Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/17/17 in all areas

  1. 28 points
    Time for the friday update: The VC is currently a whole construction side. Element for element pieces are now overworked and updated and are still valued and changed if need. SO PLEASE NO "BUG" REPORTS CURRENTLY, THE VC IS INCOMPLETE AT THIS STAGE. ALSO DETAILS MUST WAIT UNTIL THE LARGE AREAS ARE SATISFACTORY!!! Changed already is the windshield area, FCU units (high resolution), Mainpanel (higher resolution), Pedal housing and the storebin basic materials. There are even now details introduced like the removable flashlight and the loudspeaker system. Check how the leather changed to the old version. Current work is done on the overhead (in the images still the old variant!) to get more effictive on runtime and also the textures are updated to higher resolution. And FPS are still increasing on the 3d graphics side, due the fresh work...
  2. 26 points
    I say we ought to stop teasing Frank
  3. 17 points
    I don't know either, but last I heard is that it could be due to it being such an advanced and beautiful aircraft... You know, it's not just one of those common airplanes that anyone can develop like the 777, 737, or 747. Maybe it's because of that. I don't know.. maybe it's just rumors. It's true, high quality Airbus aircraft are relatively new to Flight Sim, there aren't that many of them, and given how many there are real world (and how many people see and ride in them) and people want to operate what they are familiar with. Aerosoft produces these aircraft in amazing detail, fidelity, and operational capability. Most recently we've enjoyed this with the A318/A319/A320/A321, and later this year after an update takes the Aerosoft A320 Series to an all new level, Aerosoft will unveil the first high-end, wide body, long haul Airbrush (meant as a complement) in at least the same quality of the updated A320 series! Why so important? Because like their real world counter parts, the performance, payloads, flight routes and capabilities of the A330 are very different from the A318/A319/A320/A321. This is certainly important to the VATSIM/IVAO pilots and many offline pilots who strive to fly realistic routes (especially from excellent addon airports such as we get from Aerosoft and other quality developers) and they simply can't do this with the A320 Series. So from this perspective having an Airbus for long hauls is exciting! Now... drum roll please! Now start the music! If the above wasn't enough, Aerosoft has done something that I'm convinced the community doesn't fully understand and therefore can not fully appreciate -at least not to the same level as the accomplishment. Being experienced in technology program management, marketing, business finance and business overall, I can say with all confidence that Aerosoft providing the A318/A319/A320/A321, the upcoming CRJ-700/900 and the A330 at the price they will sell them to us for IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. Mathijs and the managers/owners at Aerosoft demonstrate their devotion to us and our hobby time after time after time, and they get very little recognition for it. I think of this every time someone blows in here with a new account to blast Aerosoft for this or that (it happens to every single other developer too). In the end, studying and then reproducing a fidelity rich A330 with all the bells and whistles is truly an accomplishment, and I'm sure that some parts of my thought process just wants to have it because of that. Cool! Hey Mathijs? Thank you my friend!
  4. 15 points
    Pleased to announce that EDDF Frankfurt Airport is coming to XPlane. Please note that we are still quite early in development.
  5. 15 points
    Explains the past 7 years...
  6. 13 points
    Yes, honestly. There are a handful of issue that simply need to be fixed and some small stuff that can be fixed later.
  7. 13 points
    Can you imagine how the feeling would be for me? To sit in front of the PC but no CRJ to work on? I think I'm going to need a shrink to adapt to normal life again.
  8. 12 points
    By now we do not use the term 'bugs' anymore, we call them 'franks'. Somebody let me know today that he found it strange we joke around in this topic, he felt there was not a lot to laugh about. Though we take the development very serious and I can honestly say there is good progress every day, the best way to keep a development going is to keep the people involved happy. And we seriously believe that the readers here belong to that group. We feel there is no harm if some of the banter and joking that flows 24/7 over our Development Skype group spills over to this forum.
  9. 11 points
    The fog has been there all the time. My machine just brings it down from CAT3A (allowed for the RW CRJ) to CAT3B NODH. At the moment we are still facing some LNAV issues that pop up when you do a bit of "free playing" with the FMS. Standard DIR INTC and FPLN following work. Throw in non FPLN WP's, strong winds/high GS and STAR changes enroute for example and things need to be finetuned. We are doing a lot of flying to iron out these issues as they do not occur on every flight. For now my fog machine is still running but I hear it stutter once in an while. Maybe it will be u/s soon and the WX will be CAT3A or better again.
  10. 11 points
    No, we were one of the last to create FS2004 add-ons for the simple reason that we had customers for that platform. We really do not feel the need to tell customers what they should use, we rather have them tell us what they want. I find the decision of some competitors (and friends) to leave the 32 bit platform behind surprising. Our market research (also for what we sell for THEIR products) show that FSX still has at least a 50% market share. We love P3d V4 and have great hopes for FSW and can't wait for it to be released out of Early Access with an SDK (before that we won't touch it). but to leave half your customers behind is a big step. A very big step.
  11. 11 points
    Big steps? Weekend release maybe?!?!?! Seriously, I wish more devs were as active and open with their community as you guys. It's not just making a great product that makes a company great.
  12. 11 points
    The user interface of the CRJ cockpit keeps on surprising us because it just sucks. Just look at the internal light controls that are spread all over the panels. The black ones work in P3D V4, they grey ones do not have a function that can be used. We hope that Lockheed soon allows brightness control of course. Right now the brightness is set with help of our real pilots to a level that mostly resembles what they use. In day to day use there is hardly any use for brightness controls and it is used more or less always as a on/off.
  13. 6 points
    After all, it's not unheard of for a different variant to be released as an expansion pack (PMDG, for instance, released the 777-300ER as an expansion pack for the 777-200LR/F). If the A330-300 sells well, I fully expect that Aerosoft will, in time, release an expansion pack featuring different engines variants and the -200 series.
  14. 6 points
    There are simply too many differences between the -200 and -700/-900 (and -1000) to put them into one product and not add another year of development at the same time.
  15. 6 points
    While I'm not exactly up to speed on the new Connected Flight Deck, I can tell you that the shared cockpit configuration for ESP (FSX/P3D) allows for only one person to have control of the control surfaces at any time and control is taken or passed (either/or) to the other station (person) via the press of a button or key on a keyboard). This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Airbus Flight Control Prioritization as it works real world, it merely limits flight controls input from either the Captain's or the First Officer's controls, but never both. The only way I know of to circumvent this is by either creating 1) a local setup (home cockpit with Captain and First Officer Controls) where both sets of inputs work at the same time and can/will override one another when ever a control surface is moved by either side, or 2) by creating a hardware or software Flight Control Network, either locally (again, for Home Cockpits) or or a LAN/WAN and would work completely outside of ESP based sims - and given that we're talking not one but TWO simulators (one at each location) we're talking about a TON OF WORK and this would likely drive the cost well into the triple digits - all for the something which we sort of already have. But who knows, the dev team are really smart and capable lads, maybe they've worked it out, but I dunno if I'd even try or care to. What we already have (how it works right now) is that either party presses button that transfers or takes control of the flight controls. If you think about it, the only thing we're missing is constant dual inputs, and since only one person actually flies the sim aircraft at a time we really don't need that. So with the current ability for either person to transfer or take control of the flight controls is essentially like the Airbus "Side Stick Takeover Button" on the side stick - which is what you're asking for. Probably more information that you needed, but I hope it is helpful. Best wishes.
  16. 6 points
    If thats the case, I hearby release and withdraw any legal implications to Aerosoft due to heart attack, stroke, shock, blood clots, or any other related illness and death from a CRJ 700/900 release due to disbelief of actual official public release in order for the rest of the CRJ fans anticipating this release can enjoy immediately.
  17. 5 points
    Yeah, it turns the 320 into a Stuka bomber.
  18. 5 points
    Wrong, you fix the aircraft he breaks IRL
  19. 5 points
    Yes, I find it surprising to drop 50% of your current customers and base their whole company on a professional simulator. Besides, in all our test we simply do not see a lot of options to make airport scenery much better then it is now using the high end hardware that is now available. While the VAS limit might be removed, we still run head-on into FPS issues. An major airport with 1500 real light points will look absolutely stunning but it will run at single digits. Which is a damned shame because X-Plane can do it. The 32 bit platform most certainly hold us back for a long time, but what I seen so far in development (things you most likely have not seen) simply does not show the major shift you seem to expect. Our experiences show we can add about 50 real light points (leaving 16 for the aircraft) and 10 to 15% more polygons. That's good progress, no doubt about that. But most users will simply be pushed to see the difference. Believe me, the big steps will be in aircraft. A lot more there is possible in 64 bits. Finally we do have to bother about compressing databases. I am also worried about hardware. We all know that P3d V4 needs a 1070 or 1080 GPU to really work well. The current airport scenery will work well with lesser GPU's but the moment you start to push the envelope you are again running into FPS issues. The way Lockheed implemented lights is simply incredibly demanding on the GPU. It is a choice that makes perfect sense for them because all our professional customers have no problems with running two 1080s in SLI. But that is $900 in hardware, a lot for joe average. Lockheed also has no problems suggesting 64 Gb in memory because their customers will pay that without even blinking. But do YOU have two 1080's and 64Gb in mem? I do and it runs P3d V4 like a dream. I just need to convince my tax advisor that that investment was a good idea.
  20. 5 points
    The ergonomic design of the CRJ cockpit definitely isn't the best. As you said, lighting controls are spread all over the place. Each pair of displays (pilot, center and copilot) have their own master dimming control, but then each individual display also has a separate dimmer (in the upper left corner). The switch to test all annunciator lights has two positions. Some annunciators illuminate in either position, but some do not. The pilot's "stall" annunciator only illuminates in position 1, and the copilot's only illuminates in position 2. Bombardier did make big improvements in two areas in the 700/900 vs. the 200: bleed air management and fire/overheat tests. In the 200, doing the fire warning tests involve six two-position switches on the overhead panel. First they are all moved up to the "warning" position, and the pilots have to look for a specific combination of annunciator lights, CAS messages and aural alerts when hitting the "test" switch. Then, they are all moved to the "fail" position, and a different combination of alerts happens when the test switch is activated. One big problem with this system: If the APU fire detection system does not pass the "warning" test, (and the pilots do not notice the failure), there is a very good chance the APU fire bottle will discharge when doing the "fail" test! On the 700/900 there is a single "FIREX TEST" button, that automatically tests everything when pressed, and gives a simple pass or fail message on the system display. On the 200, pilots have to manually sequence the opening and closing of engine 10th stage bleed air valves, isolation valve and APU load control valve. The switches have to be activated in one specific sequence when bringing APU bleed air online, and a different sequence when taking APU bleed air offline after engines are running. In the 700/900 it is normally all done automatically. The screen shots of the Aerosoft CRJ cockpit are gorgeous! If anything, they look better than the real aircraft[emoji2] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  21. 4 points
    When I saw the comment previews in the main forum, the references to blue pills had me thinking this thread took an entirely new direction... turns out not the same blue pills.
  22. 4 points
    I'd say, just give me the blue pill, and I'll wake up in my bed and believe what I want to believe.
  23. 4 points
    I've been following this thread for years but never posted. This just made my weekend. Maybe we will finally be flying her this fall. Thank you to AS, DA, and everyone else who has invested a lot into this for 7 years.
  24. 4 points
    We are back to the early FSX days when we didnt have the hardware capable of running FSX at the time. Hardware caught up then we ran into the OOMs with the 4gb limit. Now that we have 64 bit, all kinds of things could be developed to be nicer but our hardware is limited again more or less due to monetary reasons this time. Quite the cycle
  25. 4 points
    Pff, "state of the art"... In my opinion it is the freaking best modelling porn I know in this sector ! You guys are absolutely amazing and as mentioned by others already, I'm willing to give you the time and appreciate the waiting time!!!
  26. 3 points
    Hello, I want to share some fixes for Madeira 1.05a. My source data is SRTM 1 arc-second recompiled to LOD 11. It should work for FSX/P3D1,2,3,4. 1. Adds missing Mesh for Ilhéu do Farol removed Copy to "Prepar3D v4\Ecosystem\Aerosoft\MadeiraXEvolution\SCENERY" 2. Adds higher LOD Mesh for Ilheu Da Fonte Da Areia, now it's beeing displayed. removed Copy to "Prepar3D v4\Ecosystem\Aerosoft\PortoSantoXEvolution\Scenery" @MK-Studios feel free to use it in 1.06 follow up here:
  27. 3 points
    Besides, virtual pilots would probably be disappointed with the basic performance of an accurately emulated 200 - especially if they were exposed to the 700/900 first. With no leading edge slats, and engines with about 4000 to 5000 pounds less thrust than those on the 700/900, the 200 is bit of a "dog" - especially on warm days with full loads. Though it's not as fuel efficient to do so, the 700/900 can achieve Mach .78 pretty easily in cruise - the 200 won't do .78 unless it's going downhill![emoji2] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  28. 3 points
    been there, had that.... several times during this project
  29. 3 points
    Personally, I want a plane that does Short and Long routes in real life. American Airlines uses it for routes as short as Charlotte to Orlando and it gives me the option to do way longer routes. The B777/747 are only used in incredibly long flights. If the B787 came out, that would be a good alternative since they also do shorter flights. Also, there hasn't been a good Long Haul airbus product, in my opinion, until this project which has forced me to stretch the A320 Family for longer flights.
  30. 2 points
    Guys it's official from the psychedelic effects of the blue pill given to me by Morpheus and watching Frank pull the cable on release day judging by the meme by Aviator1985 the CRJ is month's away from release.......... I think Morpheus also told me a story called the chosen one, a person so powerful he would be able to stop Frank from breaking the CRJ and it would finally be released!
  31. 2 points
    I need new testers who are not so mean to me!
  32. 2 points
    And following on from previous posts, I am happy to report that ORBX FTX Vector ( released today) works flawlessly with this scenery, with no loss of framerates.
  33. 2 points
    P.s. I made some extra attention to this product because I think it give a lot for what it costs. http://www.simflight.nl/2017/07/14/aerosoft-trondheim-vaernes-enva-aanrader/
  34. 2 points
    That's what made me decide not to buy FSW. In my view a simulator should be a base plateform that provides the engine and physics and stop there. Microsoft never took a dime from third party developers and thats what helped launch the addon scene, with non professional developers able to provide free addons. I remember back in the day when the project airbus came out. It was very limited but nontheless it helped me learn about the airbus philosophy and if it were not for that addon I might probably have stopped flightsimming for good. when I came back to the hobby 3 years ago i came across your a320 and bought that. then the fslabs one. now I'm waiting eagerly for the 330. The simple , free project airbus, developed by a few dedicated people with no budget or infrastructure opened the pandora box for me, now I bought a weather addon and multiple sceneries and all this came from a humble free addon that couldn't have existed if microsoft had taken the dovetail approach. I had high hopes for FSW before its release, it was even before any rumors that p3dv4 would be 64bits so I really wished FSW would be a big step from FSX even better than P3Dv3 but when I saw the first reviews and streams when FSW was released I was hugely disapointed. graphically it looked no better than fsx, no default airliner when fsx 10 years ago had a few. No way to tweak your weather? no way to start at the gate ? It feels like a phone app nothing more. I understand the need for simplicity for beginers, i was glad when I started to have basic aircrafts that you could flight without turning any knobs and fly patterns with them and aiming for that market is fine. But not providing a base plateform for more advanced users was a big mistake in my opinion because thats where the money is a beginner will buy the sim and thats it, an advanced user will spend several hundreds on his sim. There marketing team probably wanted to bring a 64bit sim to the market before LM thinking that would get them a few more sales but by doing so they brought a half assed product no worth giving any consideration. If they had put half the effort in their product as they did in marketing their sim it might have been better. All I see for now is a pathetic attempt at ripping off cutomers and hard working devs. I've bought P3Dv4, i'm investing in that sim because it actually does the job and support the developers who bring good professional addons to the market buy buying their products knowing that they'll get the money they deserve. As long as dovetail will keep their comercial strategy I'm never buy FSW or any addon made for it.
  35. 2 points
    And from a customer standpoint...the -200 cabin is the absolute worst of any commercial aircraft flying, bar none! When I traveled for business back in the day and my travel agency would book me on a -200, I'd tell them to change it and I'd pay the difference, I hated them that much! I'd even take an ATR-42/72 over a -200! The -200 was never purpose-built to be an RJ, and my lord does it show (don't even get me started on the window placement...anyone I know who's looked out the window of a -200 during a flight complained of a sore neck afterward). The 700/900 are magnitudes better and show a good effort by Bombardier...but by far the best ERJ to ride on is the EMB 170/5 190/5 series. Purpose-built from the 1st rivet to be an RJ, you notice the difference as soon as you cross the passenger door threshold....esp. if you're 6 feet tall or better. The fuse cross-section is a tall oval vs almost circular in the CRJs, giving you head space in the walkway and straighter sides in the window seats. (so you don't have the curvature of the fuse hitting your shoulder as you sit in the window seat). I take Delta ERJs frequently from KDFW to KLAX and the 3 hour flight is very comfortable, even better than mainliners since you never have a center seat! Anyway....sorry but I had to comment on the horrid -200, and my destain for it is so great I would not even fly it in the sim world!
  36. 2 points
    @Speedbird ATC Adding to what @johnadmans and @online516 said: There are countries in the world whose leading carriers don't operate any 777s (maybe only for cargo flights), but A330s - and Germany is very much that kind of country. I'm German, and I already made quite a few happy real-life flights as a passenger in the A330s of Air Berlin and its predecessor (sort of) LTU. Lufthansa and its low-cost subsidiary Eurowings operate the A330 as well. And Condor uses A330s of its British mother company Thomas Cook once in a while, too. So you will now probably understand even better why it will feel like birthday and Christmas combined to me and many others when Aerosoft releases that great, reliable, flexible and comfortable plane: I have fond personal memories of it - and with the help of the add-on, I will be able to recreate a lot more real-life flights of German carriers than ever before. And, adding to that: In my opinion, the A330 is one of the greatest and most beautiful jetliners ever built. And what is even greater about it: It still has a bright future ahead, in this "twin engine era".
  37. 2 points
  38. 2 points
    Hi all, thanks Sascha for Antarctica X. I made a litte scenery with penguins in the Atka Bay. Hope you like it. Greetings, Stefan Atka.zip
  39. 1 point
    I have the same results. SRTM does not offer more. I know that reality does look different.
  40. 1 point
    I will check the Issues 1,2,4 and 5 tomorrow. The runwaylights are a normal Object, but it is possible that the P3D V3 has in issue with the Z Buffering against the special ground. I hope, i can reproduce it.
  41. 1 point
    It's disappointing that issue 2 It's an old one actually. If you start a flight out of Porto Santo (LPPS), no matter what, one will not have windmills. In order to display the windmills you need to first load your flight at LPMA (Madeira) and then switch back to Porto Santo (LPPS). is back in v1.05a, as we both reported that for v1.04 in this post:
  42. 1 point
    Mogens, I can assure you all the scenery development teams are working on it, it just takes time. And because we really feel just slapping a V4 compatible logo on things without actually changing things it sometimes takes a while. Many airports are also being updated to the latest layout.
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    The updates are now available and on your order history page you will find the new serial number.
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    Who told you that that doesn't apply to me as well? (Just kidding.)
  48. 1 point
    Really? You find this surprising? Well, honestly I don't. They've always been the top leaders when it comes to quality (well, one of them does lack in quality some times IMHO, but hey). I totally understand that the 32-bit platform hold them back. Now that they use just one Sim, I think we could expect higher quality with the use of modern standards for future sceneries.
  49. 1 point
    Seit dem letzten update vom AddOn Manager von FSDT bekomme ich folgende Fehlermeldung: Error while modify SimObj file: FlightBeam San Francisco HD AES expect a SimObj MDL for this Addon! To prevent double Jetways the config need to be replace But SimObject or Addonconfig could not be found Was kann ich da machen? Es betrifft nur SFO HD Danke
  50. 1 point
    Installer is now changed to V2.45a, more info's in the first Post: