Future scenerys and possible scenery updates for fsx

[wilhelmsson]

That's why we only need TNCM for FS9.

I have FsX and it runs fine, my settings are on high and I am still getting 20 FPS with Fly Tampa's TNCM. There are a lot of people that enjoy FsX because their system can handle it. So I don't really understand why you want the sceneries only to be compatitable with FS9 if there are 2 versions of the product, a FsX one and a FS9 one. Just buy the FS9 one and don't look at the FsX one.

First, (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I said that because if it wasn't for Martin having to create a FSX version as well as the FS9 version this scenery would have been out long ago. FSX is a broke-ass sim as it stands. Yes, there is a SP1 coming out but that still doesn't guarantee that it will run as well as FS9. Second, I personally wouldn't call 20 FPS fine. I get 50+ at TNCM in FS9. Third, don't try to make yourself look like a hero by pulling up posts from 3 months ago to try to call me out. In the end you just make yourself look like a fanboy.

So I don't really understand why you want the sceneries only to be compatitable with FS9...

If you don't get it then you never will. Just let it go so that I can stay nice to you.

I am not trying to look like a hero, FsX does look better than FS9 so I would like the 20 FPS better than FS9 with 50 fps in overall, I am not trying to be cool or attack you but I am just saying. I have played FS9 for like once and I must say that I was glad I have FsX, I got 60 fps in Fs9 but I liked the 20 FPS in FsX better. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that the SP1 will give FsX users better FPS but I am sure that it won't be better than FS9. You don't have to like my opinion on this but just respect it and do not go and reply like you did.

[wilhelmsson]

Although Keflavik would be good, )and btw use the PS 757 you get everything in one package and it runs better than the captain sim which flies like a cessna), I think many find New York Kennedy Intl (KJFK) a more pressing concern.

Ya KJFK , Kennedy intl. or one of the nicest airports in Europe like LFPG, Charles De Gaulle.

JFK & Paris run at 5fps in FSX with resonable effects turned on.
Staying well away from those areas.

Depends on your system, but I can understand it because many users like me won't be able to play it because our system is not good enough. And good job on the TNCM scenery I love it!

[skydvdan]

I have FsX and it runs fine, my settings are on high and I am still getting 20 FPS with Fly Tampa's TNCM. There are a lot of people that enjoy FsX because their system can handle it. So I don't really understand why you want the sceneries only to be compatitable with FS9 if there are 2 versions of the product, a FsX one and a FS9 one. Just buy the FS9 one and don't look at the FsX one.

First, (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I said that because if it wasn't for Martin having to create a FSX version as well as the FS9 version this scenery would have been out long ago. FSX is a broke-ass sim as it stands. Yes, there is a SP1 coming out but that still doesn't guarantee that it will run as well as FS9. Second, I personally wouldn't call 20 FPS fine. I get 50+ at TNCM in FS9. Third, don't try to make yourself look like a hero by pulling up posts from 3 months ago to try to call me out. In the end you just make yourself look like a fanboy.

So I don't really understand why you want the sceneries only to be compatitable with FS9...

If you don't get it then you never will. Just let it go so that I can stay nice to you.

I am not trying to look like a hero, FsX does look better than FS9 so I would like the 20 FPS better than FS9 with 50 fps in overall, I am not trying to be cool or attack you but I am just saying. I have played FS9 for like once and I must say that I was glad I have FsX, I got 60 fps in Fs9 but I liked the 20 FPS in FsX better. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that the SP1 will give FsX users better FPS but I am sure that it won't be better than FS9. You don't have to like my opinion on this but just respect it and do not go and reply like you did.

Again, when you dig up a post that I made from 3 months ago to try to call me out then you will get the response that you did. You played FS9 once? You don't even know what you're talking about then. You obviously value eye candy over an actual playable sim. Anyone that thinks that 20 fps is good performance, has no idea what good performance is. And that is a fact. George would be more than happy to explain that one to you. BTW, if you weren't attacking me then what made you go back to such an old post to bring this whole thing about?

[Icelandair757]

A Keflavik scenery would we really great. Being that Icelandair Virtual is based there (duh! ) it'd be sweet to see how many people begin to fly more for us instead of the 200 something airlines in the Flying Tigers Group. I fly for them, and from a perspective of an Icelandair Virtual pilot it'd be nice to see a good looking BIKF.

[gal24]

pls do scenry to israel-LLBG airport

some pics from llbg:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0947500/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0808145/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0730769/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0589445/M/

[george[flytampa]]

http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?Ca ... DLID=92550

[gal24]

http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?Ca ... DLID=92550

oopssss i forget from this scenry heheh sorry...

[wilhelmsson]

First, (and I'm going to try to be nice here), I said that because if it wasn't for Martin having to create a FSX version as well as the FS9 version this scenery would have been out long ago. FSX is a broke-ass sim as it stands. Yes, there is a SP1 coming out but that still doesn't guarantee that it will run as well as FS9. Second, I personally wouldn't call 20 FPS fine. I get 50+ at TNCM in FS9. Third, don't try to make yourself look like a hero by pulling up posts from 3 months ago to try to call me out. In the end you just make yourself look like a fanboy.
If you don't get it then you never will. Just let it go so that I can stay nice to you.

I am not trying to look like a hero, FsX does look better than FS9 so I would like the 20 FPS better than FS9 with 50 fps in overall, I am not trying to be cool or attack you but I am just saying. I have played FS9 for like once and I must say that I was glad I have FsX, I got 60 fps in Fs9 but I liked the 20 FPS in FsX better. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that the SP1 will give FsX users better FPS but I am sure that it won't be better than FS9. You don't have to like my opinion on this but just respect it and do not go and reply like you did.

Again, when you dig up a post that I made from 3 months ago to try to call me out then you will get the response that you did. You played FS9 once? You don't even know what you're talking about then. You obviously value eye candy over an actual playable sim. Anyone that thinks that 20 fps is good performance, has no idea what good performance is. And that is a fact. George would be more than happy to explain that one to you. BTW, if you weren't attacking me then what made you go back to such an old post to bring this whole thing about?

Because I thought that it wasn't fair what you were saying but ok I'm sorry

[skydvdan]

I am not trying to look like a hero, FsX does look better than FS9 so I would like the 20 FPS better than FS9 with 50 fps in overall, I am not trying to be cool or attack you but I am just saying. I have played FS9 for like once and I must say that I was glad I have FsX, I got 60 fps in Fs9 but I liked the 20 FPS in FsX better. But I understand what you are trying to say and I agree that the SP1 will give FsX users better FPS but I am sure that it won't be better than FS9. You don't have to like my opinion on this but just respect it and do not go and reply like you did.

Again, when you dig up a post that I made from 3 months ago to try to call me out then you will get the response that you did. You played FS9 once? You don't even know what you're talking about then. You obviously value eye candy over an actual playable sim. Anyone that thinks that 20 fps is good performance, has no idea what good performance is. And that is a fact. George would be more than happy to explain that one to you. BTW, if you weren't attacking me then what made you go back to such an old post to bring this whole thing about?

Because I thought that it wasn't fair what you were saying but ok I'm sorry

As I said that was 3 months ago. Opinions do change sometimes. Just ignore what I said before.

[Marc_H]

What's about Kai Tak as a future project ??

[WEAJHD]

What's about Kai Tak as a future project ??

I have allready suggested that..

[Timothy Boger]

Here's an interesting suggestion: Minneapolis

So many times while working on VATSIM at Minneapolis Center I have been asked the question: Where can I find Minneapolis scenery? Only to answer them glumly-- we don't have any. Sure, I've worked my butt off fixing the AFCAD file which *kind of* helps, but the lack of scenery in MSP is definitely a disadvantage.

Minneapolis is also a very lovely region that doesn't quite contain the luster it deserves on Flight Simulator. The Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, both of which run past the airport, are both considerably underdone (in many places along the river, it looks more like a lake that goes uphill as it goes downstream)

Seeing as TNCM is now horrendously packed on VATSIM with people flying around and letting their drool drop into the ocean, I can now attest to the effect of having scenery...dubbed "The FlyTampa Effect"

So what about FlyTampa Minneapolis? I definitely think MSP addon scenery could do swell, especially of FT quality.

[Marc_H]

I have allready suggested that..

Good my friend !

Any reaction from FlyTampa?

[wilhelmsson]

Again, when you dig up a post that I made from 3 months ago to try to call me out then you will get the response that you did. You played FS9 once? You don't even know what you're talking about then. You obviously value eye candy over an actual playable sim. Anyone that thinks that 20 fps is good performance, has no idea what good performance is. And that is a fact. George would be more than happy to explain that one to you. BTW, if you weren't attacking me then what made you go back to such an old post to bring this whole thing about?

Because I thought that it wasn't fair what you were saying but ok I'm sorry

As I said that was 3 months ago. Opinions do change sometimes. Just ignore what I said before.

Ok I will