Hello everyone

I planned to buy payware sceneries for FSX as i am bored of the freewares. So as the prices are bit expensive for me as i live in India. I thought of buying some world's famous and major airports only. I am a bit confused about Heathrow Airport of London. I could find 2 versions of it. In which the Aerosoft's version has a file of 4GB and my friend said uk2000 version is just nearly 100mb. So that made me alot of confusion. What is the major difference in them? Does they differ in performance? Do the Aerosoft's version include some other buildings or areas nearby the airport? Does the textures quality differ? ?????

Well my specs are

i5 4460 @ 3.2ghz

8Gb RAM

GTX 1050 Ti

Windows 8.1 Pro

 

Hi,

Cant give you a direct comparison, but I have nearly all UK2000 sceneries on 2 rigs P3D & FSX, and I highly recommend them for both performance and quality of rendition. I think one has to take onboard that the london area around Heathrow is quite demanding on your CPU & GPU, I get on average 18-24 FPS on my FSX rig. 

i-76700K 4GHz

16.GB memory

Nvidia 1060GTX

ps Andrew Thornton's  scenery config editor is a must for FSX users

I can't speak about the UK2000 as I don't have it, but I have the Aerosoft version and absolutely love it.  I've read a lot of comparisons between the two, and the Heathrow Professional seemed to the better of the two as it has more detailed scenery yet still performs very well.

Hope this is helpful to you.

 

I replaced my Aerosoft EGLL scenery with the UKXtreme version because the VAS usage of the Aerosoft version was just too high in FSX. The UKXtreme version is 381MB installed and like all UKXtreme scenery is of very high quality. But like all big airports you still have to be cautious with your settings - my computer is somewhat more powerful than yours and I still have to reduce settings when flying into or out of EGLL particularly if using a high demand aircraft addon. If you have other London airports installed then the issue becomes compounded as in all cities with a lot of airports in close proximity. 

Bill

There were some pretty high VAS issues (and some had performance issues though I never did and believe it was primarily due to lower end systems) under FSX... the Heathrow Professional is a P3Dv4 product, and far better (in all categories) than the former FSX version.

Best wishes!

 

CAVEAT:  I'm a moderator at Aerosoft (nothing whatsoever to do with sales), but I also have a long standing reputation of being an honest product reviewer in the flight sim community.

 

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

... the Heathrow Professional is a P3Dv4 product, and far better (in all categories) than the former FSX version.

Good to know that Aerosoft have improved the performance of EGLL with Heathrow Professional. As I had been using the former Aerosoft FSX version before switching to UKXtreme, then my comments above comparing the two may not be applicable to the new version. 

Bill

Well there is one more addon on the uk2000 website - London City. Does that include Heathrow airport too?

3 hours ago, zabri said:

Well there is one more addon on the uk2000 website - London City. Does that include Heathrow airport too?

No, it only includes the airport that the product page says it includes, which is London City airport.

5 hours ago, zabri said:

Well there is one more addon on the uk2000 website - London City. Does that include Heathrow airport too?

Another option, in case you wanted to consider it, is that Heathrow (along with no less than 77 other airports and airfields in the southern part of the U.K.!!) is included in UK2000’s VFR Airfields Volume 1. This would be a very cheap way to add all the London area airports (apart from Stansted and Luton) as well as many more in the area covered although the downside would be that the quality of EGLL would be nothing like as good as either the UKXtreme or Aerosoft versions. On the positive side however the performance hit would almost certainly be much less.

Bill

Edited September 8, 20187 yr by scianoir

Well i just need Heathrow. I feel like Aerosoft's version would be better because i just checked the demo of Uk2000 and the performance is really going down. Maybe its because of my specs. I feel like FSX has many complicated stuff like VAS because i have some addon airports that is of larger size upto 1GB and 2GB like Flytampa Sydney and some Aerosoft's version airports that has larger size. They run very well and the performance is good too. At the same time i have some addons of just 100-300mb that lacks performance. Especially 'Delhi' and 'Singapore Changi' from Imaginesim. I think Aerosoft would be good. Maybe they optimize their sceneries to perform well.