New Blueprint CYYZ Toronto-Pearson

[downscc 1,327]

Has anybody given this a try yet. New this month compatible with P3Dv3 and they claim to have made improvements over all their other sceneries.

 

I'd like to give them a chance, I've own a dozen of their sceneries over the years and they were relatively low quality, just a little better than using ADE to customize an airport.  I'd like to hear that Blueprint is moving up the quality scale.

 

Their offer: http://www.blueprintsimulations.com/BluePrint_CYYZv2.html

[Jazzfan 57]

  This is an eye opener.

- "Our scenery has not been tested with third-party terrain elevation mesh add-ons and the use of the scenery with such add-ons is not recommended."

- "NOTE: Blueprint scenery's are not compatible with FSX or Prepar3D animated service vehicles"

- only has static jetways. 

 

  These screen shots are not anything to write home about. The textures look very dull and flat. It still looks like something for FS9.

  It comes down to what you are looking for, quality wise, and what you are willing to overlook. Personally, I will pass. I think Fly Tampa is the much better deal.

[downscc 1,327]

Agree..., I guess they are not moving up the quality scale.

[regis9 4,005]

I'll give them credit, the textures look better than previous releases, but yeah, when your competition is FlyTampa's texturing....I suppose they're probably targeting different markets though.

[Arthur42417 193]

I'll give them credit, the textures look better than previous releases, but yeah, when your competition is FlyTampa's texturing....I suppose they're probably targeting different markets though.

i bought all the FlyTampa airports and most of them are terrible in the VAS DEPT. with OOM's.  These new Blueprint airports will help stop VAS issues for most people....i will buy them to replace flytampa.

[NATK50 8]

i bought all the FlyTampa airports and most of them are terrible in the VAS DEPT. with OOM's.  These new Blueprint airports will help stop VAS issues for most people....i will buy them to replace flytampa.

 

Well instead of using blue print sceneries, I would use default airports.

[Jazzfan 57]

   Given the choice, I'll take Fly Tampa at the risk of oom's, over blueprint's scenery. With Fly Tampa, I can disable a few bgl's for the parked cars, and fences, etc. to avoid the oom's. But with blueprint, there is no fixing ugly! With the AA issues shown in those screen shots, I can well imagine how bad that will look when making an approach.

[abarter 28]

I bought it. I can't believe the poor graphics on the Air Canada building, for example. FS9 like is right, maybe even FS2002. I went back to the FlyTampa version. It's older but far superior to Blue print in terms of graphics quality. I'm really disappointed. Oh well, you win some you lose some.