2 hours ago, Simicro said:

Thank you Gsalden. What about performance (fps) please?

Performance on my PC (see my signature below) at FlyTampa EHAM Amsterdam Schiphol is very good, and that is with PrealSoft VFR Amsterdam landmarks also installed in the background. Of course, this is with photogrammetry disabled, and MSFS 2024 rendered at 1920x1080 resolution (with 1.5x DSR).

Edited June 2Jun 2 by Christopher Low

3 hours ago, V1ROTA7E said:

That’s true about most of the sought after airports…ORD nightmare, ATL, thank god they got rid of “Dixie.” JFK….PITA. AMS….Grt ready for a looooong taxi.

Yep, but at least we can turn the traffic off in the sim 🙂

And while you’re here @V1ROTA7E , thanks for doing the Brunner profiles, I’ve been using a couple of them, very handy!

Thank You Everyone!

Approaching KBOS.

On final for the 04R.

Even though I do not fly in the USA, I have been very tempted to purchase FlyTampa KBOS many times. If I did decide to purchase it, are there any other addons that would be useful to someone who does not use PG? In other words, any VFR Landmark packages of Boston and/or the surrounding area, bridge packages etc?

Edited Tuesday at 07:18 PM5 days by Christopher Low

What does the PG mean please?

I've made a quick search and could not find any landmarks addon freeware or payware for the surrounding area. Sorry.

It looks like SamScene do a Boston Landmarks addon package, and it specifically states that it can be used with PG disabled.

On 6/1/2026 at 10:05 PM, jon b said:

Other good alternatives in the uk are Pyreegue EGNX , EGPF and probably EGBB but I don’t own that one.

Ini builds EGCC is ok too

I can vouch for the Pyreegue EGBB. The detail when you are at a gate is stunning. This was a startup of the recently updated ATR at a stand at EGBB. I use the airport frequently as a rl passenger and it really does look like this:

I have EGBB installed but from maccosim , but I don’t think I’ve ever flown in there in the sim so can’t comment on its quality, it’s something I installed as a diversion airfield.

I once diverted a real 747 into EGBB due to 2 windshear go arounds at EGCC, so it’s one I like to keep on standby.

6 hours ago, jon b said:

I once diverted a real 747 into EGBB due to 2 windshear go arounds at EGCC, so it’s one I like to keep on standby.

Was that the one where excess weight had to be removed for it to be able to take off again?

Maybe the runway has/had since been extended but I remember walking through the terminal and saw a 747 at a stand and said to the nearby airport security man, 'I didn't think that Birmingham was long enough to take 747's??'

The security man replied, 'It isn't. This one had been diverted and was just about OK to land, but they're taking stuff out of it so it's light enough to be able to take off again.'

He may have been joking, of course, but in probably hundreds of visits to the airport, it was the only time I have ever seen a 747 there !

Birmingham airport's runway has been extended to 10000 feet (3048 metres), so it should have no problem receiving a 747 these days.

1 hour ago, AJZip2 said:

Was that the one where excess weight had to be removed for it to be able to take off again?

No , that wasn’t me. We just left it there and went back to Manchester on a coach as we were out of duty hours. They shipped another crew down by coach to fly it back up to Manchester.

38 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Birmingham airport's runway has been extended to 10000 feet (3048 metres), so it should have no problem receiving a 747 these days.

Ah...that makes perfect sense. I just looked it up. My trip will have been 14 or 15 years ago (weekly to Brussels for around 2 years or so) and the extension was c 12 years ago according to Google. So the 747 I saw did indeed land on the runway before it was extended. I'll see if I can find some old press reports.