Keirtt
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
This issue is with you TBH. Has nothing to do with F2H and unfortunately, this is why some of these devs are getting a bad name for no reason - operator error. Look at your STAR you have selected. You're on the PUCKS4 arrival - which only supports 22, 31L/R. That's why you don't see 4 or the 13s. Select the appropriate approach and they're visible. @adf714 You'll see below the chart supports this. Also a screenshot from my Fenix showing the approaches that you claim are missing. And they've openly said already they discovered the problem of why the other airports had nav data issues and they're working on updates. It is frustrating that it has taken until now, but I'll at least give it to them that it's being fixed.
-
Still stutters unfortunately. They said in the discord that with 1.01 they didn't see the problem, but several in their discord after the update was released (myself included) are still experiencing it.
-
I'm not a dev or affiliated with F2H, but I have their installer and have never had an issue with settings reverting. That sounds like a cloud profile issue honestly, which is not unheard of. May have just been poor timing/coincidence. I saw they're selling this with inibuilds - might be able to do a transfer with them?
-
They said on their discord they are working on the updates for these previous sceneries. Sounds like they finally figured out what the issue was. I suspect we'll see some updates shortly now that HOU has been released.
-
KHPN was solid
-
HOU has released from Fly2High. I have to say I'm impressed. Here was my personal review I wrote up on the official forums. I want to start by saying that in the past, I’ve voiced some skepticism about Fly2High. Some of their earlier projects were less than stellar, their social media could be frustrating to follow, and updates were often sparse. When updates did come, sometimes it felt like one step forward and three steps back. With that said, I do think Fly2High is doing an excellent job of working to regain the trust of the community and delivering products that stand out beyond the mediocre category some of their previous releases fell into. I promised to give them another chance with their West Chester airport, and at the time I said it would probably be their last chance with me. They surprised me with a really solid product. West Chester had outstanding textures, great performance, and met all of my personal expectations, especially considering it was a smaller, niche airport. Fly2High has taken a step into something much bigger with Houston Hobby, and I think they’ve done an excellent job. It’s hard to put everything I want to say into words, and honestly, I think the pictures do a better job of showing the differences. As someone in the community who owns a lot of add on scenery, it can be difficult to decide whether it’s worth spending money to replace an airport you already own just because another developer releases their own version. In May 2023, FSimStudios released their Houston Hobby scenery. While it did the job, it never received any significant updates that I’m aware of. It was compatible with MSFS 2024, but it wasn’t built natively for it. It scratched the itch if you wanted a decent version of Hobby, but now the question becomes whether it’s worth spending more money on the same airport from a different developer. I’ll let some of the comparison pictures below help you make that decision for yourself. You can see just from the first picture how much sharper the detail is in the Fly2High version. The FSimStudios version has blurred satellite imagery in several areas and is missing some of the 3D objects and equipment around the airport. You’ll notice similar differences throughout several of the other comparison images. The ground textures in the Fly2High version are, in my opinion, some of the best I’ve seen. The reflections, grease and oil stains, pavement markings, and general wear all look very realistic. Most importantly, the airport doesn’t look sterile. It actually looks used and worn like a real airport should. You don’t get that overly clean appearance that you see in so many scenery products. I think Fly2High did an outstanding job recreating the dirty, grimy look you would expect to see across an airport apron, taxiways, and runways. The terminal modeling is another area where they did an outstanding job. The interior is modeled in considerable detail, and even the landside portion of the terminal has been recreated. It looks fantastic, and they managed to do all of this without killing performance. I’ve done some testing so far and haven’t experienced a single stutter. I’ve been maintaining around 116 FPS while running at 4K, which is impressive considering the amount of detail throughout the airport. Overall, I think the team at Fly2High did an excellent job recreating Houston Hobby, and you can see that a lot of effort went into it. Of course, like anything, there are still some areas that need improvement. The fencing around the property needs some attention. There are several areas where fencing has gaps or appears to be missing altogether. There are also some entrances where you would expect to see gates, but instead there is fencing across the opening. I noticed some scenery bleed through in a few areas as well. The Southwest aircraft also appear to have an overly metallic or shiny appearance. I’d like to see that addressed so the aircraft have a more natural painted finish instead of looking quite so reflective. There are also a few parts of the scenery that look like they may still be incomplete. One example is the control tower, where the desks are modeled but the monitors appear to be missing. With that said, none of these issues are deal breakers for me. Most of them seem like things that could be cleaned up fairly easily through updates as users provide feedback. I’m personally very happy with this version of Houston Hobby, and I’ll be using it over the older FSimStudios version. I think the team at Fly2High is working hard to move beyond some of the issues associated with their earlier projects. From conversations with them on Discord, I also know they have plans to release several updates for some of their older products in the near future. It’s also worth mentioning that the new Fly2High Houston Hobby is slightly less expensive than the FSimStudios version. For someone who doesn’t already own a Houston Hobby add on, my personal choice would be the Fly2High version. If you already own FSimStudios and are wondering whether it’s worth buying Hobby again, I’d recommend looking closely at the comparison pictures and deciding whether the improvements are worth the additional purchase for you. For me, the Fly2High version is considerably better despite the handful of things that still need to be addressed. None of the pictures I’ve included with this post have been touched up. They’re simply screenshots taken from the sim to help show the differences between the two products. They may not be the super high resolution comparison shots you’d get from a professional reviewer, but hopefully they give you a good idea of what each version looks like. Hopefully this helps someone who may be on the fence trying to decide which version of Houston Hobby to buy. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/released-fly2high-william-p-hobby-airport-khou/769280/11?u=unic0m
-
I'm running into one significant issue with this plane and it seems like others are reporting it on discord too now. I noticed when flying into OMDB this evening on the rollout, the A380 had terrible stutters when slowing down. I mean absolutely terrible. For comparison, I had a replay of the flight and was able to reproduce it each time I manually landed the plane. Not sure what's up with this on landing. I loaded up the PMDG 777 and replayed the same landing and there were no stutters. Video for reference:
-
Fly2High is releasing their new KHOU - Houston Hobby airport in a few days. Looking forward to a few flights in and out of the airport when it releases. Watched some of the pre-release this evening.
-
According to Captain Gong in his stream tonight, $37. He was one of their testers/technical advisors and also a real Hawker pilot. $37 is a solid price too. Just in case anyone needs proof of that cost: 3hr 57m 20s mark
-
I ‘think’ you’re pushing as hard as you can to make someone think this add-on is spectacular when it’s clear from what others have said that it’s not. There’s a reason why big streamers aren’t showcasing it… there’s a reason why the majority of the comments are negative. Any developer can showcase a few angles to make something look better than it really is (Looking at you Captainsim). So no, I’m not looking at your picture comparisons. I was suspicious from the start and it appears I was correct. I’ll end our conversation here and I encourage you to stop licking the boot .🤷♂️
-
I did not 😂🤷♂️
-
🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
-
🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
-
-
Are you sure you're not using another add-on such as TriTriSim? See my image below from their website. It looks like a feature they offer is a wing fade effect. Which is super cool by the way - but I also want to stop any confusion from folks thinking this was something native that came with SU6, because it definitely is not and this a thread about SU6.
