Something I just noticed at the SimFlight Website....Cloud9 is doing a Boston Logan Airport...is this nuts or what!!! (Again!) :-(George Grimshaw of FlyTampa fame did a fantastic freeware version...he even has plans to upgrade this with new terminals; so why does Cloud9 even think there is a need for a payware version. Let's concentrate on US airports which where done poorly (old modeling techniques, etc) like LAX, JFK, DFW, etc...:-hmmm Please not another Boston Logan...can someone convey this message to them, please...their going to waste a lot of time and effort for marginal rewards and money!

I agree, only a fool would buy a payware version of KBOS after George's scenery.http://www.kthxdone.com/images/kw_ft.jpgKen Weik [link:maam.org|MAAM-SIM][link:library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=root&SearchTerm=kenneth+weik&Sort=Added&ScanMode=0&Go=Change+View]My AFCADs

Agreed. There are many, many other airports in dire need of a good developer - KBOS is not one of them.

I know. ITs strange to have like 5 versons of the SAME us airport. Why not something different like in Aus or New zealand?

Greetings!"(...) Let's concentrate on US airports (...)"I am strongly opposed to that proposal. Let's concentrate on NON-US airports and other stuff. FS9 is already strongly biased in favor of the U.S., like in mesh density, photographic sceneries, airports (both number and details). I see no reason whatsoever for increasing this bias even more.On a different note: I fully agree with you that it's utterly senseless to make a payware version of an airport that already has a very good freeware version, regardless of where that airport might be located.Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

Why doesn't someone do a Decent Toronto CYYZ? Simflyers version is very outdated, and is a frame killer. NO ONE has done a really good Canadian Airport.

Grimshaw's KBOS is outdated with the completion of the construction of the new terminal. Though he has talked about updating the airport - but when?I would assume a commercial company would do enough market research to be sure the scenery will be a good seller - wanted by the FS community.Unfortunately, I will not be one of the people seriously looking at this release when / if it comes out. After the extremely heavy FPS impact of the EHAM, I have significant doubts about their process of building scenery.The EHAM suffers extensively from not using LOD.Grimshaw's scenery, even dated, either uses LOD, or he has another method of making the FPS impact minimal.It will stay in my FS world for a long time.

I am always reluctant to install these add-on airports, wondering if it will have a real impact on frame rates. I get a slow down in the default Boston. What are these add-ons like as far as frame rates?

I agree. Man, I'm just surprised that TJSJ hasn't been picked up by a payware developer, when it's an AAL hub and one of the better airports in the Caribbean. And don't even get me started on Maiquetia (SVMI), which is one of the gateway airports of South America...My point? With so many important airports all over the Caribbean and South America, and even within the US itself, why do developers dwell on the same few intl. airports in the US? I assure you that if they announced a project in those areas, they'd be very quick to find contributors... And I am sure people would fly to these places, since they're reasonably close to the other sceneries they have. But oh well, such is life... :)Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.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. :)

>Why doesn't someone do a Decent Toronto CYYZ? Simflyers>version is very outdated, and is a frame killer. NO ONE has>done a really good Canadian Airport.>Nigel Grant's Vancouver is good, and the Mosher brothers did a great version of St. John's, Newfoundland for FS2002 that works in FS9. They did Halifax and Moncton, too.Paul Mainville has a nice version of my hometown airport, Ottawa, at http://www.vnwa.com/Noramair/ .BlairCYOW

we need a really good LAX...........LAX LAX LAX, actually, most of the simflyers stuff needs to be redone by the new standards of scenery building......LAX LAX LAX

Cloud9 has updated EHAM few weeks ago and there is no more heavy impact on fps. The scenery is fantastic.I respect your opinion but I really don't agree with your doubts about Cloud9's capability of building sceneries...Most of former LAGO's (...) sceneries were signed by Alberto Sangalli, today's Cloud9's CEO and they populate my PC for years with always the same pleasure.When you develop a scenery as complex as Roma or Amsterdam you take the risk to frustrate people that have slow computers. But in another hand they offer very innovative features together with awesome textures that give to their products a very high level of quality.Why did they decide to develop Boston when the freeware is already so popular?I don't know.But I am sure that again they will put this "Italian" touch into their product with talent and imagination.Let's wait and see!David in Jerusalem

I have to agree with David here. Alberto Sangalli and his team are superb at creating excellent looking sceneries and at low frame rate. They care about their work and respond positively to users' comments. However, I too question their doing an airport already well covered. I guess we all have our wish lists for airports though, and if I were a payware developer I'd have to take into account the commercial aspect as well as the wshes of a relative few who might like a less popular aiport scenery.

>After the>extremely heavy FPS impact of the EHAM, I have significant>doubts about their process of building scenery.I assume you checked the latest version available ( since the download it's totally free, one can check it at any time the latest version )EHAM doesn't have any particular impact on the fps anymore, not the scenery itself. It's the AI people are using, together with the fact the airport is extremely BIG and BUSY, and the supplied AFCAD are including all 200 parking stands, makes for a low fps if used at 100% traffic setting. And, in the first version was the City, a lot improved and now on a separate layer, easy to disable for those not interested.Unfortunately, people fail to realize that 100% at EHAM means A LOT more than 100% at a different place, it's wrong to say "hey, I can use 100% at xxxx airport without problems, why I can't here ?" It's not the *percentage* that counts, it's the actual number or AI, or, more precisely, it's the total n. of AI multiplied by the number of polygons each one is using, so this is also variable. And it varies with date/time, because of traffic schedules.Also, the ground service vehicles are linked and appear/disappear to the AI dynamically, something never seen before on FS. Of course, it CAN be disabled very easily by the user, since the ground vehicles appears only at the maximum complexity levels. However, they have minimal impact on fps, comparing to the AI they are attached to.It's very easy for anyone to check this:Just run EHAM in Trial mode, the download it's free for anyone, and let it expire ( don't worry, just restart FS, you'll get another 7 minutes ) after 7 minutes the whole scenery will disappear, and only the AI will be left. Check the fps before and after, it will not improve much, even without the scenery! Quite clear proof that the AI are slow, not the actual scenery.>The EHAM suffers extensively from not using LOD.What makes you think EHAM doesn't use LOD ? It does, and VERY extensivly, it's quite easy to see, for example in the finger gates, they are *clearly* changing into low detail versions, when seen from a distance.>Grimshaw's scenery, even dated, either uses LOD, or he has>another method of making the FPS impact minimal.KBOS is much smaller, it will be extremely easy to offer a better frame rate of EHAM, but just because of the lower number or parking stands will not attract as many AI as EHAM does.There are two choice a scenery developer can do:1) provide with a reduced AFCAD, making, say, 1 every 3 of the real parkings available, so even if one it's using lots of additional AI, they will not be able to park and they will simply disappear.2) provide with real world parkings, hoping the user will be smart enough to *understand* that there IS a AI Traffic density slider built in FS, and it's there to be USED. Right now, no PC can deliver 100 or more AI without slowing down, so in a busy airport like EHAM, the AI density slider HAVE to be reduced, expecially if using products like UT or other similar utility with schedules busier than default.

HI..I agree with you. I would purchase a new version of an already existing payware airport that I have previously installed. I would like to see FLY TAMPA do VANCOUVER INT. (CYVR).There is a nice freeware for CYVR now but FLY TAMPA and their penchant for detail would really give us another great airport addon for FS9...Regards TH