18 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

Do you really want to spend a bunch of $$$ on quick and dirty portovers of FSX scenery (which is my understanding of what FSXScenery is doing on SimMarket)?  Why not wait for someone to do it from scratch to the new MSFS standards? 

I supposed if it's your home airport and you can't wait....

Just seems like the kind of behavior we should not encourage. That and things like selling some King Air liveries and a bush trip for $18, with a misleading name that makes it sound like it's an actual aircraft.

Actually FSXScenery's sceneries aren't that bad.  Those that work look quite nice.  Yes there's the floating building issue in Sanford but it's not a show stopper as the main terminal has no problem.  I don't believe these sceneries are port overs as like I said they don't look half bad.

8 hours ago, wainwj said:

I'd say they are trying to convince customers not to buy bad quality payware with floating low poly buildings.

Saying that though, you can see they are not direct ports by comparing the pictures of the old product and new.

The sceneries aren't bad.  Bad by comparison is comparing Flightbeam to Blueprint sceneries in FSX. Although Blueprint are functional sceneries that fill a void for airports that aren't done their sceneries aren't Flightbeam or FlyTampa quality.  This is different, for smaller airport FSXScenery in FS2020 is not bad at all (when they work).

Edited October 21, 20205 yr by Dillon

19 hours ago, Dillon said:

The sceneries aren't bad.  Bad by comparison is comparing Flightbeam to Blueprint sceneries in FSX. Although Blueprint are functional sceneries that fill a void for airports that aren't done their sceneries aren't Flightbeam or FlyTampa quality.  This is different, for smaller airport FSXScenery in FS2020 is not bad at all (when they work).

Did you find out what was the problem with your scenery not loading? 

2 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

Did you find out what was the problem with your scenery not loading? 

Not yet. Thanks for checking.