KPHX By BMWorld & AmSim RELEASED

[Coops 3]

Today's update on this scenery was supposed to get rid of the shimmering.  Seems like it did (for the most part) but now my performance at the airport is really bad.  Stuttering and a bit of a slide show by the terminals.  It's looks like one was traded for the other.  Anyone else seeing this?

 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

On 3/16/2023 at 1:12 PM, Fielder said:

btw, I got this airport free with BMW subscription : you only pay once lifetime for a subscription to his airports as they are created and released. 

A great deal, but it hasn’t been available for a year now.

Just so people know, I checked directly with the dev last week and he’s still not offering it.

 

[pilotter 254]

4 hours ago, Coops said:

Today's update on this scenery was supposed to get rid of the shimmering.  Seems like it did (for the most part) but now my performance at the airport is really bad.  Stuttering and a bit of a slide show by the terminals.  It's looks like one was traded for the other.  Anyone else seeing this?

 

that's a nice way to sell scenery. I stopped with buying scenery before watching reviews. hope the maker will adjust this.

[kiwikat 506]

Shimmering is about 80% gone for me now. Still some areas with pretty extreme moiré patterns. Getting 80-90 or so fps with frame gen on. Can't complain too much.

Edited March 18, 2023 by kiwikat

[sfgiants13 83]

On 3/18/2023 at 12:08 AM, kiwikat said:

Shimmering is about 80% gone for me now. Still some areas with pretty extreme moiré patterns. Getting 80-90 or so fps with frame gen on. Can't complain too much.

I had decent performance on approach but as I got closer to landing it tanked.  When I parked at the D gates looking at the interior my FPS dropped to around 25.  The terminal areas are hard on my system and it's no slouch.

[Saucey12 38]

On 3/12/2023 at 11:07 PM, Cognita said:

It does look pretty good from the screenshots. It would be great if those who pick it up chime in with some comments about its quality and performance. I am certainly interested in having Phoenix but I also got kind of burned on CYYZ picking up Reg Designs version that was really accurate and well modelled but turned my simulator into a stutter fest -- Fly Tampa's runs really well. 

As for Flightbeam, I really appreciate their work and it really is of the best quality you can find, but there are a lot more people involved in this hobby now, more people creating -- look at  just how many active freeware creators have emerged -- and I think the days of announcing an airport and then releasing it 3 years later is coming to an end. At the end of the day, there are only so many large airport hubs in the world and creators are going to be motivated to take a stab at them -- and I think that is a good thing.

I did buy KPHX the other day.  I've flown into it twice so far.  And I can tell you that you're words are correct.  It is a "stutter fest".  I have a few other airports from other developers and I have not had this much of an impact on my PC's performance.  I was about to see if I could get on their forum for support or tweaking.  Right now it is not so good for performance, the model is beautiful and everything is complete.  I even knocked all my settings down to the "medium" global rendering.  Still stuttered a good bit.  

[nevik85 0]

Good day fellow simmers,

I recently purchased the new scenery as it is my home airport and a base for my virtual airline. Upon installing the scenery and loading it up, I noticed an unusual issue of foliage popping up through the runways and taxiways creating a rather annoying and unacceptable appearance to the otherwise fantastic looking scenery. I have not added any other scenery to the area, and I tried uninstalling the scenery, and checking the default scenery. The foliage is not present anywhere near the airport. I then reinstalled the scenery and still the same problem. I have done a Google search online and cannot find any instance of this problem with this scenery. So, I reached out to the developers, but I have yet to receive any response. Has anyone had this same issue or something similar? I am relatively new to the MSFS world as I recently moved over from P3D. So, maybe I am just missing something?

[aniiran 431]

1 hour ago, nevik85 said:

Good day fellow simmers,

I recently purchased the new scenery as it is my home airport and a base for my virtual airline. Upon installing the scenery and loading it up, I noticed an unusual issue of foliage popping up through the runways and taxiways creating a rather annoying and unacceptable appearance to the otherwise fantastic looking scenery. I have not added any other scenery to the area, and I tried uninstalling the scenery, and checking the default scenery. The foliage is not present anywhere near the airport. I then reinstalled the scenery and still the same problem. I have done a Google search online and cannot find any instance of this problem with this scenery. So, I reached out to the developers, but I have yet to receive any response. Has anyone had this same issue or something similar? I am relatively new to the MSFS world as I recently moved over from P3D. So, maybe I am just missing something?

I have sent Alexy a fix list of about 20-30 things and this is one.  I also told him that PHX agressively gets rid of plants in the concrete area.  For some reason BMW has decided that the areas covered in asphalt are dirt.   The underlying sattelite photo is of poor quality.  

I have tried to get rid of them with exclusions but exclusions only work on default scenery. I have a phoenix water exclusions and vegetation fix and people keep e-mailing me to fix it. Its not mine...  I updated and got rid of all my work inside the perimeter of the airport.  But I can confirm all the things you are talking about are built into the BMW Amsim scenery.  Alexy told me a week after realease that they would release some quick fixes for shimmering, southwest signs the wierd grass in the center of the airport T3 N and S looking nothing like they do in real life.  He also stated they were working on a bigger update to get rid of the tron lightcycle tracks and up date gate dimensions in terminal 4. Possibly they may also add guard and wig-wag lights to the hold lines.  I sent them several recent videos but they did not respond along with a laundry list of fixes.

-The PHX sky train does not have a bright blue tron light on the ouside of the track that can be seen from 40000 feet.

-The PHX sky train should go all the way past I-10 and to the rental car facility.

-The Phx skytrain tracks are modeled incorrectly at terminal 4.  

-The connector to Terminal 4D should be angled not straight, it is a ramp.

-The gate sleeves for Terminal 4 15A and B and 1A and B are completely missing.

-The gates at terminal 4 should connect directly to the building at the hinge points and not have extenders.  the extenders cause the planes to park too far away from the building and block the dual taxi lane alley way.  There should also be a blue centerline.

-The gate models themselves have a transparancy issue on the vent.

-Terminal 4 and especially 4N A/B gates have very stange paralax and internal lighting issues at night.

-Terminal 4 near A 20 should have a a black pad that ground equipment is placed on but instead it has desert foliage instead.

-There is a piece of ground equipment on taxiway Romeo at the american hangar that will hit the engine of a 787 or 777.

-The Mesa Hangar is not branded with MESA AIRLINES the ramp is not depicted and neither is the hush fence paddock.

-The Honeywell area is not well represented.  The ramp is missing, building and structures are missing.

-Terminal 3 North E gates are incorrectly placed,  and the end of the building should have a window.

-Terminal 3 North E gates have a transparancy issue on the part that connects to the main term.

-Terminal 3 and 4 on and off ramps have the support columns in the middle of the road.

-Terminal 3 near taxiway tango has bushes and trees coming up through the sky train tracks.

-Terminal 3 (F gates) south is still moddled incorrectly and has southwest signs on the gates.

-The ramp lights at terminal 3 do not look correct and there are too many of them.

-There are no runway distance markers, ie 8 for 8000 feet of runway left. these are quite prevelant and important at us airoprts

-Many taxiway signs are incorrectly placed.  Too many to count.

-There are little bushes all over in the pavement areas between runways and taxiways that should not be there.  

-All runway hold shorts should have dual alternating runway guard lights and wig wag lights should be built into the ground.  These are extremely noticable at night.  If UK2000 can implement them at KSNA then BMW and AMSim should be able to figure it out.

The palm trees are not the right type, not placed in the correct spots.  I dislike when developers don''t focus on proper trees. The tall skinny palms are quite noticable so I think flightbeam would get them right.

There's more but thats all i can remember.

The scenery is still better than default and I do use it. BMW offered a great product for a cheap price but now they are asking Flightbeam money for the same quality... I'll just hope they fix everything.  Or maybe they will earn tons of money and they know when FB drops PHX people will defect so therefore it's not worth the effort.   

But let's say they work on my list... it could in theory take a month or 2 to implement all the fixes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[knich 113]

Here is a pretty good review that includes some history.

 

[aniiran 431]

13 minutes ago, knich said:

Here is a pretty good review that includes some history

 

Disagree. And this is why developers are getting away with subpar stuff.  They have bad beta testers and reviewers who don't actually know the airport or do any actual beta testing.  They drone about, looks pretty good, any problems? Nope.  The interior isn't modeled. Then 2 hours after public release the developer is inundated with people demanding fixes for silly stuff that should have been caught during beta testing.  

I actually believe that mid-tier and lower level developers are using this to their advantage and turning a blind eye to it so they can stock the coffers ther first few days of release. TIt's only when a chorus of discontented customers e-mails them a laundry list of issues they respond  and only because the discontent might get to someone more influential that could damage the developers reputation.

I'm reminded of the launch of the FSS  E-175.  The reviews I have seen about Feel There Nashville all say it's pretty good.  No, no it's not it looks worse than an ASOBO premium airport.

But the best case I remember was how dissapointing IniBuilds London Heathrow was on initial release.  They got rave reviews but the FPS is a little low and the interiors arent' modeled was all anyone said.  They sat on it for a while before they couldn't ignore the unhappy customers and realized it could damage their reputation then they did a major, major overhaul for V2 just a few months after release.  

[knich 113]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:27 PM, aniiran said:

Disagree. And this is why developers are getting away with subpar stuff.  They have bad beta testers and reviewers who don't actually know the airport or do any actual beta testing.  They drone about, looks pretty good, any problems? Nope.  The interior isn't modeled. Then 2 hours after public release the developer is inundated with people demanding fixes for silly stuff that should have been caught during beta testing.  

I actually believe that mid-tier and lower level developers are using this to their advantage and turning a blind eye to it so they can stock the coffers ther first few days of release. TIt's only when a chorus of discontented customers e-mails them a laundry list of issues they respond  and only because the discontent might get to someone more influential that could damage the developers reputation.

I'm reminded of the launch of the FSS  E-175.  The reviews I have seen about Feel There Nashville all say it's pretty good.  No, no it's not it looks worse than an ASOBO premium airport.

But the best case I remember was how dissapointing IniBuilds London Heathrow was on initial release.  They got rave reviews but the FPS is a little low and the interiors arent' modeled was all anyone said.  They sat on it for a while before they couldn't ignore the unhappy customers and realized it could damage their reputation then they did a major, major overhaul for V2 just a few months after release.  

It's a $22 airport, it's my home airport and it looks like my home airport.  I don't know all the details of my home airport.  But the details I do know look pretty good.   I think that was the reviewer's point.  It is not a perfect airport.  Tell me which one is so I can buy it for $22.  🙂

I have visited the interior of about 3 airport buildings since MSFS launched.  IMO it is a waste of resources to model an interior that you can't see from the outside at most airports and there is no animation inside.  

 

[Flying-Hare 218]

I'm really looking forward to San Francisco and Phoenix from Flightbeam and I hope it will be great. I landed in Portland for $19 today and walked around the airport a bit. The interior is missing. Blurred textures on the ground. Parking and cars are too primitive. However, it took more than two years to improve Portland.. So I wouldn't pick on the developers too much. If there is a choice, I will choose the best airport. If there is no choice, then I use what is.

[aniiran 431]

21 hours ago, Flying-Hare said:

I'm really looking forward to San Francisco and Phoenix from Flightbeam and I hope it will be great. I landed in Portland for $19 today and walked around the airport a bit. The interior is missing. Blurred textures on the ground. Parking and cars are too primitive. However, it took more than two years to improve Portland.. So I wouldn't pick on the developers too much. If there is a choice, I will choose the best airport. If there is no choice, then I use what is.

Yes, unfortunately KPDX is practically unusable now. (it's my second home airport).  No E gate extension, so no southwest flights, A and B concourse are completely different now. They never assigned airline gate assignments I was hoping at some point they would update it.  Maybe they will.  Denver is being worked on so maybe Portland may get updated. But since iBlueYonder is now under inibuilds I wouldn't hold your breath. 

If you guys like this Phoenix in it's current state, more power to you.  It's certainly better than anything so far.  It's got some issues but hopefully they are fixed.

[Flying-Hare 218]

14 minutes ago, aniiran said:

Yes, unfortunately KPDX is practically unusable now. (it's my second home airport).  No E gate extension, so no southwest flights, A and B concourse are completely different now. They never assigned airline gate assignments I was hoping at some point they would update it.  Maybe they will.  Denver is being worked on so maybe Portland may get updated. But since iBlueYonder is now under inibuilds I wouldn't hold your breath. 

If you guys like this Phoenix in it's current state, more power to you.  It's certainly better than anything so far.  It's got some issues but hopefully they are fixed.

I just hope that San Francisco will be like Phoenix and not like Portland in its current state.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

48 minutes ago, Flying-Hare said:

I just hope that San Francisco will be like Phoenix and not like Portland in its current state.

PHX and SFO are purely FB, not iBlueYonder.  Not sure of Bill is planning a PDX update or not.

I'm waiting for FBs PHX.