What about a brother or sister for JFK

[member111222]

Having read that JFK is one of the best sellers it might make sense to do La Guardia and Newark Liberty as well as the whole New York/New Yersey area seems to attract lots of customers.

[virtuali]

They would be both interesting choices but, it's probably more important to first offer usable destinations not so close to each other. One of the reasons we are still not very entirely convinced about doing KMIA, for example, is that is too close to KFLL.

[kiwiflyer]

This is a really good point Umberto. But in some cases doing a "region" like your Hawaiin airports also makes sense as many of us like to fly regional/commuter aircraft with short routes as (IMHO) really long flights in FS can be boring. (They are in real life too, but the real world is a bit more interesting to look out at) 

Another problem with doing several major airports close together like NYC would be frame rates...

[Alliano Ricot]

 

WHAT Im sorry cause Im about to make head roll faster than a fighter Jet Wheel, I Have Both Aerosoft Paris Charles De Gaulle and Orly and they right next to each other. So I dont see the point of this be worng for I find the time to experince the both of them it not all one time but still nice to have two option cause I not like they have the same layout and operation format( Smae runways, taxiways, and Traffic) So please give a better excuse. THERE LET IT BEGIN

[Aeroman]

They would be both interesting choices but, it's probably more important to first offer usable destinations not so close to each other. One of the reasons we are still not very entirely convinced about doing KMIA, for example, is that is too close to KFLL.

I also get the point, but at the same time, given the much greater popularity of KMIA over KFLL and the fact that more airlines (major airlines) fly into KMIA, I'd bet KMIA would be an even better sell than your already successful KFLL.

[theshack440]

I personally think KATL would be a great choice - a great Delta hub to complete major US airline "super" hubs (sort of...).

[virtuali]

ìI personally think KATL would be a great choice

I think that too

[duckbilled]

As much as I love FSDT, I don't think I would buy a KATL. I have the IS version and for the amount of times I fly there, I don't think I need to upgrade the scenery. I am sure I am not alone.

IMHO, FSDT should look at places that will have little to no competition (I don't consider Blueprint competition and I am not talking about old FS9 products). Right now, I do not know of one scenery project along the US Gulf coast and I can't think of one payware project west of Tampa along the coast. Houston, Florida panhandle, New Orleans... - that's the area of the US that is untouched. Canada needs a lot of work as well.

I like the idea of companion airports but I don't think KJFJK and KEWR are companion airports. To me, companion airports are airpots you fly between and I don't know of many flights between JFK and EWR. Nonetheless, KEWR would be nice.

[cmpbllsjc]

They would be both interesting choices but, it's probably more important to first offer usable destinations not so close to each other. One of the reasons we are still not very entirely convinced about doing KMIA, for example, is that is too close to KFLL.

I agree and it's just for that reason that I passed on FlyTampa's Midway since it's so close to KORD. Most likely I would also pass on La Guardia and Newark due to the close proximity of JFK and the fact that the NYC area is so demanding as it is, I am not sure how good performance would be placing a full blown La Guardia with JFK being so close.

Although, I would still love to have an FSDT KMIA since it's more of an international than KFLL is and performance would most likely be fine since you cant even really see KFLL from there. KMIA is probably the only airport in close proximity to another 3rd party airport that I would buy, as well as the fact that KMIA was voted pretty highly in the last poll.

ìI personally think KATL would be a great choice

I think that too

I agree as well. Even though I would prefer KMIA and I usually dont want a remake of an existing 3rd party airport that I already own, which in this case would be a remake of Imaginesim's KATL, I would buy it and take the IS version of my HD immediatly. Although the IS version is suitable and performance is fair, it really looks like its a step behind anything that FSDT puts out due to the lower res graphics which are similar to their KDEN which I passed on.

Hard to say which would sell better, KMIA or KATL, especially since there are probably a fair amount of people already who own the IS version of KATL and may or may not be interested in buying the same airport again even though it would no doubt be a much better redition than that of IS. I would buy ATL if FSDT did it, but would still prefer KMIA.

Either way, with KLAX and GSX not yet completed and FSDT planning to update the older airports to their current standard, it could well be 9 months (June '12) or more before we see any new airports from FSDT anyways given that it takes around 9 months for an airport to be done anyways.

[Bruce Hamilton]

ìI personally think KATL would be a great choice

I think that too

I disagree.  Atlanta was already completed (and recently updated) by Imaginesim and is available for both simulators, and even has AES support.  I would not purchase ATL from FSDTwhen I already have a payware version from someone else, same reason I passed on Aerosoft's Zurich.

If we were talking about a Blueprint scenery, it would be a different situation.   

[Dimon]

Unlike KMIA, KEWR has never ever been done in "reliable" quality. Both Simflyers and IMS version had failed to deliver a good quality.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Why are you putting FSDT on a pedestal?   
The IMS version of Newark needs update and FSX version, but there is nothing wrong with their quality.

[Dimon]

Perhaps, our definitions of "quality" vary significantly. 

[PUP4ORD]

I look at this way, Some areas have cross town airports (NY,Chicago,South Florida,etc) eventually all them will be done. Just because one received attention does'nt mean the other should'nt get the same amount of attention. There should be options available across the board.

[cmpbllsjc]

Perhaps, our definitions of "quality" vary significantly. 

I agree, I think the difference between Imaginesim airports with or without updates are nothing quality wise compared to FSDT. Although the IS airports are nicer looking than BluePrint airports, they are still no where in the same league as FSDT or FlyTampa for that matter.

Although we all have different opinons I what we consider good quality and not so good quality. I know that some people are quite content with BluePrint's airports, so that just goes to show we all have different tastes.