Love Fly Tampa Sydney its been a long time coming.  Also another Long time coming is this news American Airlines to start flying Into Sydney from LAX daily starting December 17 using the 777-300ER

 

but it is certainly wrong stating that FlyTampa uses an "older ... style of scenery design" - Fly Tampa certainly does not do this and without a doubt definitely belong to some of the best scenery designers out there.

 

Ok, state to us how they are using other methods of scenery design besides the good old .bgl sytle that calls regular models and textures. Are they using shaders to render the ground textures via an external module like FSDT and/or Flight beam does or the same old style that they've used in their other sceneries?

 

I own almost all the FlyTampa airports except Toronto and YSSY, but all the other airports are done the same, traditional way.

 

So, what new techniques are they using that I am not aware of since you seem qualified to know?

 

I'd have to agree with cmpbellsjc that FSDT and Flightbeam are the only ones using alternative methods of scenery design and render, this the reason they can build large hubs that perform so well, where as the same hubs built the traditional way would probably much worse performing.

 

Btw, I do agree that FT is a great developer and make high quality products.

 I did a flight into FT Sydney yesterday with the QW 757. Approx 110 AI in the area and ASN providing the weather (ovc at 4000). I never saw less than 20fps, mostly 24-30 and the vas remaining was only once below 1gb while on final inside the FAF. Using the resized textures provided by FT, the airport still looks fantastic. With ORBX FTX AU as well, it was a beautiful flight, no complaints from me.

 

Running a 2500K at 4.7 and GTX970.

My first impression is very positive. Using P3Dv2 got 20FPS on the runway in PMDG 737. Scenery max setting, auto gen normal. Running a 3770K with GTX970. Running FTX australia, global, vector, active sky and Ultimate Traffic 2. Not even tried the low-res pack yet. The frame rate compares well to other airports on my machine when running with UT2.

 

VAS decreases most looking towards Sydney center, but very impressed how well VAS is released after clearing the airport. This is often the biggest problem with other scenery but works very well here. Still had enough VAS on arrival at Cairns to use GSX to deboard.

 

 

Ok, state to us how they are using other methods of scenery design besides the good old .bgl sytle that calls regular models and textures

 

That might be a point - however:

What matters is the relation between performance and quality and IMHO FT offers a very high level in this regards by using available techniques in a very progressive and up-to-date way - hope this sounds more accurate now.

 

And again:

FSX/P3D ask for a lot of compromise - even when using FSDT or Flightbeam sceneries and the Couatl "modul" this does not change.

However, i really like their (and many others) sceneries very much as well - no doubt here at all, so please no missunderstanding here.

But what matters is how a scenery performs on the end user's PC and what is offered qualitywise. And that's where i get back to the beginning somehow:

FT may not use te absolute latest available techniques in scenery design but they certainly use what is a vailable in a progresivie, optimized and up to date way.

YSSY is another proof for that IMHO - no more, but also and certainly no less either.

Happy flyings and landings!

:smile: