24 minutes ago, BIGSKY said:

Thanks, I got it in a 3rd email.

Well ya’ know what they say, “Third time’s a charm!” 😇. Blue skies,

-B

Looks like I'll stick with the Glideslope Pro version for the foreseeable future. Even if this update finally makes it to ORBX, I'm not sure I'll switch as it sounds like a complete mess currently. Disappointing to see this from a developer like FlyTampa, they used to be amazing! 

I just read the latest post on the FT forums about the latest update. Looks like it still needs a lot of work.

Glideslope pro just released an updated version to Las Vegas. Is anybody currently using it and how is the performance and quality compared to the FlyTampa version?

Edited January 21Jan 21 by Wise87

This has been a long time coming, nobody wants to admit it but Fly Tampa is not what it was. Funny a few great developers for FSX and P3D were not able to make the transition. Not sure why? They cant even reply to my support emails...

 

There were a few greats what ever happened to Jarrad Marshall?.

It's a sea change even FlightBeam seems to have dropped the ball.

 

H

 

On 1/20/2026 at 6:13 AM, PilotPete99 said:

Is this an option for those of us who bought the last version from Orbx? I was on the FT website yesterday and did not note any option for doing this. I checked those and the Orbx forums and found no information. 
 

Cheers, Pete

Did you sign into your FT account? After I signed into my account and went to the purchased page it listed all FT products and prices for sale. I saw the KLAS V3 full price and the KLAS v3 upgrade price for $5. I chose that and paid. I also owned the ORBX 2020 version.

3 hours ago, Bigmack said:

Did you sign into your FT account? After I signed into my account and went to the purchased page it listed all FT products and prices for sale. I saw the KLAS V3 full price and the KLAS v3 upgrade price for $5. I chose that and paid. I also owned the ORBX 2020 version.

I do not fully understand this. I can see the FlyTampa purchase page even without logging in. The only way to log in (in my case) is to their forum. So you mean you were able to upgrade the FlyTampa KLAS ORBX 2020 version with the FlyTampa KLAS v3 upgrade version purchased from the FT page?

32 minutes ago, casv said:

I do not fully understand this. I can see the FlyTampa purchase page even without logging in. The only way to log in (in my case) is to their forum. So you mean you were able to upgrade the FlyTampa KLAS ORBX 2020 version with the FlyTampa KLAS v3 upgrade version purchased from the FT page?

That is correct. you should see on the purchase page the V3 upgrade for $5.

8 hours ago, regis9 said:

The scenery interfering with aircraft lighting is wild, how is that even possible?

You guys didn’t happen to be parked too close to the Janet terminal by chance? 😀

There is an engine hard limit on emitting light sources. If you add traffic and gsx that limit is easily hit. Not surprising that this scenery adds to it especially if the strip is included.

(My understanding is that devs can reduce this by adding fake baked in lights but don’t quote me on this)

Edited January 21Jan 21 by UAL4life

7 hours ago, Bigmack said:

Did you sign into your FT account? After I signed into my account and went to the purchased page it listed all FT products and prices for sale. I saw the KLAS V3 full price and the KLAS v3 upgrade price for $5. I chose that and paid. I also owned the ORBX 2020 version.

When I checked Orbx this afternoon, the V3 update was available, so I was able pick it up today.  Looks very nice.

Cheers, Pete

FlyTampa used to be my "go to" for scenery in P3D. Now I avoid them. It's so strange how a once great company can't seem to cope with MSFS.

14 hours ago, Hamish100 said:

This has been a long time coming, nobody wants to admit it but Fly Tampa is not what it was. Funny a few great developers for FSX and P3D were not able to make the transition. Not sure why? They cant even reply to my support emails...

My understanding is that they are too small for today's standards.

As far as we know, they are only two devs (George & Emilio) working on different projects with sparse external aid. But msfs sceneries are more and more complex, lots of details, huge airports, simmers demanding more and more with interiors, etc. They still can produce great sceneries but it takes them too long and it becomes far too complex for just one person. Add to this, that people ask them to update older sceneries (possibly for free) which takes some of their time. Not sure also that this is their full time job. Does it really pays the bills considering that new release are so sparse?

Just like Mir at Flightbeam, it becomes more and more difficult for those small studios to compete with powerhouses like Mk Studios or Ininbuilds to name a few. And just immagine if FlyTampa or Flightbeam get undercut on one of their project. You are working more than a year on air airport just to realize that a bigger studios start to work on it and might release it before you. You're done while MkStudios or Inibuilds can create many sceneries every year.

The sim world evolved with msfs and maybe those studios like FlyTampa or Flightbeam missed the opportunity to get bigger. I don't say that Inibuilds sceneries are top notch and cannot compare to Ft or FB, but they found a nice compromise between quality and availability. They are good enough for a majority of simmers and help to fill our sim world.

 

Edited January 22Jan 22 by sdirand

I don't understand what the craze or interest is with airport terminal interiors.

What do you think of Glideslope Pro's KLAS?

19 minutes ago, JetClipperJR said:

I don't understand what the craze or interest is with airport terminal interiors.

What do you think of Glideslope Pro's KLAS?

I picked up the GSP version of Las Vegas and it looks and works great. All I had to do was move it down in the scenery layer order and It blends very nicely with the Asobo Vegas City update. 

1 hour ago, JetClipperJR said:

I don't understand what the craze or interest is with airport terminal interiors.

When I see a detailed terminal interior from the cockpit of my aircraft, my brain "sees" that as a more realistic representation of the real world. More realism results in greater immersion. It really is as simple as that.

Yes, I admit that the interior of the areas closest to the cockpit should be modeled. Everything else, in my opinion, is unnecessary.