And with that statement, I believe that here, FSDT has provided us with the first scenery of its kind. I've deduced from his statement that all other sceneries; UTerrainX, GEX, UTrafficX, flytampa, aerosoft, simwings etc, and including some of the past FSDT products share this encumbrance by use of component techniques that are byproducts of the FS9 Coding..
I'm not sure if your post was serious or not, but your deduction here is not correct, since you mixed up several very different product together that doesn't belong to my description.
Things like UTX, GEX, UT2 are surely native FSX products and don't really contribute much to bad performances, AIRPORT scenery which uses FS8 code, Airplanes AND AI that are not compiled with the FSX SDK DO, and I was referring specifically to those.
In the airport scenery category, I include even many of our own products, up to before KDFW. They where never known to be performance killers, but just because we restrained a lot what we did, since we already started with the heavy baggage of the FS8 code.
Not having to bring the FS8 code with us, is allowing to INCREASE complexity without a visible fps drop.
How do you explain, otherwise, that KLAX Terminals are all in the range of 20-25K polygons *each*, compared to Zurich, which is a far smaller airport, has less sophisticated materials, has less terminals at 7-8K polygons each, and it's not significantly faster ?
How do you explain the PMDG747 (ported for FS9 after more than 1 year of work) it's a frame rate hog in FSX, while the FSX-only and FSX-native NGX737 runs just fine ? They are both equally complex both visually and in the simulation aspect.