First, a list of improvements as included in the developers release email:
------------------------------------------------------------------
*100% Native FSX code, fully DX10 compatible.
*New ground layer using FSX materials and shaders, sharper textures.
*Extended photorealistic scenery outside the airport perimeter, with multiple seasons (Fall, *Summer/Spring, Heavy Winter and Night).
*Custom Autogen in an area of about 115 square Km around the airport.
*All new taxiway layout updated to 2013 status.
*Vertical signs updated to 2013 status.
*New Terminal 4 added.
*3D Taxiway bridges and underpasses.
*Improved shading and Ambient Occlusion of buildings to ground.
*Removed all legacy FS8/FS9 code.
*Seasonal variations controlled with external Python code, for a reduced memory footprint (only 1 season is loaded at time).
*Canarsie “White Rabbit” approach light made as fully custom 3d lights.
*Added EMAS areas on runways 4R and 22L.
*Complete integration with GSX.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: this scenery is a new product and must be purchased separately although owners of the previous version can take advantage of an upgrade offer - click here
Now, some release screenshots:
See the developers dedicated product page - click here
26 comments:
Haha, they abandoned all that useless Shadow crap after the Vancouver failure.
Interesting, they did autogen in an area of 115 square kilometers, they are doing new stuff now.
So what's next from them? more updates?
Vegas I think...
So no new airport yet?
Didn't they hint at Houston?
Well,
I downloaded V2, I had v1 on my FSX, wanted to change because of low FPS. HOWEVER, I decided to go back to V1.
Why?
The ground taxiways and aprons look like the photo scenery the same way ORBX uses as a background poly. So this is a major problem for me visually, though performance is way better, I was expecting ground like KLAX or Vancouver.
Also, I prefer AES jetways and will not go to those jetways.
For me it was 60% go back to v1, 40% stay with 2.
I will stay with V1
JUST TRIED THE DEMO & GOOD JOB THEY HAVE A DEMO BECAUSE IT SUCKS.
THE GROUND TEXTURES ARE APPALLING. LOW RESOLUTION. THIS IS A RUSH JOB. DID THEY LOOSE TEAM MEMBERS? OR HAVE THEY LOST IT?
I RECOMMEND WAITING FOR THOSE POLISH GUYS TO DO A GOOD JOB. FSDT SHOULD RETIRE. VERY POOR CHEAP EFFORT. NO WONDER THERE WAS NO PREVIEWS BEFORE RELEASE, THEY MUST BE ASHAMED OF IT THEMSELVES.
MODELING 3/10
INNOVATION 2/10
TEXTURES 1/10
Wow I can't believe this scenery. It sucks sooooo bad. You can't make CYVR and KLAX and then revert back to this kinda stuff. FS9 is wayyyyyy better. I'm be waiting to buy from the other guys.
Make sure your texture max load is 4096
yo and thanks for the hint on facebook -was the first and last one
Are you nuts? that will bring my system down to the knees.
If 4096 is necessary for this to run, the scenery does not make any sense.
Disappointing. FSDT maybe setting down to the minor leagues.
So many rubbish comments posted here! These guys continue to make fantastic scenery and there is a lot of positive feedback in their forum:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=8498.0
VAS usage is much higher than the old version. I go from 1.5 GB in the Cessna on version 1.2 of JFK to 2.2 GB on version 2. And that makes the scenery entirely unusable with an addon like Concorde X.
That's also with my texture_max_load at 1024. I'd hate to see it at 4096.
Which, incidentally, seems to be what is needed for the scenery to look good. The textures are not very nice at 1024.
This is a HUGE improvement over the earlier version! It run so smooth, smoother than LAX. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit on the ground sat photos so that I can land a complex airliner.
You want HIDEF ground, but whine about VAS, OOMs etc, you moan about FPS, yet you run 4096 and have AES and other assorted 'realtime weather' bollocks running
So what is it going to be? you cant have everything in FSX
Grow up kids
Ground textures are missing in my demo. I moved all the sliders toi the right. textures at 4096. Ground looks terrible.
Amen
FSDT is on of a few devs who know how essential DX10 compatibility nowadays is. This design let you use the whole VAS of 4gb and not just 3,5gb becauce of its partly adressing VRAM a second time.
If you want to fly complex aircraft in complex scenery with a LOD of 6.5 and HD textures and tons of autogen you have to make sure your product is dx10 preview compatible, you use this renderpath and you have a rig that can handle FSX and not just fs9.
Btw. i am very happy with the partly upgrade of KJFK @ 8,24€ (incl. VAT) and i hope there will be a new AES release soon.
it wont be AES compatible remember its FSDT
... and your point is?
FSDT haven't changed their jetway model so it should be possible to get V2 working with AES as it does fine with V1. But it needs an update from AES because of the new terminal.
Try turning of capslock
It's freaking 2013. FSX has been around for many many many years. Maybe you should safe up your money and buy freaking up-to-date hardware as it ain't that expensive anymore and then you run them 4096textures and you stop whining like most of these little children over here. O I'm sticking with fs9, o i'm not able to run those textures at that high resolution. either shut up or man up instead of airing your stupid opinion over and over again about developers failing or dissapointing you because it doesn't meet up to YOUR standards(this goes for a lot of these children over here and not just you ;)) just stay away from the goodies if that piece of **** pc of yours can't run it because you don't have the money to buy something up to date. God what a bunch of idiots are there in this community
+1...finally somebody to speak from my heart...
I just bought it, crashes in 10-15 minutes everytime with my iFly737. If this is your preferred airliner, avoid this one.
Post a Comment
Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.