How about LAX?

FlySanJose · Post by **FlySanJose** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:13 am

Nope, not a request thread! Instead I'm showing you what I'm working on.

Now granted, as freeware, this isn't designed to compete with Cloud9 in visuals, only fps. Most of the surrounding buildings will remain default, I'm just remaking all the terminals. The reason I'm posting it here is because I know quite a few of you have been looking for a more frame friendly version of LAX.

Comments welcome, keeping in mind I haven't done the AFCAD yet. This is just to show terminals 2 and 3.

tbmavengerstuka · Post by **tbmavengerstuka** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:25 am

Well, It's no FT scenery, but anything is better than the default. ANd if the FPS will indeed be good, then no complaints on this end. Keep it up!

Post by **martin[flytampa]** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:30 pm

FT sceneries don't look any better during development

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:57 am

Mach1 does some great work although I wish they would have spruced up Houston (GB International) and KDFW instead of KLAX. KLAX has been done in the ground by many developers both freeware and payware...

skydvdan · Post by **skydvdan** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:58 am

FlySanJose wrote:Nope, not a request thread! Instead I'm showing you what I'm working on.

Now granted, as freeware, this isn't designed to compete with Cloud9 in visuals, only fps. Most of the surrounding buildings will remain default, I'm just remaking all the terminals. The reason I'm posting it here is because I know quite a few of you have been looking for a more frame friendly version of LAX.

Comments welcome, keeping in mind I haven't done the AFCAD yet. This is just to show terminals 2 and 3.

Does Mach1 have a website?

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:36 pm

Mach 1 doesn't have a website I believe... You can find their work on Flightsim.com and Avsim.

I was just thinking, another idea for Mach 1 is if they would do some airports in areas never covered in FS9. That being North/South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, etc...

Major cities in those states need detailed scenery...

Cloud9's KLAX has almost zero framerate hit on my system but you can't beat Mach 1 as it's free and of great quality.

deltaboeing84 · Post by **deltaboeing84** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:12 am

Agreed. Blueprint is going to be doing an OKC sometime in 08'. And someone is working on BHM right now. Cant give anymore info on that though.

But definately needed in those states, where the airports on the default just suck. A lot of the class C airports as well.

Charles D · Post by **Charles D** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:37 am

deltaboeing84 wrote:And someone is working on BHM right now. Cant give anymore info on that though.

Freeware or payware?

deltaboeing84 · Post by **deltaboeing84** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:34 pm

Definately freeware. It should be done by january 2008, prolly mid month. I gave him some pics, about 15 of the airport. So it should look pretty good by then. BHM definately needs an update, since they extended the 6/24 runway 2k extra feet. I let ya know if you want.

Didier Chabanne · Post by **Didier Chabanne** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:31 pm

Bonjour

Un nouveaux mise a jour pour KLAX comment fais pour l'avoir

merci

CSTT

FlySanJose · Post by **FlySanJose** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:53 pm

I'm also making BHM, its about 80% done. I can post pics when I get home.

RNO is 99% done and will be uploaded to avsim very soon.

We dont have a website because since we are freeware, we dont really want to pay for decent webhosting.

I've received a few requests for OKC, OMA, etc. Maybe I'll wait to see Blueprints OKC before I decide anything.

LAX is also more of a personal quest for me. It's so hard to make large airports frame rate friendly, so I'm testing myself a bit with LAX. I think DFW would be one of the hardest airports to do. IAH might not be too bad though.

skydvdan · Post by **skydvdan** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:47 pm

So you're just working in FS9?

FlySanJose · Post by **FlySanJose** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:40 am

Well it seems like the majority of the sim world (including myself) still prefers FS9. I'm told my sceneries work in FSX though with minor mods. I just don't know what they do to make it work. My computer doesn't run FSX well AT ALL. So, Im in no hurry to change.

skydvdan · Post by **skydvdan** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:44 am

FlySanJose wrote:Well it seems like the majority of the sim world (including myself) still prefers FS9. I'm told my sceneries work in FSX though with minor mods. I just don't know what they do to make it work. My computer doesn't run FSX well AT ALL. So, Im in no hurry to change.

What are you running and to which service pack do you have it patched to?

How about LAX?

How about LAX?

Re: How about LAX?