I hope these comments will open your eyes or least get you to think. Most of the US scenery developers are concentrating on smaller airports with only two or three major air carriers while European and Asian developers are doing major city terminals for London, Rome, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Madrid, Tokyo, Osaka and Beijing (too many to list). Is this a lack of interest by US developers or a major question? Large US airports like JFK, ATL, DFW, LAX, LGA, PHL, IAD, Etc. (while developed for FS2002) are still strangely absent for FS2004 and every major European hub city is being currently produced or has received a major refresh by a developer. Past or very inactive US developers are still resting on their past laurels or concentrating on smaller airports like Providence, Chicago Midway or Kansas City, etc instead of developing their countries (US) gateway airports which would help the flight simulation as a whole since most customers prefer the larger terminals (more airlines/aircraft types, heavier traffic conditions, varied and complex architecture, etc).What do the European/Asian developers know that the US doesn

Darryl,I'm not sure I understand the question, because every US airport you've mentioned above, have been faitfully recreated by various scenery developers except for maybe LGA. Simflyer's has done by far the most airports for the US including IAD, ATL, LAX, DFW etc, while FlyTampa! has done KSFO. Imaginesim has done KDEN.Jeff

For FS2002...not up to par for FS2004 like European Airports!The above-mentioned developers still uses old tools (not GMAX) and textures (out-of-focus/blurry and not photo-realistic). Also, framerates are low on these above-mentioned airports which is not exceptable anymore!

I also have no clue what he is talking about. It seems there was always over-concentration on huge hub airports at the expanse of smaller ones. I am glad that finally some very fine second-tier airports are being worked on like Kansas or St.Louis. Not to mention some big ones like Seattle are in the pipeline as well. KDEN was completed recently. 'Tyranny' of huge airports is over and I am very pleased about it, more balanced approach to airport selection is the way to go.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

Darryl,The following airports HAVE been done for FS9 ane are not FS2002 rebuilds: KBOS, KDEN, KMIA, KDTW, KMSY, KMIA, KSAN, KSFO, KLGA, KSTL, KCLE,KSNA and more that I can' recall. Not to mention the FS9 upgrade of KIAD, KJFK, KLAX, KORD, KPHX, KIAH and KTPA.I think your comments are off base on lack of use of GMAX on US airports, not only are the main hubs have been done by many developers. I hope you did not post this as a troll!!!!!!!!!!FlyTampa is one developer that has some the best frames in the industry and a great attention to detail. Are there airports that need development, YES, SimFlyers needs to upgrade KDFW, it is a nightmare, KSEA, KJAX, KRIC, KPIT. and KMEM have not been done to the level of others.Bob

The problem or most of the develpoers is that it takes a good year to develop an airport larger airports with such detail and performance take time. Most developers design airports as a hobby/second job not 1st job. Our main developer Raffaele is developing MSP on his own on his freetime away from his primary job. The other issue we run into is good detailed photos for MSP we were able to get a good contact who works as MSP so he is taking photos for us. All of our new airports LAS, PHX, soon MSP, and YVR will will be GMAX w/ good performance it just takes time.As for DFW :) it's on our schedule as a total re-build from the ground up in full GMAX.John

FlyTampa is not photo-realistic, the textures are out of focus, and the FPS are bad?! :-lol Haha... Really, if you can afford it, you can have most of the hub airports pretty nicely built. Should more be done? Definitely. But the ones that should be done are smaller airports that still have good traffic (FLL, LGA, SLC, etc). Daniel P. http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

One of the above posts forgot to mention KLAS, I was pretty impressed when I got it as far as accuaracy goes. I worked at McCarran before joining the Air Force and I can say that I didn't expect the level of accuracy that I got with that one.Jeff

I imagine that the large hub airports that were created for F2002, have just not been updated for FS9, due to the cost, time and interest in them. I think some of the FS2002 airports still work in FS9, however they probably don't take advantage of some SDK's, etc.As mentioned, I would check out the SimFlyers site. Fly Tampa is also working on SeaTac International.Kev

Personally, I don't see what is wrong about the smaller airports. I like the challenge associated with landing on shorter runways. Sure, MDW and Kansas City might not be international gateways for the US, but they play vital roles in domestic travel.

Jeff,I was in Air Force Cadets here in Oz years ago-loved it.There is colour DOQQs which I am downloading (I think its too big to download actually since I don't have broadband) to make a photoreal scenery of Las Vegas. What scenery were you referring to, the addon or the FS2004 standard?Danielwww.danielmcaloon.tk

I was talking about Simflyer's KLAS airport scenery and how accurate it really is to the real thing. I also have fsfreeware's Las Vegas scenery as well and it's pretty good too.Jeff

The above cities I mentioned have not been upgraded as someone suggested and no, I was not referring to the FlyTampa

The problem of having the larger airports already done by Simflyers is that no other developer seems willing to recreate them in todays standards. It is a shame really. I live in Philadelphia and the airport done by Simflyers is way out of date and tough on frames. LAX,DFW, and EWR are almost unflyable on my computer which is pretty good and up to date. I love the Fly Tampa, PVD, Imagine and the newer Simflyers in Gmax. I hope OSS will eventualy release a scenery they have picked some interesting locations. Well I hope someday to see PHL as it is today.

Hi, John:And you represent what developer, please. I have been using Ron Ackerly's FS2K version of KMSP but it is not up to date and can take a hit on frames even with his last version that allows leaving a few details out. It is wonderful scenery, especially the night views with the accurate depiction of moving vehicles on the surrounding highways. I have adjusted AFCADs to match this scenery and added some additional missing facilitieswith RWY12. However, I am anxious for a completed version as well, as you state Raffaele is working on. I am also interested in KDFW. I emulate mostly commuter services such as Northwest Airlink and my virtual and real home is KMSP.So I am looking forward to your stated releases.