Feelthere KCVG Scenery - Any feedback?

[rmeier 473]

I just noticed that last week, Feelthere dropped a new MSFS scenery for KCVG.

[KCVG] – Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky Airport – Microsoft Flight Simulator - FeelThere.com

This interests me as a cargo hub option. I have not yet seen any online reviews.

I obviously won't touch that other developer's version...based on their miserable P3D offering.

In this latest release from Feelthere, I don't see anything about seasonal weather (winter conditions) and I can't tell how well the cargo area/warehouses have been modeled. Any feedback would be appreciated!

[N6154Q 41]

I'm curious about this as well.    Especially about the DHL and Amazon Hub cargo ramps which is the busiest part of KCVG these days.   I'm surprised they didn't post more pictures of this area unless it's not modeled well.

Can anyone that may have it advise?

[rmeier 473]

56 minutes ago, N6154Q said:

Especially about the DHL and Amazon Hub cargo ramps which is the busiest part of KCVG these days.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in this scenery...at least up to this point!

Right now, I'm using the Flightsim.to Cargo Ramp add-on to the default KCVG...I was just wondering if this Feelthere version would be an upgrade.

Agree with you...KCVG has transformed itself from a major Delta Hub into a major International Cargo Hub.

[mcparr42 14]

I have both the Feelthere and Skyline Simulations versions of CVG.  Both are unfortunately very flawed in my opinion.

After some work, I have become generally satisfied with the Skyline Simulations version after spending a significant amount of time “fixing” it myself, including adding parking for the Amazon cargo ramps, replacing incorrect runway ground textures, and such.  I still find both Concourse A and Concourse B windows to look unrealistic as they are completely transparent without any of the blue/green shading as in real life.  Some of their smaller ground markings also flicker badly, regardless of any simulator settings.  The runway issue upon release was fixed prior to me getting the scenery, and now works fine.  

Skyline Simulations still seems to have lackluster customer service.  I have emailed them a few times including to request a password reset and with some questions about the scenery with no response at all.  Some people report they do monitor their Facebook page but publishing a customer service email address on a website then not responding at all is poor business.  

In terms of the Feelthere scenery, it is certainly an improvement upon the default, but I found the ground texturing to be not as detailed compared to the Slyline version.  Also there is some serious issues with the scaling of the buildings.  Concourse A for example is about twice the height of Concourse B and looks ridiculously tall. (Same issue for the main DHL building also) The concourses also have some goofy angled windows that are not realistic.

In conclusion, I personally think Skyline is more accurate than the Feelthere version at this point, despite the flaws and a lack of responsiveness from the company.  Hopefully Feelthere will be more open to updates and addressing customer feedback.  

[Fiorentoni 4,253]

Be patient, it’s a rather important airport and will eventually have a good or at least acceptable rendition by either VerticalSim or BMWAmsim or Fly2high or DominicDesign. No reason to buy a bad version.

[rmeier 473]

3 hours ago, mcparr42 said:

I have both the Feelthere and Skyline Simulations versions of CVG.  Both are unfortunately very flawed in my opinion.

After some work, I have become generally satisfied with the Skyline Simulations version after spending a significant amount of time “fixing” it myself, including adding parking for the Amazon cargo ramps, replacing incorrect runway ground textures, and such.  I still find both Concourse A and Concourse B windows to look unrealistic as they are completely transparent without any of the blue/green shading as in real life.  Some of their smaller ground markings also flicker badly, regardless of any simulator settings.  The runway issue upon release was fixed prior to me getting the scenery, and now works fine.  

Skyline Simulations still seems to have lackluster customer service.  I have emailed them a few times including to request a password reset and with some questions about the scenery with no response at all.  Some people report they do monitor their Facebook page but publishing a customer service email address on a website then not responding at all is poor business.  

In terms of the Feelthere scenery, it is certainly an improvement upon the default, but I found the ground texturing to be not as detailed compared to the Slyline version.  Also there is some serious issues with the scaling of the buildings.  Concourse A for example is about twice the height of Concourse B and looks ridiculously tall. (Same issue for the main DHL building also) The concourses also have some goofy angled windows that are not realistic.

In conclusion, I personally think Skyline is more accurate than the Feelthere version at this point, despite the flaws and a lack of responsiveness from the company.  Hopefully Feelthere will be more open to updates and addressing customer feedback.  

Thanks for the feedback!

[Cognita 1,089]

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Be patient, it’s a rather important airport and will eventually have a good or at least acceptable rendition by either VerticalSim or BMWAmsim or Fly2high or DominicDesign. No reason to buy a bad version.

This has been my approach. I have looked at the marketing material for both and neither seems to be accurate and enhanced enough for me to pay for it. It is, however, a major cargo hub and likely to grow so hopefully with the 777F due to release sometime this year a better rendition would emerge. 

[Drumcode 1,893]

Like someone said, their sceneries are not actually make you FeelThere, brilliant. 😄

[mcparr42 14]

7 hours ago, Cognita said:

Be patient, it’s a rather important airport and will eventually have a good or at least acceptable rendition by either VerticalSim or BMWAmsim or Fly2high or DominicDesign. No reason to buy a bad version.

I do hope someone else will take the time to do a better version of CVG.  It has some complexities to do well with the mesh but I would be very excited just to have an accurate airfield layout with high quality terminals and cargo facilities.  

I did forget to mention from my earlier review that the Feelthere version at least had accurate runway lighting (approach lights, PAPIs, touchdown zone lighting where appropriate while Skyline does not have these elements properly depicted).

[Mace 1,929]

49 minutes ago, mcparr42 said:

I do hope someone else will take the time to do a better version of CVG.  It has some complexities to do well with the mesh but I would be very excited just to have an accurate airfield layout with high quality terminals and cargo facilities.  

I did forget to mention from my earlier review that the Feelthere version at least had accurate runway lighting (approach lights, PAPIs, touchdown zone lighting where appropriate while Skyline does not have these elements properly depicted).

Did you use something like ADE to fix these problems, or the built-in SDK tools?

[mcparr42 14]

Yes I use both ADE and the SDK tools depending on what I am trying to do.  With some payware airports, ADE does not compile correctly and the program is unfortunately no longer being supported.  

In terms of using the SDK, fixing the incorrect runway lighting and approach lights for me consisted of adding transparent runways at a higher scenery priority and then selecting the proper lighting based upon my real experience at the airport and FAA/Airnav data.   The correct lighting will then be shown while at the same time retaining the original ground poly.  

It can be a bit tedious to make everything work correct, but I have had success in getting it right with no negative performance issues or other problems.  I’d rather be using the simulator to fly, but this can also be interesting in some ways. I will try and post some pictures at some point.  

[George_M 0]

On 4/4/2024 at 11:49 PM, mcparr42 said:

Yes I use both ADE and the SDK tools depending on what I am trying to do.  With some payware airports, ADE does not compile correctly and the program is unfortunately no longer being supported.  

In terms of using the SDK, fixing the incorrect runway lighting and approach lights for me consisted of adding transparent runways at a higher scenery priority and then selecting the proper lighting based upon my real experience at the airport and FAA/Airnav data.   The correct lighting will then be shown while at the same time retaining the original ground poly.  

It can be a bit tedious to make everything work correct, but I have had success in getting it right with no negative performance issues or other problems.  I’d rather be using the simulator to fly, but this can also be interesting in some ways. I will try and post some pictures at some point.  

Thanks for taking the time to post your assessment of FeelThere's KCVG.  I am greatly disappointed with the Skyline version and I was ready to just buy the FeelThere rendition but after reading your comments and looking at the images, it seems to be an equally lackluster effort (particularly the concourses).  I just can't believe that Skyline released a payware version where the ground markings and taxiway signs for 18L all show 18C (how does this get by Beta???!!!!) and then a year or so later, still hasn't been addressed?   Is there any chance that you have released (or maybe are planning to) your fixes for the Skyline scenery?  It sounds like you corrected some of the major flaws with that version that can be used until some company releases a decent, up-to-date rendition of KCVG.