Finally an alternative to the Asobo hand-crafted and JustSim versions. Low price too, although likely representative of the work done (France VFR’s scenery is typically very accurate but fairly rudimentary).
6 Likes
Don’t suppose anyone knows how this compares to the JustSim NG version, which features a few animated vehicle assets?
FVFR’s is significantly cheaper but that’s typically because there’s little internal/landside development in their scenery. Airside looks pretty good, though (particularly their ground textures). Their building textures usually look quite photoreal.
The thing I like about FVFR is they don’t appear to try and compete — they release airports to their own standard, and attach modest price tags.
I’m very tempted, as I have quite a few FranceVFR airports and I really like them. They look great and are a really attractive price.
Unfortunately this at the bottom of the product description gives me pause…
“Since this Nice Côte d’Azur Airport scenery retains certain buildings from the default Microsoft version, it is recommended that you verify the installation of World Update 4 – France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (if not already installed, simply activate it in your library) and ensure that the Microsoft version of Nice Airport included in World Update 4 (LFMN – Nice Côte d’Azur Airport) is enabled (do not disable or uninstall it).”
Just how much exactly of this scenery uses the default airport assets?
I have the JustSim version too which is just about OK, it would be great to see any comparisons, with all the new biz jet toys we have to play with a really well done LFMN would be wonderful to have.
1 Like
I hadn’t noticed that small print. I actually flew into the hand-crafted Asobo airport last night, as I do whenever I’m considering purchasing a new airport. The PG isn’t as good as it is in 2026, but the default airport overall isn’t too bad (apart from using the unrealistically stubby SDK jetways). Both payware versions seem to use ground texturing that closely resembles reality, and both have those airside palm trees (more reminiscent of a Caribbean island airport). I dare say the assets left over from the default LFMN won’t be particularly noticeable, and they must have done the necessary work to ensure their version doesn’t create a conflict.
Interesting that you already have the JS version and are contemplating FVFR’s — am I to assume JS’ isn’t as good as it looks? I do like the look of the animated buses and landside tram.
The two quite similar, based on the images, but most of FVFR’s are captured from distance/altitude, so don’t really illustrate the ramp detail.
1 Like
It’s a very typical JS airport. It’s OK but that’s about it.
The one important area it does outshine the hand crafted version is the runway marking. The hand crafted doesn’t have the full touchdown zone markings which is a bit of a big miss. The JS one does, plus the landside is far more detailed.
But as many have said if you have one JS airport you kind of have all of them. They are very samey, very average and just nothing really ever to write home about.
They are always better than a default airport but never seem to get really close to the better devs in my opinion, so I’m always on the lookout for something better.
2 Likes
Given your experience with both JustSim and FVFR (I only have one airport from each), do you think FVFR’s is going to be better? And if so, in which areas?
Normally I would say FVFR, however I can’t get past the fact that they have used some default buildings from the hand crafted version. So I’m not getting this one just yet.
In my opinion JS are a bit like Dominic Design or Fly2High before they started their turnaround program. Their updates also seem to have stalled and haven’t released a new product in a long time so I do wonder if they are even active anymore. There’s a bit of a generic feel to a lot of their airports, lots of resued assets.
Normally I would say I’d place FVFR ahead on texturing (especially ground textures) and performance and of course being French capturing the local French flavour. Modelling is probably about equal. Can’t really talk about interiors as I have no interest in them beyond what I can see from the gate.
At this time I’m going to keep the JS version until I find out a bit more about how much the FVFR one uses from the Gaya airport.
Given the price though it is very tempting to just bite the bullet and try it myself, however I already know its going to be an expensive couple of weeks with Ini KORD and the A220 imminent, then the A380 also due this Summer and the Bluebird 757 in September.
1 Like
Based on what I’ve seen so far, you could likely say the same about FVFR. Neither dev is up there in the top 20. But as I said earlier, FVFR seem to operate to their own standards, and do implement some immersive features few others consider. Their texturing is always good, as is the general airside experience, Their focus seems to be on getting things right from the pilot’s perspective, and the pricing would certainly support that theory.
Thanks for the info. I will likely pick up FVFR’s as it’s the cheaper of the pair. To be honest, the default hand-crafted would do, if it weren’t for the default jetways and inaccurate ground markings.
I’ve actually own both versions since last week. And yes, I too missed the note that FVFR uses default buildings. I’d be happy to upload a few comparison screenshots later.
Generally speaking, I really like the JS version. However, I’ve only got the 2020 version so far. So I haven’t received the last two or three updates. But judging by the changelogs, I’d say that compatibility with 2024 has been added in particular. The landscape is great, the interior looks good too, and the ground markings seem to be very accurate. As I only own Rhodes from JS apart from this, I have little basis for comparison with the developer’s other sceneries. But judging by the screenshots, I’d say that Nice is probably JS’s best scenery and has also received regular updates. Performance on my system is good too. To be honest, I can’t say anything negative about the scenery – I really like it.
I like FVFR too. But the landside and the interior, in particular, are significantly more rudimentary than in JS. On the airside, both sceneries look remarkably similar. I can’t see a clear winner there. So, overall, a clear recommendation for JS? Not really. Because, as far as I know, only FVFR currently offers the terminal extension, which only opened in April. Even for the 2024 version of JS, I couldn’t find any mention in the changelog that the terminal extension had been added. So I think only FVFR currently offers the airport’s latest layout. Of course, it’s possible that JS will add it in a future update.
Screenshots coming tonight…
3 Likes
I bought the FVFR version last night and am about to pen a review. It’s very good, but with the usual FVFR caveats.
5 Likes
Here are the comparison screenshots I promised. Please bear in mind that the Justsim version is the 2020 version. The last two or three updates are not included, and the 2024 version is likely to be better optimised in terms of LOD.
FVFR
Justsim
FVFR
Justsim
FVFR
Justsim
FVFR
Justsim
FVFR
Justsim
3 Likes
Thanks for those, Lukas. From an airside perspective, FVFR’s definitely looks better: more GSE, more natural looking ground/building textures, and the new terminal extension. Furthermore, the JS version is missing the flagpoles protruding from the west portion of T2’s roof. Landside is a different story and it’s a clear win for JustSim; although I must say, it’s not quite as big a contrast as I expected. Night-lighting is about on par — possibly a bit overdone by JustSim but the blue rim of their rotunda concourse better reflects reality.
One thing I do notice, in the final comparison of the first post, is the apparent lack of internal lighting in the pier west of the rotunda in the FVFR version. There is a bit of illumination but unless the window tint is particularly strong in reality, this needs correcting. I’ll check it out myself shortly.
2 Likes
Yes, in a direct comparison, I actually prefer the FVFR airside too. That said, Justsim’s landside is really well done. Perhaps my screenshots don’t do it justice. And the interior is definitely another plus point for Justsim. Nevertheless, the FVFR version will remain my first choice for Nice – if only because of the terminal extension and the great ground textures.
2 Likes
I do like the idea of animated ramp traffic in JustSim’s, however it appears (like Rhodes) to be only unbranded pax Cobuses?
I’m pretty happy with FVFR’s, even if it does borrow from the Gaya hand-crafted version (barely noticeable anyway, unless you go looking). £8 is a bargain, considering what you get — even in sales, JustSim’s is a good £3 more.
Sadly, for anyone waiting for a discount on FVFR’s, they VERY rarely host sales (and even when they do, it tends to be the regional packs only).
Very helpful everyone thanks. I think I do prefer the FVFR version when all is said and done. I agree that JustSim is far better landside wise but on the airside where its most important FVFR carries it for me by a fair margin. It also has the Terminal extension which of course is highly significant.
I am interested to see what Inibuilds might have up their sleeve however. They have confirmed a “popular French airport” is in active development which given the access restrictions is unlikely to be CDG, so I do wonder if it might be Nice.
2 Likes
My suspicion was Nice, especially given their stance (as outlined by Ubaid in the recent stream) on redoing pre-existing airports that are either old or sub-standard.
Thing is, an Ini version won’t be £8… even in a sale!
What about Orly? As much as I hate to say it, JetStream’s is definitely showing its age when compared with their Geneva or their upcoming PHX with Flightbeam.
2 Likes
You do have a habit of throwing good curveballs! LFPO is a great shout, and probably more likely than LFMN, given Ini’s penchant for creating larger hubs. That said, LFMN fits more into their typical MO of releasing summer destinations during summer.
Could the “French airport” and the 'holiday destination" they mention actually be one and the same? If so, that would give more credence to LFMN.
2 Likes
Same with LFML and LFLL, the former we have the out of date RDPresets one with no new SimPixel one on the horizon and the latter by Digital Design both in need of a newer payware rendition as is LFSB, where the FSDT is too getting old.
Anyhow, picked up FVFR’s LFMN-for €8.99 ain’t bad considering I own their €8.99 LFKB and other €8.99 ones.
2 Likes