>So let me get this straight. You'd rather have custom runway>textures, grass, and static planes than to have custom>buildings that make the airport look like it's real life>counterpart? I get the same feeling from Manny? Does>everyone feel this way?Yes, this is exactly as I feel. Pilots stare at runways/grass a whole more than at buildings. Buildings should be similar but they don't have to be exact replica.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

WOW. I personally don't agree with you at all on that one. Though I'm a developer I'm a flyer first I and personnaly think that custom runways and grass a "neat", but I personally want to fly into an airport in FSX and then be able to eventually go to the airport and be stunned by how accurate the scenery was. But again I'm going to have to throw this one to the masses. How do the rest of you feel?

I think a compromise is okay. Some of the more distinctive buildings should be modelled to look like the real thing, but every single shed and quonset doesn't neccessarily have to be in a GPS-perfect placement. Also, some runways are more distinctive than others. I would say that depending on the airport would depend on whether or not it needs a custom texture. Many sceneries I have seen, the developer puts detail in where the sim pilot is most expected to be, and then puts less work into areas that are seldom visited. If you are unwilling to fill your airport with total detail, I think this is an alternative strategy. Personally, I like airports that blend in seamlessly with Flight Sim, but others feel quite differently. You can't please everyone, so it's important to be associated with a product that you yourself will want to look at for years afterwards.Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

>Slapping textures on simple hangars is an easy task. no big>deal!Slapping crappy textures on a generic looking hangar = FreewareMaking good textures, i.e. no shadows, no trees,vegetation or objects on the building textures = Good Payware

>WOW. I personally don't agree with you at all on that one. >Though I'm a developer I'm a flyer first I and personnaly>think that custom runways and grass a "neat", but I personally>want to fly into an airport in FSX and then be able to>eventually go to the airport and be stunned by how accurate>the scenery was. But again I'm going to have to throw this>one to the masses. How do the rest of you feel?I always loved the Georender airports for that reason, I have them all and been to a few in real life. It's strange and fun to visit and airport you've only been to in flight sim and have things look stragely famillar. I haven't used FS9 in some time and can't remember if they used custom runway/taxiway textures.

>Slapping crappy textures on a generic looking hangar =>FreewareI take it you have not been to the Orbx freeware site mentioned above...Chris Porter:-outta

...and I haven't ever really noticed or cared about the runways/grass-I am not even sure what my home airport's looks like after many years-though they repaved one recently and I did notice that! :-lolShows-everyone's reality is different. Very tough to please everyone.Since this is always the case-I think what shows is the enthusiasm that one puts into a project -e.g. not just putting it out to make some money but a real zest for the project and attention to little details.GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>>Slapping crappy textures on a generic looking hangar =>>Freeware>>I take it you have not been to the Orbx freeware site>mentioned above...>>>Chris Porter>:-outta>Let me amend it and include payware/great freeware to my latter statment.

I already posted here but my post disappeared! Weird...Anyway, Plum Island is detailed, unique and yet easy on framerates. This is what I like to see in GA addon. And I would say that popular GA destinations deserve good counterparts in FS. There's similarly popular field just 20 min from the Plum I. called Minute Man airfield (B6B) which I think is a good addition to Plum I. scenery and experience. Cheers,=S.V.=

That is weird....have no idea why that would have happened.Glad you posted again...thanks!GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

In FSX, smoothness and lack of jerkiness on takeoff and landing and, though I know I shouldn't go there, frame rates better than 10-15 fps.Just My Two Cents,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

>In FSX, smoothness and lack of jerkiness on takeoff and>landing and, though I know I shouldn't go there, frame rates>better than 10-15 fps.>>Just My Two Cents,>>>http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gif>>Alex Christoff>N562Z>Baltimore, MDIs that generally a problem with GA airports? I thought they were small enough to not really effect framerates?

In my case planning to fly to Martin State, Baltimore rw (my town of 5 years in the way past) next week along with a few other destinations.'Never saw below 30 fps in fsx with rw download on my now 1 year old machine-but sure am thankful for the situational awareness. What a valuable tool!Looking forward to some good crabcakes....GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>In my case planning to fly to Martin State, Baltimore rw (my>town of 5 years in the way past) next week along with a few>other destinations.'>>Never saw below 30 fps in fsx with rw download on my now 1>year old machine-but sure am thankful for the situational>awareness. What a valuable tool!>>Looking forward to some good crabcakes....>>Geofa>My blog:>http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/On a year old machine? Any addons along the way?

Just about every one-gex,fex,utx,asx-did I forget a few 'xxsss?GeofaMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/