IamNabil

Bit of a headscratcher is this one... I saw the comments on users saying they have appalling framerates, but I never had that? It is heavy on framerate, but really only the same as the usual comparative to say the FF B757/B767, and I have had a few hours on it now. I run xEnviro and WT3 alongside, but a reason might be in the texture settings... I only use "High" and not maximum and my objects down a click, you really lose nothing visually but gain in framerates, X-Plane weather is another factor.
 
To prove my point here are three screenshots...
 
The first is Aerosoft's EDDF with WT3 and Xenviro running and setting up the A320U...  I get 26frames (box in corner enlarged) ? EDDF is pretty heavy and complex scenery
 

 
Second is on approach to ENGM Oslo, again Aerosoft scenery but with some pretty heavy weather around me, I get 28 frames....
 

 
At altitude (say FL340) with no scenery it is around 32-35 frames to a top of 40 frames...  the numbers don't lie.
 

 
So are the users being too greedy in what they want? I think so, I never found the aircraft in a marginal framerate position, so nothing worse or nothing better than the rest with the same complexity...  SD
 
 

Hey,
 
I'm Peter, the designer of this airport. May be good news for you that my next airport is Riverside Municipal KRAL, which I think is actually inside that coverage zone, because it's close to Los Angeles so it should be.
 
Stephen, thank you for the great review by the way! Since this review has been published, version 1.2 is out, which corrects many issues, some even visible on the screenshots (like grass hanging over on taxiways, the mesh below the radar station, more variation on the police cars, alternate options for trees, etc). Technically my ground textures should overwrite Tom's ground textures, thankfully no one else has reported this. But I'm very happy that you've liked the airport overall!