Bought it pretty much as soon as I saw it. The pictures looked great, so I thought I'd just go for it, despite the 30$ price tag. pacSim is always mroe expensive than the others. I wouldn't pretend to know why, but at least I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with what I get. I've really liked their products of the last year or two. KSLC, KRNO, RKSI, RJOA and now KCLE, I like them all. Texturing and modeling is very nice, seemingly full interior modeling as well and very good performance! I'm pretty happy so far.

In the past, from distance, I've ever looked at Pacsim as a 2nd or 3rd tier scenery developer specialized in exotic small destinations (islands). Last november I started to buy several sceneries from them and I have completely changed my mind. I was quite pleased with Taiwan RCTP and Philippine RPLL: good textures, nice custom coverage of areas surrounding those big airports and good fps optimization resulting in a great and fluid experience. With Cleveland, it seems that Pacsim has gone one step further. I would say they are very near to belong to the first-tier developers, especially if in the future they confirm their 'new mastering' by releasing 1 or 2 sceneries of the quality of Cleveland.

I bought it.  Overall I'm happy with it.  But I would not say they are a first tier developer.  As good as their Cleveland is ,it is still not a fly tampa / flightbeam level scenery.  This can be noticed on things like terminal building detail and even the quality of the lighting at night.  This isn't meant to be a critique.  Because overall I'd agree with you that they have upped their game compared to some of their older sceneries.  

Hello,

Do you think the textures pointed by red arrows are correct? In the middle there is like an old strip?

I can't speak to the texture anomalies at the ends of the runways (I suspect you have a small elevation issue), but that strip up the middle is a former taxiway that is now a vehicle access road.

 

Thanks for your opinion and the info on the strip, Bob.

17 hours ago, Simicro said:

Hello,

Do you think the textures pointed by red arrows are correct? In the middle there is like an old strip?

Based on Google Maps, all of these things are correct.

I looked at the historical imagery, and even back when the overruns were shortened and the decommissioned overrun ends were first painted (~early 2014), they were painted over in a dull turquoise color, certainly not fluorescent cyan.  Today they are much darker still, with just a hint of the turquoise paint remaining after 7 years of weathering.  I'm not sure if this is a PBR materials issue or just a badly made texture.  I'd definitely bring it up to Graham at Pacsim, as it really does look so starkly out of place that it's nearly impossible to look past it.

I emailed Graham yesterday and he confirmed that is how it is in real life, hoping those are not too much of a distraction.

I told him that the teal textures are quite distracting for me.

He said he would take into consideration my pointer. 

Edited April 5, 20215 yr by Simicro

That's unfortunate to hear, because that dazzling fluorescent teal color is not even close.  Here's what it looks like:

https://imgur.com/X5EFCHt

Indeed Bob, in your picture, the teal is very very light, nearly not noticeable.

I would think the dev would want to update if they saw this picture.  

For FSX/P3Dv4 users there are also freeware alternatives including one that we have been working on at CLEFSDevelopment. Just a little heads up!

Edited June 1, 20215 yr by zjason13