It really is nice. I have my AI maxed out so whatever shows up Shows up. It may be only a few planes but I could care less. I counted them after the so called 3 plane post there are 27 planes around the airport so thats fine with me.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161336.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161337.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161338.jpgSome complain daily about FSX others fly it which are you.:)

I have not tried it yet but the pictures show an attempt at "weathering" the buildings and the gates. There could have been a bit more of that. The firehouse looks quite good despite the slightly blurred texture because it has secondary textured elements that make it more real - local black algae/slime running down from the light fixtures. Only a person with artistic talent will usually include that stuff.The apron is unfortunately brand new and in perfect condition. While some staining was applied under the jetways it is repetitive and seems too confined. I would like to see it shown in a random pattern for the areas that are beneath the parked aircraft as well.To me most FS airports seem to look basically the same. New and un-weathered with no real texture. With FSX I expect some art to go along with the geometry. The Orlando airport at least has some secondary textured elements that offer improved reality.Dick Near 5G8

The scenery is very nice-but that little utility they include that lets you slider the autogen building/tree settings along with the fiber/poolsize is really neat!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Should I even dare to comment? Oh Ok you guys who say you have maxed out AI and theres no performance change with this or any addon you are outright lying. Start the 5th stage in greiving because its not what you expected and start the accpetance step.

Sorry if you not happy with FSX have you tried something else if not? I wish you would. It might be better for you there is FS9 and Xplane.Are you in some kind of program for greiving because of FSX? :-rollMy AI is maxed out I use woai and uga so whatever shows up from their bgl files is what I get. :-yellow1 FSX has been very good to Me.;-)

>Should I even dare to comment? Oh Ok you guys who say you>have maxed out AI and theres no performance change with this>or any addon you are outright lying. Start the 5th stage in>greiving because its not what you expected and start the>accpetance step.:(There is always one bad apple in every batch...

Your right its called FSX.

>Your right its called FSX.Nope,.... jason!! :-rollRegards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Ok whether you get 10- 15 -20 FPS. The point is this is an improvement over FS9 but at the same time it is really not. Of course after 4 years of dev some stuf is gonna look nicer a few tweaks here and there. But how can any of you honestly defend something that the dev has outright come open and said they developed this for hardware 2 years down the road? That goes against the grain on every aspect of the philosophy of business marketing and strategy along with customer satisfaction. Imagine if they did that with any other product out there, say your car or house? What if your car used Regular gas but ran at half power until this new fuel 2 years from now was avaiable? Would you buy it? Put down the fscination with having a new thing to tinker with and get with the program. Sorry but my FS9 with my add ons at 30 FPS blows away any FSX config out there. Its that simple.

> Put down the fscination with having a new thing to tinker>with and get with the program. Sorry but my FS9 with my add>ons at 30 FPS blows away any FSX config out there. Its that>simple.Jason, Jason!! Put down the new thing to tinker with? You're talking to pilots here. :-)Seriously, it does no one any good to voice an evangelical complaint everywhere you go about FSX. You won't "sell" anyone on the idea of sticking with FS9 if they are truly hobbyists and what to maintain an up-to-date knowledge of their hobby. No, FSX is NOT perfect...did anyone expect to to be? Of course not. But the way you're talking you'd think that Microsoft owed you, personally, an explanation or sales pitch designed to justify everything it's done to FSX.Straight and simple, if "you" don't like FSX, don't fly it. Leave the rest who want to tinker...give a dam. And, by all means. do something about your 30 fps in FS9...that's marginal. Acceptable, but marginal.Cheers,Barthttp://acquiry.com/picts/BartMig110_sml.jpgCloud9 Beta Team

>Straight and simple, if "you" don't like FSX, don't fly it.>Leave the rest who want to tinker...give a dam. And, by all>means. do something about your 30 fps in FS9...that's>marginal. Acceptable, but marginal.>For X-Plane "die hards", 50 fps is the lower end. :-lol

The demo runs too poorly to be flyable here. Nothing impressive visually. Un-installed.AMD FX-624 GB RAMNV 7950

>The demo runs too poorly to be flyable here. Nothing>impressive visually. Un-installed.I love how FS developers (In this case Fly Tampa = Elvi5) talk trash about other FS Developers.Very nicely done Elvi5!! I'll be sure to run in the other direction if/when you stop stop complaining/whining about FSX and release your own payware scenery. At least someone out there is making the attempt :-) For that reason I have a TON more respect for Cloud9 than Fly Tampa....

Just being honest. I'm not dumb enough to develop for FSX; it's a dead horse only good for bush flying & giraffe spotting.I suggest you go back to cheerleading because I have less than zero respect for your opinion.

A picture tells more than thousand words:I find 20.0 fps to be quite flyable...System is Intel E6700, 2GB RAM, GeF 7800 GTX 256 MB.Scenery Complexity at DenseAutogen Complexity at DenseLight Bloom offWater Effectx 2.0 MidTraffic at default Low setting.Tweaks:FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.20TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1200TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1200Original screens were taken at 1600x1200 2x FSAA, 16x Aniso.I think it clearly demonstrate it's has a very low impact on the fps, and it's DOESN'T look like the default one.Fortunately, there's no need to arguing, anybody can check it for himself, thanks to a fully working trial available.