Update & new plans

[MidgeyMidget2]

I've not fully decided FS9's fate yet.
I'm already facing decisions on Montreal where FS9 is holding back the FSX version. It's becoming highly frustrating.

Surley that 737NGX is reason to dump FS9 alone??? After watching Nick's stunning video even the most stubborn FS9er must be reaching for the FSX DVD.

http://www.flyaoamedia.com/aoa/nicks-73 ... -thoughts/

Performance with complex aircraft & scenery in FSX is finally here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_P0CSjz ... re=feedlik

I think part of the problem now is the impending release of Flight. Do people that have held out on FSX upgrade now (perhaps their entire system) just to maybe upgrade to Flight when that is released? From previews and developer interviews, Flight sounds promising and hopefully won't be beleaguered by the problems FSX was on release. That said, I expect there won't be compatibility with FSX addons for Flight so it becomes a bit of a tricky situation for some people.

[MrAviator512]

Im Thinking Of Getting TPA And TNCM......... Do They Come Boxed Or Do You Download Them?

[george[flytampa]]

Im Thinking Of Getting TPA And TNCM......... Do They Come Boxed Or Do You Download Them?

Those two are download only I think.

[dal4215]

I like the ideas that you come up with Fly Tampa, however my alter ego does not agree. Why did you guys want to lean more to toward Europe and Asia? I know someone will not agree with what I say but how about Salt Lake City? I wonder when its time will come when this can be made. I live in Florida so this isn't my home airport but the area where it rests between the mountain ranges is rather interesting. I guess it will take much time on your part FT?



I also wish Intersim or LatinVFR will grow some balls and make Miami already.

Thanks, Ryan

Salt Lake won't sell very well. I'm sure its a nice airport in a beautiful area, but without international traffic, it'll be a flop.

Not to be disrespectful at all, but I think you are wrong. There have been soo many forum posts in just about every FS forum about a SLC scenery. You would be surprised at how many people would jump on that scenery. SLC online sees about 60 flights a day where SAN only sees about 30 - 40 flights a day. If there is a scenery for SAN and that little traffic, why not one for SLC when its got more traffic?

Thanks!

[airbuspilot95]

Prague would be great for the future! The Traffic is very interesting at this airport!

[Sluggy]

Make whatever you like George. CYUL is fine with me.

However, I INSIST that you make Alice Springs (YBAS) airport in the Red Centre of Australia this year (my home airport). Served by QANTAS Airlink and Tiger (if they ever get off the ground again). The only major (ahem) airport between Darwin and Adelaide. FS9 and FSX have cruelly neglected this important hub in the Australian continent, and I beleive you're just the guy to right this wrong. Bugger yer US and Euro megahubs, Alice Springs is the one airport that will bind all the disparate tribes in the FS world together in one great cosmic love-in.

You know it makes sense.

Cheers from sunny Australia, SLuggy

[Mike...]

Hello George,

my favourite airport I would like to see done by FlyTampa is not on the list, it is KIAH. Maybe an airport worth to consider in the future.

So regarding your list I vote for Montreal CYUL. As long as you offer a version for FS9 aswell I'll buy it for sure.

Hey Bodo, long time.
I'm quite keen on Dulles. It'll be a strong contender after Montreal.
Yep, Montreal is in production now.

KIAH is Houston, Dulles would be KIAD. KIAH could use a new scenery, KIAD does not. IMHO.

As for CYUL, looking forward to that one, as FS9 version, the iFly 737 suits my needs, I will not be reaching for my FSX DVDs, like, ever.

I understand it makes it more frustrating for you, but well done addon sceneries still sell well for FS9. Although I'm not wanting to start a discussion about that.

[mug_c]

Another vote for CYUL!

(Yes, I am Canadian - but I buy all the US & International Airports as well!!!)

[Silverbird]

Very cool glade Montreal is in production I can finally make flights to Canada. George I have wanted to ask you when on your free time what do you like to fly in fsx? and other question did you guys try bump mapping and stuff like that for the textures I believe Martin did mention he did in one of the Scenery's.

[george[flytampa]]

Very cool glade Montreal is in production I can finally make flights to Canada. George I have wanted to ask you when on your free time what do you like to fly in fsx? and other question did you guys try bump mapping and stuff like that for the textures I believe Martin did mention he did in one of the Scenery's.

I don't fly as much as I used to. Recently I've only fly the RealAir Turbine Duke with reality XP GPS. I love that plane for practicing IFR.

I don't like the bump maps in FSX. They ain't implemented very well & give goofy results that look like a 1990s siggraph demo on a buggy 3DFX card. Martin uses them a little on earlier FSX sceneries, but very subtlety. They should be much better than they are. I'd rather save on texture resources than waste it on novelty effects that don't work very well. They look nice on some aircraft but I've not seen any hugely desirable effects within any other scenery as of yet. They usually look like plastic wrap or sandpaper & i got bored of that look 10 years ago.

If I was using any other 3d engine, realtime or pre-rendered, bump / normal maps would be absolutely essential to achieve any sort of photo realistic surfacing. It's just, like so many other things in FSX, microsoft did a lackluster job of it.

[mug_c]

Very cool glade Montreal is in production I can finally make flights to Canada. George I have wanted to ask you when on your free time what do you like to fly in fsx? and other question did you guys try bump mapping and stuff like that for the textures I believe Martin did mention he did in one of the Scenery's.

I don't fly as much as I used to. Recently I've only fly the RealAir Turbine Duke with reality XP GPS. I love that plane for practicing IFR.

I don't like the bump maps in FSX. They ain't implemented very well & give goofy results that look like a 1990s siggraph demo on a buggy 3DFX card. Martin uses them a little on earlier FSX sceneries, but very subtlety. They should be much better than they are. I'd rather save on texture resources than waste it on novelty effects that don't work very well. They look nice on some aircraft but I've not seen any hugely desirable effects within any other scenery as of yet. They usually look like plastic wrap or sandpaper & i got bored of that look 10 years ago.

If I was using any other 3d engine, realtime or pre-rendered, bump / normal maps would be absolutely essential to achieve any sort of photo realistic surfacing. It's just, like so many other things in FSX, microsoft did a lackluster job of it.

Do you find a big difference between the piston and turbine Dukes? I have enjoyed the piston Duke with the Reality XP GPS for some time and haven't really looked into the new turbine...

[george[flytampa]]

I've never tried the piston version. I just went straight to turbine.

[Flyers]

Am very interested for George on developing OAK - Oakland its a nice Airport it has never been developed for FSX neither FS9. It's a convenient airport in the SF Bay Area its small less passengers than SFO. Airport always have been a top arrivals on-time arrivals in USA its really historical it was the first airfield and airport in SF Bay Area.

Plus its a FEDEX main hub and especially Southwest Airlines also it has a large general aviation complex with a unused hanger facility runned by World Airways taking passengers to the Vietnam War in the 70's and United also was a main hub in the area until it was vacant in early 2000's. Its simply beautiful ,less fog while landing or takeoff plus there is a nice golf course next to the airport.

Its an airport that pilots enjoys to fly from the 60's ad 70's style and its still a Retro Airport especially Terminal 1 really has a 60's and 70's Architecture style for the Airport with Arches.

[Silverbird]

Very cool glade Montreal is in production I can finally make flights to Canada. George I have wanted to ask you when on your free time what do you like to fly in fsx? and other question did you guys try bump mapping and stuff like that for the textures I believe Martin did mention he did in one of the Scenery's.

I don't fly as much as I used to. Recently I've only fly the RealAir Turbine Duke with reality XP GPS. I love that plane for practicing IFR.

I don't like the bump maps in FSX. They ain't implemented very well & give goofy results that look like a 1990s siggraph demo on a buggy 3DFX card. Martin uses them a little on earlier FSX sceneries, but very subtlety. They should be much better than they are. I'd rather save on texture resources than waste it on novelty effects that don't work very well. They look nice on some aircraft but I've not seen any hugely desirable effects within any other scenery as of yet. They usually look like plastic wrap or sandpaper & i got bored of that look 10 years ago.

If I was using any other 3d engine, realtime or pre-rendered, bump / normal maps would be absolutely essential to achieve any sort of photo realistic surfacing. It's just, like so many other things in FSX, microsoft did a lackluster job of it.

Thank's George I really have to try that turbine Duke out and I can imagine that practicing IFR.will help allot in realife flying too I'm a heavy metal flyer cant help but love something about flying a machine like that I'm definitively gonna try out vfr flying and ifr flying with ga yes I know I'm going backwards lol.

I can understand you guys not doing bump mapping and things like that in fsx since the engine and the system for that is horrible hopefully ms flight will be a bit better on that aspect of the sim it would have looked amazing if the engine was done right global lighting things like that kinda what x-plane 10 wants to do now.