Have anyone of you tried to install any 3rd party scenery into the FSX-beta?I have. I installed Norway Airports for fs2004 into the beta.bam, i went from 40fps to 0.3- 1.3 fps as soon as I enabled the scenery.Something must be very very incompatible with fsx. as soon as I got a few miles away from any 3rdparty airport my fps went up to normal in fsx.So have any of you encountered something similar with other 3rd-party scenery addons in fsx? If anyone will try, download nor_ap: http://www.flightsim.no/cgi-bin/file/download.cgi?ID=854after innstalling following the readme, enable iit in the fsx filelibrary and go to i.e: ENML, ENVA, ENGM etc. Something must have changed in the way FSX want the sceneries coded. My guess some of the scasm and gmax stuff that works great in fs2004 does hog the performance in fsx.greetings from NorwayJan Roar Roed

I'm not going to even bother. Whats the point?

>I'm not going to even bother. Whats the point? Seriously. The default scenery looks so good. I'm glad I never spent any money on add-ons.

It's still the beta and not optimized yet.My FS2004 does almost exactly the same thing - very, very beautiful airports - FPS killers - I cannot fly there with detailed clouds at all.My first impressions of the general look of the airports is that I'm going to save a lot of time, and money, not buying or installing addon scenery.Yes, a few airports where I fly a lot will be worth the effort / costs - but the basic average small to mid-sized airport is so much better than in FS2004. The large ones are even more noticably better.One other thing - I think the scenery was originally done for FS2002 - and updated for FS2004. I could be wrong about that.But I'm not even going to try and install those type sceneries. Heck probably half of the freeware and 90% of the payware FS2004 only scenery still used BGLCOpcodes - which MS told every three years ago were going to be problems in the future.

ok, you did not understand what I ment.the scenery I mentioned does not hog fps in fs2004. but in fsx I loose 39.7 of my fps. (i have 40 fps with default fsx scenery, with maxed mesh, 1 meter textures, water at 2.x mid etc)this must mean that to make good scenery in fsx you cannot do it the same way the scenery designers have done so far with scenery for fs2004. I'm also a former member of the norway arports design team, so I'm not a "regular" user complaining about normal fps loss due to increased scenery detail. There must be something new reguired in the coding of scenery for FSX (or something not supported anymore), that does not work very good with OLDER scenery (FS2004) put into FSX.greetings from NorwayJan Roar R

I've always had FPS issues with that scenery in FS2004. As I said - it's wonderful scenery, but...Now as far as the scenery itself.Were BGL opcodes, SCASM compilers or BGLC compiler formats used? FS2004 warned those would not be supported in the future.Do the buildings and structures have several LOD (levels of detail)? Is XML compliant data use whenever possible?Did your team use the BGLComp from Microsoft?Another question - do you have any AI running at these airports?The AC parking spot radius structure has changed significantly in FSX.

Is there a different Norway Airports scenery package by another development group?Two of my favorite airports / area to fly are ENAL and ENOV.