Stunning airport as always from the FlyTampa guys! performance is great in FSX.

 

The gates move with Ctrl J as well

That blowing snow.... I don't fly big stuff enough to justify buying this, but that snow... If they could package that effect up somehow and make it present at any small airport, I would pay very good money for it! 

I really want to hear from someone that has both Toronto and Montreal.

Does Toronto perform better then Montreal?

is VISTAMARE finally compatible in P3D with older Flytampa Payware and Toronto?

I really want to hear from someone that has both Toronto and Montreal.

Does Toronto perform better then Montreal?

No, considerably worse. It is a great scenery, but like all detailed airport sceneries surrounded by a big city, autogen becomes a problem (and I have very low settings).

 

Just to give you an idea: with the Dash 8 Q400, which on my system has about the same impact as default aircraft, I can get up to my limit of 26 fps in CYUL but only to 17 fps in CYYZ (Lite version). That's with a detailed mesh, FTX GLobal and FTX Vector.

 

Peter

No, considerably worse. It is a great scenery, but like all detailed airport sceneries surrounded by a big city, autogen becomes a problem (and I have very low settings).

 

Just to give you an idea: with the Dash 8 Q400, which on my system has about the same impact as default aircraft, I can get up to my limit of 26 fps in CYUL but only to 17 fps in CYYZ (Lite version). That's with a detailed mesh, FTX GLobal and FTX Vector.

 

Peter

Ya same here, I bought YUL today along with YYZ and I wish there some way to run YYZ better, even on the "lite" side of this it's pretty hard on the FPS.

Giving it a miss then.

So far Flightbeam is the only airport developer that has, imo, delivered great looking scenery with almost 0 impact on frames.

Flightbeam are masters on fps friendliness thats for sure - Toronto is hard on fps but nice

I don't have FT's Toronto (it was kinda on the list but it may have to get sidelined due to lack of funds) but my extensive experience with FT, FSDT, etc. has shown me that it's not necessarily the airport itself but as qqwertzde sort of alludes to above, the scenery could in fact be efficient and optimized but if it's adjacent to a large default alpha city (NYC, LA, Paris, London, etc.), it's a losing proposition. Funny thing is that I think FT knows this, hence why they redid and included the urban areas in Dubai and Hong Kong (their city models and textures are far more FPS-friendly than default).

 

This is why I won't bother with FSDT's JFK or LAX (and I really like the latter), any of Drzewiecki Design's NYC-area airports, Aerosoft's new Heathrow, and many others. I'm not sure what it is about default autogen and buildings but you'd think someone would have found a way to make large cities much less CPU intensive...

Like most here I am disappointed with Toronto. I don't know what it will take machine wise to give good results. Compared to Montreal, well there is no comparison as far as smooth frame rates go. Toronto just doesn't cut it. I was very disappointed with the rwy and approach lights. I can't understand what they were thinking. I am afraid I have seen better lighting with freeware sceneries. I have Montreal and Hong Kong ( Kai Tak) and they both perform several time better than Toronto. I think FT you really dropped the ball on this one. Just my 2 cents worth. I so wish the comments could have been better.

 

Nelson

I got from 17 when cloudy and snowing to 26 (locked at 26) on a nice summer day. This is with every thing off or minimal settings except I kept deicing and animated apron vehicles on.

 

 

pmdg 747

ftx global

asn

 

i5 3570 3.4 oc
8g ram
gtx 570 1g

windows 7 64

FPS are low but in p3d 2.5 if you were not looking at the counter you wouldnt know it still smooth - also noticed if you look at certain directions fps get better or worse depending on your view direction - getting about 20 fps in pmdg 777 VC and 35 spot plane with out any ai but all the other settings pretty high including road traffic at first glance maybe LM fixed road traffic a bit - to soon to tell

I really don't understand why scenery developers keep making airports more and more detailed and in the end you have a beautiful scenery which is not flyable. Who needs all this crap like internal modeling if the scenery can't achieve 20 fps on a high end system? Was really thinking about buying Toronto but after reading the posts, I guess I'll pass on this one...

I see a TBA over EHAM... on their map.            EHAM is next?

I see a TBA over EHAM... on their map.            EHAM is next?

 

This would be awesome.