CX 747-400 wrote:I had ordered FSX with PC Aviator. I just cancelled my order after reading about all the issues that people are having with it. I will be staying with FS9 for at least a year or more. I will not be upgrading until FlyTampa, and some of the others can figure out how to make it work. I was so excited about Cloud9 doing Orlando; but I am so dissapointed that it will be default ground texture. I guess that i can live with Simflyers MCO for a little bit longer.
Without taking sides for either developer, I am quite certain that the new MCO by Cloud9 will be miles ahead of Simflyer's MCO simply because it is very aged (just like my original KTPA and KMIA are now very aged).
I am also sure that many people will be very pleased when the new MCO is released and even come back here to question what "nonsense" this thread was about.
Since MCO is likely going to be the first major airport release for FSX, it will look different, fresh and new. After a dozen more airport addons get released however, people may start to question how standardized and default-ish they all look in terms of runways, aprons and overall groundwork.
The prospect I am facing with updating/re-doing my own sceneries using the new (default) methods come down to the following:
Very old works like KTPA and KMIA are possibly going to end up looking better then in their original/current versions (from FS2002)
Our latest releases however (LOWW, KMDW, KSEA), which have a much higher quality then our old sceneries, are likely going to feel like castrated updates compared to their FS2004 versions. Not to mention Vauchez's work, which is a true piece of art in its current form.