place them in the appropriate places on the field.  This really is one of the great advantages of a full-fat Orbx region, as ALL airports in the region are upgraded from the defaults.  While they're not exact replicas of the real things, they at least capture the general spirit.  I can fly over a huge region of the western US, Canada and southern Alaska without ever having to see an ugly default FSX airport (and I'm sorry, but those default textures are just plain hideous).  I never feel like I'm sacrificing when flying to any airport within my Orbx regions.

 

That said, I'm solidly in the camp who's never gonna give up my payware airports.  I also choose very carefully, only buying fields I know I'm going to use fairly regularly.  I'm exclusively GA, so these are different from the mix many probably have, but I do have a LOT of them, and they do include a couple of larger air carrier fields, notably KDEN, KLAS, KSAN and KMDW.  Of these, I'm going to single out KDEN in particular as an example of a field which allows you to have your cake and eat it too.  For such a large and detailed airport, the performance is downright stunning.

 

As others have noted, Orbx has also stepped up of late with the performance of some very detailed fields.  Places like KMRY, KRDD, KBZN and PAJN perform beautifully while still retaining excellent complexity and detail.  Sure Squamish is a recent exception and quite the heavy hitter, but Squamish was designed and implemented as a statement mini-region, not as a typical small airport.  Bottom line, some developers really are giving us more while keeping the resources required to reasonable levels.

 

At any rate, I fly where I want, don't allow myself to be limited to just payware fields, but still value having my large selection of highly detailed fields to travel too and from, and I have a hard time understanding wanting to remove them all because they somehow limit choices.  They really don't, they add choices.

 

Scott

[~Craig~ 10]

After all, it is just a couple of clicks in the Scenery Configurator if you don't want to use them....

 

Absolutely.  Even though I'm experimenting in the same vain as you, I certainly haven't deleted any addon airports, I've just deselected them all in SceneryConfigEditor and as and when I decide I want more airport detail, they're just a click away.

 

What I'm thinking, is possibly using Payware airports just for my departure airport, as that's where I spend most of my airport time.   When I land, to be honest, I sometimes don't even make it to the gate.   The landing is the last enjoyable aspect of the simulation for me.     So it's a waste really landing at some exoticly designed mega airport, to pull of the runway, and sometimes close the sim from there.

 

So I am thinking ;-

 

• Keep all scenery addons OFF by default, in the Scenery Library
• Activate just one;  the one I am departing from.
• Go fly.

:smile:

 I have a hard time understanding wanting to remove them all because they somehow limit choices.  They really don't, they add choices.

 

Scott

 

I don't think the OP's sentiments were so much about limiting choice as to the management overhead of lot's of payware airports, especially when, on the complex airliner side of things (which I appreciate isn't your thing) - to save VAS, it's a good idea to unselect all airports apart from the two you're using, in the Scenery Library.    That can be a lot of selecting and deselecting, for each flight.     Over time, it's a lot of hours that could have been spent "just flying".

 

I also think that a distinction has to made here, on the type of flying we are doing.   If I were solely a GA man (especially low & slow or bush), I would never use only default airports.   That would be just depressing!

 

But in a complex airliner, where a lot of the fun is in the planning, and the automation and programming of a complex $100,000,000 airliner, arguably scenery plays a lot less of a factor.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

So I am thinking ;-



Keep all scenery addons OFF by default, in the Scenery Library
Activate just one; the one I am departing from.
Go fly.

 

Seems like a good strategy for the way you fly.

 

Scott

[~Craig~ 10]

Seems like a good strategy for the way you fly.

 

Scott

 

Thanks, I don't know why I've never thought of it earlier! 

[tttocs 301]

 

 

I don't think the OP's sentiments were so much about limiting choice as to the management overhead of lot's of payware airports, especially when, on the complex airliner side of things (which I appreciate isn't your think) - to save VAS,

 

I realize the problem the OP was addressing was/is multifaceted, but I have caught a bit of a "if I have payware airports they're all I fly to" vibe from a few posters.  But the management side I completely get. 

 

Even as a GA guy, with the amount of photoscenery I have, management of the libraries is critical.  Leaving memory issues aside, if I leave all of my scenery enabled for every flight, it takes over 15 minutes for me to load a flight.  But I do think the key here is to get things set up to make that management easy - something you addressed in your follow-on.  With a few modifications, I basically take that kind of  "everything off until I need it" sort of approach and that makes things easy to manage.  There are a few things I just leave on, as they don't use much in the way of resources, but for the most part off is the default state, so it typically requires a very short time for me to tick off the scenery I'm going to use at the start of any given flight.  And in my case, that applies to en route scenery as well as airports.

 

I should also mention that I'm a self-confessed airport junky, however.  Both in real life and in the sim.  I just love the atmosphere of a good airport - GA or commercial - so I'm thrilled there are developers out there who do such a good job of capturing that feel and I'm willing to put up with a bit of scenery management overhead to allow me to satisfy my airport Jones.  And yes, I'm a start from cold and dark, full run-up, full checklist, full taxi to parking and shutdown kinda simmer, so I probably get a bit more from my airports than others do.

 

Not suggesting my views are more valid than others - just airing the viewpoint of the loyal opposition.  ^_^

 

Scott

[~Craig~ 10]

/\ /\ /\   good points.   B)

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

To me, I get more out of the area between the airports.  The airport is the means to get there. 

[MarkW 1,493]

VAS Usage with Zinertek HD Airport Sceneries.  My test results for those interested.

 

First, I downloaded two updated AFCAD files (something new to me by the way and something I had seen a lot of but always thought were for AI planes and not for adding buildings, gates, etc.)   

 

Situation #1

Winnipeg CYWG.

Weather ASN

Time - Noon local.

Default Scenery 

PMDG777-300ER with PMDG livery.

When aircraft loaded at the gate.  VAS 1771 MB (please note this value is VAS remaining not VAS used).

After looking around the VC, external, different views, etc. the VAS remaining dropped to a low of 1465 MB.

 

After installing Zinertek HD Textures (no REX update at this point).

VAS 1770 upon loading.

VAS 1431 was the lowest I could get it to go after going through various views.

 

 

Situation #2

Hamilton CYHM

ASN Weather

Aircraft was Captain Sim L1011 - Delta livery that ships with aircraft.

Time - 8:30pm local

Default Scenery

VAS after loading aircraft - 1745 MB

VAS after going through many views dropped to 1364 MB

 

After installing Zinertek HD Textures (And updated REX4 textures which I forgot to do in situation #1).

VAS after loading aircraft - 1738 MB

VAS after going through the views - 1550MB

 

 

Conclusion - No impact at all on your VAS usage by installing Zinertek HD Textures.  I did not test framrates but others have done so and said they did not drop at all.  Looks good to me, no real downside to buy it.  If you plan to buy please look at the various stores carrying the product, there are different prices and depending on where you live and exchange rates you can save a few dollars by selecting the right storefront.

[ryanbatc 12,857]

Guys with SceneryConfig Editor - do you really think the VAS levels change though?

 

I used to use SCE a lot - but frankly I really saw no difference....  with one or two airports disabled.  For example I used to have a Orbx scenery library enabled, and then I'd disable that one when I flew on Pilot Edge (SoCal area).  It made no difference to my VAS if Orbx airports miles away to the north were enabled, vs disabled.

[HawkDsl 50]

 

 

Has anybody dared to try their Natural trees?

 

I had it and didn't like it that much... the trees are nice, but there is a hit on the high end trees (They have three levels of tree detail. I actually found "TreeX 2.1" to be just as good, and it's free!)

 

http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/17864/fsx-treex-v21/

[gtrbarbarian 1]

Does this conflict with ftx global/vector?