I suppose the 4 people who want an active ANG ramp will be happy then hehe.

Flightbeam is the creme de la creme...  I doubt I'd ever purchase another developer's scenery over theirs if I had the option.  

10 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Flightbeam is the creme de la creme...  I doubt I'd ever purchase another developer's scenery over theirs if I had the option.  

Agreed. Me neither.

Though it seems at least one of those "4 people who want [it]" has made themselves known in this thread and will be happy to have an alternative.

36 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Flightbeam is the creme de la creme...  I doubt I'd ever purchase another developer's scenery over theirs if I had the option

Not only that, for me I would replace any other scenery I had bought previously with one from Flightbeam when it is released; that would never happen the other way.

On 12/16/2023 at 7:09 AM, ryanbatc said:

Flightbeam is the creme de la creme...  I doubt I'd ever purchase another developer's scenery over theirs if I had the option.  

Guys, I just want to say that old developers are stuck in the 90s and create their own scenes for PC`s from the 90s, while we have 2023 and such a beautiful simulator as MSFS. Well, then let’s tell, for example, iniBuilds not to made detailed scenes either, developers needs to stop modeling details and start sticking blurry textures on simple boxes and flat fences. It is necessary to completely leave default photos on the surface of the ground, and overlay blurry photos from Google on the roofs. This is much faster to do. The airport will be very light and optimized for a PC from the 90s.

But I think that’s wrong!!! If the simulator is developing, then I think that we also need to update our computers, and not try to run beautiful and detailed scenes on calculators))!

2 hours ago, Peter113 said:

But I think that’s wrong!!! If the simulator is developing, then I think that we also need to update our computers, and not try to run beautiful and detailed scenes on calculators))!

1) You can't upgrade computers enough to make up for everything in MSFS, even if you have unlimited money. There's a tradeoff detail for performance like in every other flight sim. I think most people would take 1 FPS more on approach over a detailed parking garage signage, any day.

2) You're mentioning iniBuilds, out of all the devs, who are constantly being criticised for not caring enough about performance. Their KJFK is borderline unflyable unless you turn off AI traffic completely (and even then it's not fluid).

10 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

1) You can't upgrade computers enough to make up for everything in MSFS, even if you have unlimited money. There's a tradeoff detail for performance like in every other flight sim. I think most people would take 1 FPS more on approach over a detailed parking garage signage, any day.

2) You're mentioning iniBuilds, out of all the devs, who are constantly being criticised for not caring enough about performance. Their KJFK is borderline unflyable unless you turn off AI traffic completely (and even then it's not fluid).

iniBuilds would easily rate for me as potentially the most dangerous scenery developer for MSFS. They chunk out 10GB sceneries at a rate that's mind-boggling and normalize the idea that your computer should be able to render the fountain in the lobby of the terminal that's only visible from the street. And that whole terminal will be in 8k, if you ask nicely, they'll deign to downsize it to 4k for you. I can't buy another M.2 drive just for iniBuilds sceneries...

On the other hand, FB MSP performs well. Not as well as some sceneries, but it does well, and I can't say I noticed the satellite image rooftop while blowing past it at 160kts departing 12R. It seems like some people start their flight sim trip at their house and then drive to the airport, go through security, get a coffee, etc. with all the attention given to trivial terminal areas, signs, and parking structures.

It is a reality Inibuilds does not understand the balance between performance and the quality of a product.
Too much detail kills the performances and Inibuilds stubbornly wants to offer us ever more detailed scenes.

Edited December 17, 20232 yr by guibru

IniBuilds is exactly the reason we need Flightbeam… I’ve stopped buying ini products, but Flightbeam is still a day one purchase if it’s an airport I have an interest to fly to. And my PC is pretty hefty. 

Edited December 17, 20232 yr by Snuffleupagus

9 hours ago, Peter113 said:

Guys, I just want to say that old developers are stuck in the 90s and create their own scenes for PC`s from the 90s, while we have 2023 and such a beautiful simulator as MSFS. Well, then let’s tell, for example, iniBuilds not to made detailed scenes either, developers needs to stop modeling details and start sticking blurry textures on simple boxes and flat fences. It is necessary to completely leave default photos on the surface of the ground, and overlay blurry photos from Google on the roofs. This is much faster to do. The airport will be very light and optimized for a PC from the 90s.

But I think that’s wrong!!! If the simulator is developing, then I think that we also need to update our computers, and not try to run beautiful and detailed scenes on calculators))!

I find it quite interesting how you cherry pick the worst possible views of our products to compare 😂. Our customers love 90's modeling. As you can see below, here's more of our mediocre 90's modeling with blurry textures that somehow is very successful:

 

 

 

By the way.. while you're already on the your way to finding more mediocre screenshots.. let me tell you more about the fantastic 90s. We had great music.. and especially movies. I wouldn't hesitate to travel back in time either to the 90s, maybe taking some of this 90's 3d art with me 😆

 

Edited December 17, 20232 yr by Mir // Flightbeam

SFO?!

@Mir // Flightbeam, I don't know why you even bothered making KMSP for MSFS.

Even though the former is from FS2002, the two sceneries look identical...

🙃

amen on the 90's music!

Peter113, What is your problem with Flightbeam??? How long have you been simming ?  How many times do we here that Flightbeam is a day 1 buy.

The are the #1 developer, and I have been simming since 1998.  Their airports are optimized and beautiful gorgeous scenery. I run their airports such as KDEN, KIAD. and  KMSP, no F SUTTERS. smooth as butter, on the other hand, inibuilds KJFK  even with the updates, is a STUTTER shoiw.

Just give us all a break I rather have decent  textures by airport gates  than in a parking lot 2 miles away 

By the way 90"s had fantastic music !

Love MSP but really cannot wait for SFO.

On 12/16/2023 at 6:55 AM, F737MAX said:

Why though? Competition is good in that standards usually go up and it gives us a choice.

 

Another big advantage of competition is cost. Montreal can be bought now for only 7.5 dollars. Let there be many identical addons from different developers. Everyone will make their own choice.