Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/31/15 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    Sehr geehrter lfyA380, es ist bedauerlich, dass Sie bei solchen Unterstellungen, für die sie jeden Beweis schuldig bleiben, nicht mal mit Ihrem realen Namen unterschreiben. zu Punkt 3: Ich hoffe, sie können hierfür einen Beweis antreten, denn sonst muss man diese Aussage als "üble Nachrede" bezeichnen. AES hat mit GSX Funktionen nicht zu tun und sperrt da garnichts. Jetways sind keine Funktion von GSX und wenn der Scenery Entwickler die Jetways statisch umsetzt, ist das sein Entscheidung, alles anderslautenden Aussagen sind reine Unterstellungen. Zu den anderen Punkten: Sie hatten ausreichend Gelegenheit, bevor sie über den Erwerb eine AES Lizenz nachdenken konnten, das Produkt kostenfrei zu installieren und an vielen Airports zeitunbegrenzt zu nutzen und zu testen, egal mit welchen Fluggerät. Das Preismodel genauso wie der zum jeweiligen Zeitpunkt existierende Funktionsumfang war Ihnen bekannt, bevor sie es erworben haben. Verpflichtungen zu einer Weiterentwicklung gibt und gab es nicht, auch wenn es in den letzten Jahren viele Änderungen und Ergänzungen gegeben hat, für die kein Bestandskunde je einen zusätzlichen Cent entrichten musste. Ob ihre Tonwahl angemessen ist, muss bezweifelt werden. Zum Thema: Die Konfig ist fast fertig, es bedarf aber noch einiger Schritte, um den Umstieg der Konfig für den User so einfach wie möglich zu gestallten, ohne dass alle Flugzeuge neu konfiguriert werden müssen und damit ein Import/Export der Konfig zur Verteilung sinnvoll möglich ist. Leider steht nur eine begrenzte Zeit zur Verfügung und durch die Vielzahl der Plattformen (insbesondere P3D) gibt es auch bei anderen FS Teilthemen ausserhalb von AES, in die ich involviert bin, derzeit viele Ding neu zu regeln und andere Lösungen zu finden. Das fällt alles nicht vom Himmel. Schönen Sonntag noch.
  2. 4 points
    I'm not suggesting you're telling b*** sh** but your fix doesn't work for Clive and you seem to be unaware of the consequences of disabling that BGL. Los Rodeos is then removed but you made no mention of that in your solution. Instead you just say "And Teneriffe North, I am using also Payware, no problem there." Well goodie for you. How about those that don't then wonder where the airport has gone? Have another negative point for your attitude. if you're going to post a solution give all relevant information so people can make an informed decision as to whether disabling that BGL is worth it.
  3. 3 points
    And would you care to share your knowledge?
  4. 2 points
    Below is a copy of an answer I placed to a question made in the review section of an recent upload : " Any of my repaints uploaded after the release of the latest version are made for that version . It must be said however that ANY repaints made , be it for the AirbusX ( 2010 ) , AirbusX Extended ( 2012 ) or the latest A320/321 ( 2014 ) that the textures are EXACTLY the same and therefore work in ALL versions . The ONLY difference is the texture.cfg which points to the folders containing the fallback textures ( which only display if textures are " missing " ) . For the best results , install " by hand " , meaning unzip and use < COPY > and < PASTE > the texture.XXX into the correct folder . After you have added the texture folder and the aircraft.cfg entry just copy a texture.cfg from another ( working ) paint of the same type . One supplied in the download / CD is guaranteed to work . This file structure was changed by Aerosoft when the AirbusX Extended was released ( the AirbusX did NOT have any models with sharklets ) so there were 8 folders ( not counting the Base textures ) with the different types . For the latest version there are only 4 folders and so the sharklet and non-sharklet models are in the same folder and aircraft.cfg . For aircraft installed in the AirbusX Extended ( AXE ) any sharklet models have to be placed in the correct folder , paying special attention to the lines sim= and model= . For an Extended paint to work in the latest A320/321 the same applies , check the aircraft.cfg lines for sim= and model= and change where needed and copy a texture.cfg from another working livery . " With each successive version of the Airbus the only thing I have had to do to get all of my repaints working in the newer version is to replace the texture.cfg and in the case of the sharklet models make small changes to the aircraft.cfg , everything else works as it should without any problems whatsoever . AirbusX repaints CANNOT be installed using the Livery Manager ( LM ) so have to be installed using the " old fashioned " method of unzipping and then copy and paste into the correct folder . The reason is simple , the LM was introduced two years later with the release of the AirbusX Extended ( AXE ) and so AirbusX paints were never ( made ) compatible . Another " problem " is the change in the VC textures which means that any AirbusX paints installed into the later versions show a blank registration plate ( after you have copied a texture.cfg from another livery ) . The same applies when using a paint from the AXE or later in the AirbusX , you will see a blank registration plate . Also with the AirbusX , there are no sharklet ( NEO ) versions , ( but a sharklet paint can be installed just that ) the aircraft shows with the wingtip " fences " . To recap : Paints uploaded between 2010 and 2012 were made for the AirbusX and MUST be installed by hand . Paints uploaded between 2012 and 2014 were ( probably ) made for the AirbusX or the Extended . Paints made after 2014 were ( probably ) made for the latest A320/321 . ALL repaints work in ALL versions ( with a little work from you - the end user ) . If the LM fals to install a repaint just unzip and install as you would any other repaint from another vendor as not every commercial developer includes a livery manager with their product . With " dark " textures , copying a texture.cfg from another folder of the same model and type will rectify this . If you wish to report a download as " broken " notify the uploader by PM first so that he / she can check for any mistakes ( we all make them ) . Once a paint has been installed by hand and is working correctly ( correct texture.cfg ) , a backup can be made using the LM for future use ( i.e before installing the NEXT Service Pack ) . Other points to consider : Having FSX installed outside the Program Files certainly helps when editing the cfg's and installing addons . When installing the Airbus to run the exe as Administrator . When using the LM also run as admin . EDIT : the text above in blue has been added for clarity .
  5. 1 point
    Take it or leave it. Why do you do not make only an attemp ? You can every time back. Rename the file APX43210.bgl to APX43210.La Palma And testing it. If it do not work-go back to ....bgl. No Risk !
  6. 1 point
    The solution I think is to wait for the fix from GSX
  7. 1 point
    Clive, I haven't tried it yet for the same reason that LN has just stated. It seems highly unlikely that a BGL would be created for a single airport. I'm almost certain other areas will be affected if it's disabled. otherwise why not just name each airport BGL by its ICAO and have done. If it really was as simple as disabling a BGL then I'm sure Umberto of GSX would have recommended it. I'm also slightly concerned by A320 User's profile and his -59 reputation.
  8. 1 point
    ICAO: BGGH NAME: NUUK TYPE: Payware FS: FSX P3DV2 DESIGNER: FDSG LINK: http://fsdg-online.com/sceneries/41-nuuk.html
  9. 1 point
    Ok, found a workaround faster as expected for FSX:SE and P3D to make the Windmills smoother and fully windspeed/direction related. Unzip the BGL in the attached file to the ..\Aerosoft\La Palma\Scenery folder and replace the existing file. La Palma Windmills.zip User of FSX (SP2/ACC) don't need this file, there all was already smooth and nothing changed here.
  10. 1 point
    The progress that is currently made can not really be shown. I will ask the dev if he can show a few more images though.
  11. 1 point
    The problem of GSX is based on the situation, that GSX don't support the "Platform feature", needed here to make an airport such near to the coastline and with heavy level differences in the sourrounding of the terrain. Therefore the complete airport need to build as 3D Model using the plattform SDK feature to keep the aircrafts above. To prevent "flickering" textures, the base terrain of the FS needs to be reduced below this Model. When now object/vehicles don't follow the plattform (like the GSX vehicles) or don't work with the fix altitude of the airport, they only follow the base terrain and "fall down". No way to fix it by the scenery without unwanted sideeffects at all.
  12. 1 point
    Man, I cant wait for CRJ I just cant
  13. 1 point
    ICAO: ZGGG NAME: Guangzhou Bayun TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: Bridge LINK: http://secure.simmarket.com/bridge-guangzhou-baiyun-airport-zggg_fsx-p3d-(de_9406).phtml AES 2.45
  14. 1 point
    The aircraft needs it for better stability due to the short fuselage and proximity to the CG.
  15. 1 point
    I think we should stop caring about release dates, honestly.
  16. 1 point
    ICAO: KSEA NAME: KSEA - Seattle International Airport TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: Taxi2Gate LINK: http://secure.simmarket.com/taxi2gate-ksea-seattle-tacoma-international-airport-fsx.phtml AES 2.39
  17. 1 point
    I've used AES for years and after switching to FSX 18 months ago I also bought GSX. Whilst I like AES it's very clear it has slipped behind GSX in regard to baggage handling. It's disappointing that this thread is over a year old and we have still to see these major improvements. I accept that people have full-time jobs but development does seem to be extremely slow with no updates on progress.
  18. -1 points
    Hallo Oliver, Der Thread ist mittlerweile 1,5Jahre alt. So langsam denke ich, du willst uns hier verar****. Der Preis ist sehr hoch und man bekommt kaum updates außer neue Flughäfen. Also bitte mal ein update. Lg IFly A380 P.s. Mir ist klar, dass du diesen Post missachten wirst.
  19. -1 points
    1. AES ist schweine teuer. 2. Kann man wohl für sein Geld was erwarten. Insbesondere die Kompatibilität zws. 2 Aerosoft Produkten. 3. Es ist total unfair GSX gegenüber Funktionen zu sperren und den User dadurch zu zwingen AES zu kaufen. 4. Kann man AES nicht zurück geben oder wieder Verkaufen. Da word man iwann auch mal sauer. Insbesondere wenn man sieht, dass das Programm optisch fast fertig war. Die alten Skripts könnte man übernehmen und die neuen Funktionen dazu programmieren. Ich werde mir zumindest kein weiters Pack kaufen, solange es keine richtigen Updates gibt. Es kann ja auch nicht so schwer sein den Ramp Agent für den AXE mal richtig zu positionieren. EDIT: Um genau auf deine Indirekte Frage zu antworten: Ich hoffe, dass Oliver jetzt sich mal wieder an AES ran setzt und die Entwicklung vorantreibt.
  20. -2 points
    Wird hier noch dran gearbeitet? Wäre nett mal wieder ein paar Fortschritte zu sehen.
  21. -4 points
    Danke Oliver! So ein Statetment wollte ich eig. hören. Mit freundlichen anfragen kommt man bei Ihnen nicht weiter (vgl Anfragen April). Desweiteren entschuldige ich mich für meinen Tonfall. Aber bitte schreiben Sie Nutzernamen richtig. Ich heiße IFlyA380 und nicht IFyA380. Vielen Dank fürs entwickeln MfG Niklas
  22. -6 points
    do think I am telling bull shit here ? My pictures are no fake. -59 so what. Thats only comunication beetween As and me. But its your`s to use my solution or not. For me it works well. And Teneriffe North, I am using also Payware, no problem there.