Qf743intl From Australia, joined Jul 2001, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3226 times:
as you have probably noticed, some airports(JFK)(Heathrow) are far more deatailed than others. I would not go as far as to say they were completely 'realistic' but they do alow the viewer to easily depict what airport it is.
The airports that i am farmiliar with in real life like YBBN (brisbane, australia) have buildings in the same place on FS, but they are not the same buildings, but they are close enough to tell that the airport is infact YBBN.
As far as aircraft go, it is quite hard to tell which is the most realistic. I take it you are referring to the default aircraft. Also, do you mean realistic in look or in the way they fly?
Starflyer, i am in no way trying to contradict you or change your questions, but i am just trying to get the specifics in order to help you.
If your could reply to this post then i will be able to help you further.
StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3236 times:
sorry, I didnt quite make it clear enough, sorry. I meant add-ons especially, and which ones LOOK the most realistic (but the aircraft should also fly accordingly, I have got this Airbus A340 in Star Alliance livery that looks great but it doesnt even climb to 35,000ft!!!).
So, which FS2002 add-ons look the most realistic?
For example, there the German Airports series out which I find pretty realistic all in all, and the POSKY Air NZ 767s are both awesome and pretty good to fly!