Please suggest a good add on for a UK international aiprort

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

There are two versions of Manchester. The Aerosoft one and the UK2000 one by Gary Summons.

Make sure you get Gary’s as it’s far better performance wise. The Aerosoft version is by a company called I.D.S. whose offerings are not brilliant. I’m still waiting for an update to Nassau released over two years ago. I’ve given up.

There’s an option in UK2000 EGCC to remove the hangar in which Concorde AC is housed. As you taxi past it to 05L you can remind yourself that it used to cross the pond in 3hr 20m as opposed to 7.5hrs today.

And plenty of opportunity to admire the cloud at Manchester although the weather here has been brilliant since early May. 😄 

[Dean_EGTC 57]

All Gary's UK2000 scenery = the dogs bo**ox!

Even more praise as he now makes them for XPlane as well.

[Nyxx 6,993]

Well we all love manchester dont we 🙂

Well from someone that live 15 mins from East Midlands and I will always love it for being my home airport.

Personally and I own 80% of Uk2000 airports i would not call the any UK2000 "the dogs bo**ox!" not by a long way. Compared with Flightbeam/FSDT etc they look old and outdated texture wish/quility wish.

So no UK2000 are imo some what well behind other makers.

The best and also the most iconic british airport anyone can buy imo is aerosoft pro version of heathrow. It performs so well and looks stunning, it's in a different league to UK2000 version and yes I do own both.

So heathrow get my vote by a long way.

 

[Boeing or not going 578]

Mancester and Gatwick close to tied for top spot. I like Gatwick more because of the variety of less than 4 hr vacation routes. Performance around London is bad but no more out of memory worries I can deal with a little poor fps. EGCC is better performing and has some cargo routes I like that are missing at Gatwick.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Boeing or not going

[Dean_EGTC 57]

12 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Compared with Flightbeam/FSDT etc they look old and outdated texture wish/quility wish.

Sorry, a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you but not now.  Yes, I do think Aerosoft's LHR is better and I use it.

[Nyxx 6,993]

2 hours ago, Dean_EGTC said:

Sorry, a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you but not now.  Yes, I do think Aerosoft's LHR is better and I use it.

Here is one of Gary's latest airports Belfast. Looks like something from FSX 10 years ago

Here is what can be done. Even 3 years ago.

I rest my case.

Gary is a one man band but he needs to up his game and hope he does. Because Belfast was poor when you see it up close.

His work might be better in XP? but this is P3D not xp. His work looks OK from a range but close up its really getting very dated.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Nyxx

[swiesma 625]

Well.... I like the UK2000 stuff pretty much. But you sure as hell cannot make it good for everyone as it is pretty clear with the post above 🙂

 

Edit: The 2 screenshots do not look very different to me, sorry.

Edited June 6, 2018 by swiesma

[Nyxx 6,993]

7 minutes ago, swiesma said:

Edit: The 2 screenshots do not look very different to me, sorry.

Thats ok give these a call 🙂

specsavers

[Boeing or not going 578]

6 minutes ago, swiesma said:

Well.... I like the UK2000 stuff pretty much. But you sure as hell cannot make it good for everyone as it is pretty clear with the post above 🙂

 

Edit: The 2 screenshots do not look very different to me, sorry.

With some people nothing is good enough, if it is not the best that means all others are inferior and useless. Gary designs for performance not edited in photoshop screenshots and having to use dll and xml tricks to pack in more scenery than the sim is capable of

[Nyxx 6,993]

8 minutes ago, Boeing or not going said:

With some people nothing is good enough, 

No. That's not the point at all.

Its needs pointing out its far from the best. I still buy it like i did belfast but just don't expect it to look like a long list of developers that have over taken his level of work. 

We are on P3D v4 64 bit the world of textures and what can be done has moved on.....a long way.

I hope he does move on and do great textures because I love UK airports. But when I goto just about any other newly made airports the quality is on another level or 2 or 3.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Nyxx

[Boeing or not going 578]

5 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

No. That's not the point at all.

Its needs pointing out its far from the best. I still buy it like i did belfast but just don't expect it to look like a long list of developers that have over taken his level of work. 

We are on P3D v4 64 bit the world of textures and what can be done has moved on.....a long way.

Gary builds for more than P3D v4. Gary releases more scenery in a year than all your favorite high end addon scenery developers combined.

[Nyxx 6,993]

1 minute ago, Boeing or not going said:

Gary builds for more than P3D v4. Gary releases more scenery in a year than all your favorite high end addon scenery developers combined.

Yes your right and it shows. Quality over quantity its called.

[Chock 17,769]

Whilst it is true that the above shot comparison shows the FB airport to be nicer in terms of textures and more complex building modelling, the UK2000 model makes modeling choices with a view to performance.

We may not be at risk of VAS crashes with P3D V4, but every polygon and texture still has an overhead to be handled by the GPU in spite of that. Design-wise, the desire to go overboard with detailing has to be tempered by the desire to maintain performance and be accurate overall when it comes to rendering stuff. Pretty screenshots may sell products, but intelligent design choices and the hand of restraint hovering over the mouse when in 3DS Max will always be something to value when it comes to economical 3D modeling on a large model such as an airport with hundreds of stands and such.

It's worth noting too that even then on those two comparison shots, the extending scissors platform for the GPU cables, chock storage etc, its power junction box and the cones for placing around the aircraft when it is on stand are all in place on the UK2000 model, yet nowhere to be seen on the FB model. So in spite of the prettier FB model, the UK2000 one looks more like it could actually be used to service an aircraft in terms of the equipment present. The ground texturing on the UK2000 screenshot appears to be more accurate too, with the edge markers for the stand and the red wing projection warning line and pedestrian walkway markers visible. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Chock

[Christopher Low 5,341]

I think that we need to remember that Gary is indeed a "one man band". We also need to remember the number of airports that he has released over the past few years. Those super detailed airports from other development groups can take a year or two to be built, instead of the three months that it takes Gary to develop one of his own airports. The question is......what do we want? One airport every two years (that has more detail than the real world), or four airports a year that are good quality (and perfectly acceptable to 95% of the flightsim community)?

I understand what David is saying here, but I would also argue that without Gary's commitment and speed of production over the past ten years, the UK would be a barren wasteland where airports and airfields are concerned. UK2000 is the reason why I decided to concentrate exclusively on the UK for my flights when I purchased FSX way back in 2008.

[Nyxx 6,993]

9 minutes ago, Chock said:

Whilst it is true that the above shot comparison shows the FB airport to be nicer in terms of textures and more complex modelling, the UK2000 model makes modeling choices with a view to performance.

We may not be at risk of VAS crashes with P3D V4, but every polygon and texture still has an overhead to be handled by the GPU in spite of that. Design-wise, the desire to go overboard with detailing has to be tempered by the desire to maintain performance and be accurate overall when it comes to rendering stuff. Pretty screenshots may sell products, but intelligent design choices and the hand of restraint hovering over the mouse when in 3DS Max will always be something to value when it comes to economical 3D modeling on a large model such as an airport with hundreds of stands and such.

It's worth noting too that even then on those two comparison shots, the extending scissors platform for the GPU cables, chock storage etc, its power junction box and the cones for placing around the aircraft when it is on stand are all in place on the UK2000 model, yet nowhere to be seen on the FB model. So in spite of the prettier FB model, the UK2000 one looks more like it could actually be used to service an aircraft inn terms of the equipment present. The ground texturing on the UK2000 screenshot appears to be more accurate too, with the edge markers for the stand and the red wing projection warning line and walkways visible. 

With all do respect Alan Aerosofts EGLL and UK2000 there is no difference in performance wise worth talking about within P3D now and looks wise is chalk and cheese.

But anyway.......I will keep buying Garys work all the same, but it does imo need pointing out if people are new the level of work there getting.

I still wish Gary all the best and thank him for all my UK airports that I would be lost without.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Nyxx