http://www.blueprintsimulations.com/BluePrint_KLAXv3.html

Does anyone have this scenery?

I know Blueprint aren't the best but I'm fed up with FSDT's version. There aren't enough parking spaces to deal with the flow at 19:00 to 22:00

 The textures in this look ordinary but it looks up to date especially the American Eagle terminal which seems to be much better than FSDT's laughable attempt.

Thanks

Seriously?

FSDT = bad

BluePrint = worse

FSDT is bad?  I think they make awesome scenery!

You can buy it and let us all know on how it is.  I just heard about this company like yesterday (not joking...only been 24 hours..was researching on google for an addon).

 

 

Blueprint is known for making scenery that has very good frame-rates and performance, but at the cost of detail.

If you have been having problems landing at FSDreamteam's KLAX and found it unusable with your machine, then you might like Blueprint's version.  It will be more accurate and better visually than default, but is built for performance, not beauty.

If you are having issues with enough parking spots, just edit those that are included and also add more yourself.

This looks pretty good to me.  Would be good for the ORBX region guys like me.  The FSDT version is to frame heavy to use with the regions.

2 hours ago, signmanbob said:

If you have been having problems landing at FSDreamteam's KLAX and found it unusable with your machine, then you might like Blueprint's version.  It will be more accurate and better visually than default, but is built for performance, not beauty.

I'm interested in reading about some experiences with BP's KLAX.  I have more trouble with FSDT (ORD, DFW, LAX) than any other areas with my current system.  Hopefully from someone with system specs close to mine.  I'm likely a year away from a new build and P3D. Hoping GPU and now CPU prices get more reasonable in the meantime.

I use a lot of Megascenery Earth.  With BP I fly into KIND and KIAD and do not experience issues like with FSDT.  However one of my worst performing areas is around JFK, where I use Blueprint.

Back in the day when they were the only KMSP out there I bought a few of their sceneries.  They don't even use the default Jetways from FSX days, so you can't update them to SODE, or use GSX to control them...they are just fixed.  It would be nice if they at least did this, but it appears they have no desire to use more modern stuff with their sceneries.

They are somewhat better than the defaults, however there are often times just a good if not better freeware ones out there too.

If you want a poor scenery visual wise, but good performance = Blueprint

If you want a good scenery visual wise, but horrible performance wise = FSDT

I wouldn’t consider the blueprint version. Not a good developer... at all

1 hour ago, Mitch24 said:

If you want a poor scenery visual wise, but good performance = Blueprint

If you want a good scenery visual wise, but horrible performance wise = FSDT

That's a bit of a reach, isn't it? And quite frankly a little bit unfair in my opinion. Besides, the statement is purely your own opinion... Please don't state your personal opinion as fact.

I have never had any issues with neither COUATL, FSDreamTeam sceneries or performance in those sceneries. COAUTL problems are typically not FSDT's fault, but more a lack of 3rd party application support like missing or corrupted .NET framework and/or Visual C++ Redistributables or a misconfigures installation or setup at the user computer.

(Oh god, I'm probably sticking my head in a hornet's nest here, by having the audacity of claiming, that most FS related problems are actually the users own fault. Come on - let me have it!) 

Further - I've found that FSDT isn't worse performance-wise, than other 3rd party sceneries. They're quite high quality and utilizes the latest techniques (which were available at the time). Quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with FSDreamTeam's KLAX. Yes, It's outdated and doesn't have the 'eye-candy' that the new and more current sceneries have - but please keep in mind, that it's quite old. But given it's age - I think it holds up quite nicely.

In my own opinion, the thought of comparing BluePrint sceneries to FSDreamTeam (or other developers for that matter) is a bit of a stretch. Yes, BluePrint has it's uses - but they're certainly not up to par with other developers work, IMO. They're better than default and are quite good for replacing or updating standard stock scenery (when no other developers have made anything) - but that's about it.

Also - on a side note (before this goes out of hand), please hold off with the 'developer-bashing'. It's extremely easy to generate a general lynch-attitude in here, so just because you have a bad experience with a developer or a product or thinks something (or someone) behaves/runs badly/weird/ugly, doesn't mean, that it's shared for everyone else on the planet. 

I re-iterate - please don't state your own opinion as fact. 🙂

(I'm done now - and will be running for cover...)

Edited November 18, 20187 yr by Anders Bermann

2 hours ago, Mitch24 said:

If you want a poor scenery visual wise, but good performance = Blueprint

If you want a good scenery visual wise, but horrible performance wise = FSDT

so  what kind of  performance  you  get  with  blue print  and fdst   like  too know  what it  is

4 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

the thought of comparing BluePrint sceneries to FSDreamTeam (or other developers for that matter) is a bit of a stretch

so to compare is a stretch .............. i'm confused. how then do you know what is ?