16 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

Assuming this isn't getting fixed since their focus is on 2024 now. I'm not questioning your motives but how come I don't see this flickering in other sceneries? Are you saying only your taxiway tech is affected by this? I went ahead and bought it because I've been supporting you for years now, but this is a bit disappointing. 😕
Edit: Give us an option turning it on or off? 😉

I always wondered why the ground lighting was like this in NZAA.

4 hours ago, Mir // Flightbeam said:

We already have the tech for it (NZAA custom taxiway lighting). The problem is since Asobo added DLSS it causes massive flickering to custom taxiway lights.. hence we're forced to use the default ones for now.

Definitely disappointing to hear as I doubt Asobo gets this fixed anytime soon. I've wondered why I see this tech at other developer's airports but it was sorely missing from KMSP/KIAD/KDEN etc which didn't seem your style. I'd echo what another poster mentioned and maybe an option to enable/disable it could be a good middle ground? Night landings aren't the same with the default lighting.

With the Flightbeam KSFO and the PMDG 777 coming soon, the flightsim world of old is almost complete.

I see from the official screenshots that the airport from  Flightbeam  is flat. On the KSFO charts, the airport's elevation above sea level is 13 feet. Can anyone confirm this? This is important information for captains. The BMW looks more accurate. They have the light bridge and runway elevation correctly modeled.

 

A lovely looking scenery, but why oh why, does the developer go to all the trouble of designing a terminal interior with no passengers? When I sit in my 738 at a gate and look towards the terminal windows, it feels so unrealistic to see a completely empty terminal. They don't have to be animated, even a few static passengers stood at the windows would help with the immersion, otherwise It's lifeless. 

Edited June 19, 20241 yr by Rocky_53

15 minutes ago, Rocky_53 said:

A lovely looking scenery, but why oh why, does the developer go to all the trouble of designing a terminal interior with no passengers? When I sit in my 738 at a gate and look towards the terminal windows, it feels so unrealistic to see a completely empty terminal. They don't have to be animated, even a few static passengers stood at the windows would help with the immersion, otherwise It's lifeless. 

Would you like him to fill it with people and burger king staff so it's a stutter fest ?? 

2 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

Would you like him to fill it with people and burger king staff so it's a stutter fest ?? 

if putting static people in the terminal will make it a stutter fest, someone has to go back to programming school

2 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

Would you like him to fill it with people and burger king staff so it's a stutter fest ?? 

What a ridiculous thing to say. Since when would adding some static passengers in the terminal create a stutter fest! 

 

Edited June 19, 20241 yr by Rocky_53

Unfortunately my contrail app stopped working.  So my trial of SFO will await support from contrail.  Double click app and nothing happens.  

14 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

the BMW actually seems to be more accurate in the modelling department in areas (when compared to the google imagery), but the textures are better on the FB one.

 

edit:

The FlightBeam ramp textures have black backgrounds behind the aircraft typing on the parking line, IRL SFO from what I can see from pictures online does not have that, BMW is correct there.

 

The more I look, the more I see the BMW is actually more visually accurate than the flight beam one. Comparing the above images to images on google maps and other places online.

Probably won't matter much to people who don't actually visit or work at KSFO often, but there's like entire sections of building missing

Google:

BMW:

FlightBeam.

 

Mir already answered himself, but you know why the foto looks the same as the BMW scenery? Because they literally build their sceneries based on (often outdated) fotos.

thank you Mir, price is really reasonable for a project of this magnitude. Included with GSX and AI supported should be the standard as you do ( many thanks )

 

I am not an interior lurker, but do want to get the right feeling when conducting my pre departure or arrival cockpit stuff, this is where you really outdo most other developers. FPS are excellent.

I paid more for RDpresets Geneva, which is not supporting AI, smaller in size, and worse quality.

 

many many thanks!

I bought both airports. I managed to take a couple of night screenshots and will continue the comparison in the evening.

 

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Mir already answered himself, but you know why the foto looks the same as the BMW scenery? Because they literally build their sceneries based on (often outdated) fotos.

I also compared it to imagery taken this year.

But outside of that, it looks way better than the BMW one. I bought the FB one, not the BMW one.

Edited June 19, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

I had looked at the shots of the BMW version when it came out and there were a couple of things I didn't like, so I decided to wait for the Flightbeam version.

The FB KSFO was one of the main things that convinced me to stay with simming back in the FSX/P3D days. Don't remember exactly when I first saw it, maybe around P3Dv2 times (?), but I was so blown away by it at that time. It was far and away the best looking bit of scenery I'd seen then (and scenery is my thing, not piloting). It implied there was a whole world of potential quality possible, whereas I felt that most other big airports (Aerosoft and suchlike) were really not up to the job, visually.

So I eagerly bought this new FB version, and I have to say that, although it's good, very good even, it's not the truly amazing product I had hoped for. A couple of the visual things that I didn't like about the BMW version are actually just as poorly done in the FB version, to my eyes. So I have just bought the BMW version, and having looked at it on my own system, I'm surprised to say that I will probably use the BMW version more than the FB version.

The real deciding factor for me has been mainly down to the unpopulated interiors. As someone else said, why bother to develop such splendid terminal interiors and leave them unpopulated? It makes no sense. Static people models surely wouldn't impact performance figures noticeably? And there are more than a few really good airports around with dynamic moving people in the terminals, and I've not had any problems with those airports.

So I'm not knocking FB for this airport, it's still a wonderful looking piece of work, and there are plenty of bits where I do prefer it to the BMW version, but for me the truth is that the whole scenery world has moved on in the last couple of years, and nobody, not even FB, can guarantee staying on top of the game anymore.

No regrets about buying it, more a feeling of surprise (disappointment would be way too strong) that it hasn't knocked me out the way I was expecting it too.

Currently en route from LAX to SFO with highway 1 below me. Looking forward to seeing this airport for the first time (this version that is).