TechnoBrain Tokyo Haneda International Airport (RJTT): The FSElite Review

Purchase From
Euro 39.00
Version Reviewed
Press Copy Provided By
FSElite's preferred Flight Sim vendor is SimMarket. (Why?)

As per our Community Charter, all of our reviews are free from bias, prejudice and favouritism. Don't forget, each reviewer has their own style and thoughts, although they all abide by the Review Guidelines - something I suggest you read.

TechnoBrain is a name that I can really connect with. As a self-professed computer geek, I feel like I can’t go wrong with a product that comes from the likes of people, who by virtue of their name, are both technological and smart. When TechnoBrain quietly released their take on Tokyo International Airport (RJTT), it was bound to be a product that ticked all the boxes. After spending some time with this scenery, I can confidently say that while the product is smart, it’s not a technological marvel.

Originally available only for FSX (and only in Japan), RJTT is not a new product. Rather, it’s a port of a product that has been available for years to Japanese pilots and any other pilot resourceful enough to get their hands on a copy. Serving an arguably under-serviced simulator geography, having the ability to add Tokyo to your list of destinations in P3D v4 or FSX is an appealing prospect.


Adding RJTT to my simulator was easy. A self-contained installer meant that I didn’t have to search around for hidden folders and file structures in order to make the scenery work. Nor did I have to change scenery orders or ask other installed scenery packages to play nice with this new airport. I credit the easy installation to the fact that I have relatively little in the way of add-ons in that area of the world.

Included documentation was clear, concise, and well-written. I didn’t feel like I was reading a poorly-translated manual and I was able to follow the instructions without trouble. Included airport charts added a nice touch and made the whole documentation package feel like it was not just an afterthought.


Blowing the dust off an old product isn’t always a guaranteed win. Developers must optimize products to make them compatible with advances taking place in simulator platforms. Lighting, textures, buildings, are all things that require attention. The goal of any developer is to squeeze every last frame out of their scenery to provide a smooth and stutter-free experience to even those pilots relying on the most basic of computerized cockpit setups. RJTT definitely delivers in this area.

I admit that I run a fairly robust system – a 1080ti GPU with an over-clocked i7700K processor. I know what you’re thinking and before you dismiss my assessment of RJTT’s performance, you need to know that I run my settings on the high-end of the suggested optimal setup scale. This can sometimes result in lower frame rates and stutters at less-optimized airports.

RJTT was a silky-smooth experience, even at higher settings. Buttery performance during the day, on taxi, take-off, and approach. When night fell, and natural daylight gave way to frame-eating dynamic lighting, I found that my experience was still stutter-free (and extremely visually appealing). Hats off to the folks at TechnoBrain for finding that sweet spot in performance.


While performance is a key component when experiencing a piece of scenery, performance doesn’t matter if the scenery doesn’t look good. No one wants to taxi to a gate that looks like it was cut out of a magazine and then scanned into the simulator at low-resolution; it’s a quick way to ruin immersion.

Visual appeal is where RJTT falls short. Textures are basic and dated. Stationary objects look like painted cardboard boxes, with blurry textures and muted, washed out colours. While taxi lines and pavement markings are present and well-done, the pavement itself looks flat and lacks the wear and tear that one would expect at a busy airport.

While visually the airport may be lacking, runways and buildings are modelled accurately and placed in precisely the right locations. A comparison between a Google Maps satellite view and the airport in a top-down view show an almost exact match.

Autogen around the airport isn’t great. I attribute that to the fact that there really isn’t a lot of scenery and texture support for areas around Eastern Asia (read: Orbx). This takes away from the overall package, but you can’t add what isn’t available. However, the developer has paid close attention to buildings and landmarks that appear close to the airport, and these are well-placed and representative of their real-world counterparts. If you are at all familiar with the real-world airport, a flight into or out of the airport should give you a handful of familiar sights.

Jetways are activated using CTRL-J, and this adds an important piece of immersion. The airport is vast and has multiple terminal buildings and parking options. Having the ability to connect a jetway to your airplane is an important feature.

Night lighting at the airport is definitely well done. A key area of focus for the developers at TechnoBrain when they brought this airport to P3Dv4, the dynamic lighting picks up where the modelling falls short. Well-done taxiway and runway lighting add a vibrancy to the airport that makes night-flying appealing and immersive. Expertly placed, the lighting does not overpower the surrounding scenery, and the orange glow of the sodium vapour lighting is the perfect touch. Cargo haulers will appreciate the lighting as they keep packages moving while the world sleeps.

It is important to note that this scenery is expensive. At 39 Euros ($47 USD), I am trying to compare this airport to others available at the same price point – and there aren’t many. FlyTampa, ImagineSim, Flightbeam, LatinVFR, and many more sceneries can all be had for less money, and in the opinion of this writer, are of better quality. Many of the aforementioned developers have built their scenery specifically with P3D v4 in mind, and they offer much more visually appealing and immersive environments.


The performance of this scenery is on-point, the installation is easy and included documentation is great, but TechnoBrain falls short when it comes to a lot of the modelling and some of the more basic visuals – which is the core of any piece of scenery. If this product was 15 Euros cheaper it would be a steal. But, if your bank account is sitting a few extra points into the green and you are in the mood for some Far East flying, RJTT might be the destination you’ve been seeking.


Review overview



5.6 Great on performance, but hard on your wallet. If you have the desire to add some Far East destinations to your simulator and have some liquid income, then you won't go wrong.

Tags : FSXP3DRJTTTechnoBrainTokyo Haneda
Jonathan Clayton

The author Jonathan Clayton

Digital Marketer by day and high-performance sprint and hurdle coach by night. Also finds a little time to fly in P3D. Professional Twitch lurker (JC_YYZ). Nintendo Switch aficionado (but true Sega Genesis fan). Lives in Canada, (eh), with his blue-eyed Siberian husky named Aspen. Likes maple syrup, bacon, and saying 'sorry' a lot.

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

By clicking the 'Submit' button above, you are agreeing to the our Privacy Policy.


by Newest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Definitely “no go” for this price, even with the lack of the addons for this area.

I purchased the technobrain RJTT when on sale, which still made it more expensive than say a FSDT airport(FSDT are excellent quality and value). Compared to the stock airport in P3Dv4, the scenery is a lot better, and I seem to have pretty decent frame rates. My machine has plenty of grunt, which no doubt helps. When you compare the technobrain graphics to other major developers with similar or larger GB size developments, there is a marked reduction in technobrains’ quality. From the reviews I saw on RJAA from Wing Creation, it would seem on a par with Technobrain, and Wingcreations’ forum indicates unresolved graphics issues with RJAA..

It is a shame that both the Japanese developers do not seem to have the knack of creating complex addons with good graphics and frame rates as compared to other major devs, such as FSDT, Tamper and UK2000, who produce major airports or similar or greater size than RJTT/RJAA

Japan and China seems to be very unrepresented in quality ‘reasonable cost’ airport sceneries.

Look like default ground. Oh dear.

What i dont understand with this review is, that u praise the performance that the scenery runs really smooth. But in the end the performance is 6/10!? May this is influenced by the high price or u wanted to keep the overall rating low? But u make a objective statement about the performance and then do a subjektive rating 6/10. I dont own the scenery, but that seems strange to me if u come to that rating.


Thank you.. Never noticed these because apparently I am blind!

I had the same thoughts reading the review why something praised in the review could only score a margin 6 in the end.

I understand it now reading the comments and think it is fair to look at it that way, but maybe that should be pointed out in the review or scorechart as well?

Calum Martin
Calum Martin

The link to our review guidelines is linked both at the top of the review and also in the “score” block as well under “scoring guidelines”.

We’ll take the feedback on going forward and see what we can do to make it clearer.

I thought the overall score was about right. It may run smoothly, but is expensive, looks very average and should be marked as such.

In future, an ok performing scenery, despite packing lots of ‘eye candy’, should also receive an average score.

Also, scenery that gives useless performance (i.e. complete stutterfest) or scenery that looks like it was made for FS9/early FSX no matter how well it runs, should receive scores less than 5.

Just IMHO.

Thanks for the quick answer and giving me deeper detail to understand, why u rated this just a medium performance!

Jonathan Clayton

I echo Calum’s comments. We did spend a fair bit of time discussing this. Performance can be very subjective – but at the end of the day, the largest influence for the overall rating in this case was the price.

Calum Martin
Calum Martin

I had some influence here. We had some internal debate over this because how does anyone judge performance? Personally, I feel that if a scenery like this looks sub-standard (which is talked about) and runs well, should it score as highly as a scenery that looks amazing and packs in technology and runs just as well. For me, that means the later scenery is of higher quality and thus deserves a higher score. On the other side of the fence, you could argue that if a product runs at 60FPS, then regardless of anything else, then it should score highly.

Right now, our review guidelines suggest we follow the former, but are happy to look into this in the future.

Obviously comments like these also help us when deciding what we should focus on in the future.


There was a flurry of excitement by simmers on TechnoBrain’s RJTT release. Having seen your photos, I am 100% convinced I made the right decision in not buying this, even at the sale price that was offered.

Can FSElite get a scoop and tell us / give us a hint on who the “high end developer” is that caused FlyTampa to drop their plans on making Haneda, please? Because if it was TechnoBrain, then the FS community got shafted.

It was WingCreation, the same people who made Tokyo-Narita. This product (Technobrain) has been on sale in Japan only for a while now, so it wasn’t them.