Please suggest a good add on for a UK international aiprort

[Chock 17,769]

10 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

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 cork and cheese.

Ah, but is this really the case for what prompted this particular thread, and why I chose to recommend the UK2000 version of Manchester when the Aerosoft one is indeed prettier?

Well, nope; in addition to an airport recommendation, the OP also mentioned he wanted to use the B 787 Dreamliner, and as we know, that is likely going to be the Quality Wings version, since it is the only decent P3D Dreamliner there is, but that QW 787 is pretty heavy on resources (there is even a thread on Avsim about that very topic), so anything which can lower the computing overhead will be welcome in that circumstance, and that is a plus point for all UK2000 sceneries. They keep the resource demands low.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Chock

[Boeing or not going 578]

15 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

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

Unless you can drive a Ferrari why drive anything? I'll take the bus. Your logic needs work, every time you come here to complain does it get old?

[Nyxx 6,993]

1 minute ago, Chock said:

Ah, but is the really the case for what prompted this particular thread, and why I chose to recommend the UK2000 version of Manchester when the Aerosoft one is indeed prettier?

Well, nope; in addition to an airport recommendation, the OP also mentioned he wanted to use the B 787 Dreamliner, and as we know, that is likely going to be the Quality Wings version, since it is the only decent P3D Dreamliner there is, but that QW 787 is pretty heavy on resources, so anything which can lower the computing overhead will be welcome in that circumstance, and that is a plus point for all UK2000 sceneries. They keep the resource demands low..

Aerosoft version of EGCC needs to be avoided at all cost. 

The op is asking for UK airports and am just pointing out what he can expect hopefully in imo a truthful way.

[Nyxx 6,993]

12 minutes ago, Boeing or not going said:

Unless you can drive a Ferrari why drive anything? I'll take the bus. Your logic needs work, every time you come here to complain does it get old?

Am not complaining just pointing out to a guy who is interesting in buying UK airport what he will find. 

Your logic is frankly silly and pointless.

I buy 80% of Gary's work but I know what am getting does the OP?

A top of the range addon airport over a UK2000 one does not cost the price difference of taking a bus to work or driving a Ferrari does it, your logic 😃

80% of my time here is spent helping people not complaining and if you think this is complaining.... then read again.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Nyxx

[F737MAX 5,608]

18 hours ago, duckbilled said:

Thanks. UK2000's stuff is pretty reasonable priced. Off to purchase now.

Guys, whatever your take on UK2000 sceneries, it's irrelevant to this conversation. The OP stated he was looking at UK2000 EGCC and was going to buy it some 18 hours ago now.

[Chock 17,769]

Couple of other interesting things to note and another suggestion for a UK airport that is a bit different...

First up, Aberdeen Airport, which the 787 does operate from (TUI), although admittedly not in the large numbers compared to some other UK airports. But, Aberdeen (which has been made by UK2000) is a really interesting location. It has a smallish runway (6,407 feet), which they are looking to extend in order to make it suitable for more international flights, but as of now that makes it an interesting challenge for flight simmers operationally when compared to the 10,000 feet runways of Manchester etc. But what makes Aberdeen a fun choice is that it is the world's largest commercial heliport (thanks to all those chopper flights out to the North Sea oil and gas platforms), so traffic-wise it is certainly different in terms of what is seen there and its ATC operations.

Next, here's an interesting point when it comes to graphic fidelity of scenery, and how going for too much detail can actually spoil things rather than make them better. When it comes to modeling every single polygon of a building and every single railing and detail of every fence, and really high resolution textures, quite apart from the GPU overhead of such detail, personally, I think that can end up with things looking too clean and somewhat cartoonish when rendered in FSX/P3D, as opposed to going for an overall look which is simpler in terms of modeling.

This is akin to how an impressionist artist paints things by not going for every single detail, but instead going for the overall look of something in order to make their painting look more like what is actually visually perceived overall. A classic example of how things can look bad with too much detail, would be when you see an amateur artist's painting of a house, with every single individual brick of that house meticulously rendered in their painting, which ends up being a real giveaway that the artist is an amateur; a more pro artist would just give one an impression of the overall look of a brick wall with more subtle skills. This is something we've all seen with bad CGI in movies too, where the CGI models are on occasion way too crisp and clean when matted into real footage and then end up being very obviously fake because of this.

Where FSX/P3D is concerned, think of how cartoonish sharply rendered road and taxiway markings look when compared to the real thing you see, with such markings worn off and in places barely visible in real life. So if you want my opinion, sometimes going a bit more low resolution on models and textures not only keeps the GPU overhead lower, which is of course welcome, but often creates a better visual impression of the place too. Obviously this should not be used as an excuse for sloppy, lazy or amateurish work, but it is something to consider for an overall more convincing experience.

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,960]

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

Aerosoft version of EGCC needs to be avoided at all cost.

I mentioned that in my earlier post. Bear in mind Aerosoft are just the publishers, not the designers. The designers of their EGCC is I.G.S whose work should be avoided at all costs. Second-rate.

Before you buy ANY Aerosoft airport check who the designers are if that's possible. Not all are good.

[duckbilled 310]

I didn't think I'd stir this much controversy. 

Thanks for the help. I did purchase the UK2000 product and does the trick.

[Nyxx 6,993]

40 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

I didn't think I'd stir this much controversy. 

Thanks for the help. I did purchase the UK2000 product and does the trick.

Happy for you, UK 2000 EGCC is the best available.

Enjoy.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, duckbilled said:

Hi,

I know this is a strange question, but I have never really focused on Europe for FS. Most of my flying is in the US/Canada/Caribbean/Mexico.

I'm looking for a British home base for flights to/from holiday destinations. I'm probably looking at Gatwick, Birmingham or Manchester. Other suggestions welcome. Main thing I'm looking for is a well done and well performing product in v4.2. I know there are a lot of competing products out there - mega airports, extreme airports, mega extreme airport X... It is a bit difficult to figure out which one to pick.

And yes, I know this is a little like asking what the best US airport is, but I'm mainly interested in getting 787's flying in the Caribbean, and bulking up on UK scenery seems like a good way to start. I have Fly Tampa's Amsterdam, but I am waiting for a full installer.

Thanks!

Gatwick - UK2000scenery.

08R Takeoff is one of the best sights in the sim -  (especially if you have ORBX England - but not strictly necessary as it's the North Terminal and aprons disappearing under your port wing that's the sexy bit).

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, F737NG said:

Guys, whatever your take on UK2000 sceneries, it's irrelevant to this conversation. The OP stated he was looking at UK2000 EGCC and was going to buy it some 18 hours ago now.

What are you saying; we all have to shut up now?

 

[virtualstuff 758]

4 hours ago, Nyxx said:

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

I agree 😉

[F737MAX 5,608]

1 hour ago, ganter said:

What are you saying; we all have to shut up now?

Well done on adding nothing positive to this thread with that comment. Really helpful when the OP already made his decision and has to subsequently say:

2 hours ago, duckbilled said:

I didn't think I'd stir this much controversy.

Personally think UK2000 Manchester visually looks at least as good as the IDS, but read that it performs better. That's a win for the UK2000 version for me and I've enjoyed it since I bought it after comparing the two. @duckbilled - hope you're enjoyjng it.

[Airline2Sim 489]

I’m from the Northwest of England originally but actually if I was looking for a British airport I’d go somewhere a bit more sporty - Bristol (short runway, often crappy weather as it’s on a hill) or Leeds (ditto) both of which offer tonnes of A320/737 type flights all across Europe, along with the Q400 and also 787/A330/767 type routes. If you’re feeling really brave then Jersey (not technically part of the Britain but a crown dependency so it kind of is) is a small Channel Island airport with a very short runway and flights up to 737/A320 size across Europe. Landing there concentrates the mind! In fact BA skippers used to call it HMS Jersey because the runway is more like an aircraft carrier...

[fluffyflops 1,858]

22 hours ago, ganter said:

What are you saying; we all have to shut up now?

 

No this is avsim. Everything has to be fluffy and lovely otherwise people get offended. 

Uk2000 is terrible.  Gary still seems to think it's 2005 with his unoptimised gash coding.  All of his sceneries look the same, bland and boring. 

I live for the day I can uninstall his EGKK and put on the jennasoft version which is in production. 

My advice buy Eggd or egcc.