General Category > General Discussion

O'hare or JFK? Which performs best on FSX?

(1/2) > >>

cmpbllsjc:
I have told myself over and over again that I would not buy either of these two sceneries because I never fly in the NE. However, I am enjoying Geneva, Zurich, Las Vegas, and now Ft. Lauderdale so much that I think I am going to go ahead and get either O'hare or JFK but I would like to base it off which one you guys report better performance on in FSX. If they are about the same I think I am leaning more towards getting JKF. It seems that all the other sceneries FSDT have produced that I buy perform so well, that perhaps a major hub like JFK or ORD might actually perform well, especially coupled with UT2 which seems to improve FPS even with high trafic settings.

I know Umberto would suggest that I download and try the them for free, but to be honest the trail period is so short that I can barely use it long enough to get a good feel for the performance. Plus the fact that my FSX install is working so well that I hate to install something unless I am pretty sure it's going to stay. I don't like to chance installing then uninstalling something and having problems crop up. I have done that once before, not with and FSDT product, but none the less, it was a headache to track down the problem an fix.

So guys, which one: ORD or JFK? Got my debit card ready to go  ;D

BTW, Umberto and the rest of the FSDT, thanks for KFLL and the rest of the geat airports. I have wanted KFLL so long you wouldn't belive it. Look forward to your next airport.

rrwhaley:
Ord is GREAT, but needs a update (new rwy & taxi way added)
But either way they are both GRAET

cmpbllsjc:

--- Quote from: rrwhaley on June 21, 2009, 07:26:55 am ---Ord is GREAT, but needs a update (new rwy & taxi way added)
But either way they are both GRAET

--- End quote ---

Thanks I didn't know about the runway. Similar performance?

CX 747-400:
I current am running both of them FS9, and have no issues. I did try them both in FSX, and took a huge hit in FPS with JFK ( from 33 fps to 9 fps). I did take a little drop with ORD (only about 5 fps), but nothing compared to JFK. I hope this helps. I can also tell you that I enjoyed JFK so much that it was one of a few factors that made me go back to FS9. :o

cmpbllsjc:
Thanks Jonathan thats good to know. I don't think I will ever go back to FS9 since FSX works really well on my system. However as a test I did a flight from the new KFLL to the default KJFK in the LDS 767 with real world weather (storms) via ASA and UT2 displaying 100% airline traffic and I got around 15 to 20 FPS on approach and it was smooth with no blurries. However if my frames were cut in 1/2 with the FSDT JFK I am not so sure. I will take it under consideration. Thanks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page