johnadmans

Members
  • Content count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-22

About johnadmans

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. That wasn't the nature of what I wrote. At all. The background changes color. the actual text remains maxed at a very dim brightness. I shall attempt to explain it for a 3rd time, second time in this very post. The LCDs have 2 items to them. The data brightness (text) and background. Both can go fully dark. But when you begin to crank up the dial, the data brightness maxes out at what I consider to be ambient level. You can still turn the dial to increase it but it has no effect. Instead only the background changes color, but it too doesn't become brighter.
  2. Will the screens brightness be correctly modeled? In the small buses you can change them from dark(off) to normal and then anything beyond that just gives you a blue background, but the actual brightness remains fixed. In certain lighting they look very very dull and even hard to see. This was properly modeled on the dash 400 which came out long ago along many others. So it is possible. and very doable.
  3. I do. with my credit card equaling that of your annual income I do, if you want to bring that up. personally I don't care how many -s you give me. feel free. it wont affect me one bit liking or not liking a product. nor will it affect my opinion of you. seriously. im excited about the a330 and im thoroughly enjoying the a3xx series. this is what matters here. so my vested interest is the same as everyone. best possible product in the least amount of time. anything in between is just banter. cheers frends, negative away. at the same time, I find it humours people expecting brake temperature and fade being modeled in.. it would be nice but do you all realize the clusterstorm of bugs that system alone would introduce? I don't want that. its not worth modeling certain things because of the way they affect everything else. that, is what some people don't seem to understand. complexity = delays = bugs = vas = limitations on scenery = detraction from overall experience. throughout this thread aerosoft personnel have been very consistent in answering questions about the scope of the modeling and what they want to achieve. I am very, no, extremely happy with what they set out to achieve with the 330-xxx and I know they can pull it off. im sorry (not really) that some people are upset/disappointed that certain systems and things will not be included but that is the nature of the game as we currently know it. it has limitations and the more you work around them, the more variables you introduce. if that in some way offends you, it certainly wasn't intended, but it is as it is. im just a customer like everyone else with no insider knowledge of their development process but I have been a simmer since 1998 so I have followed a lot of addons (lots of failed ones and lots of successful ones) so I feel I have a perspective that some might not have. as such, I have to side with AS and just tell people who expect the sky that they are not being realistic. im just trying to level certain emotions because if the devs do it, it could affect their bottom line; while if a random user says things, its just that. a random user with no weight. I have no illusions one way or another. And before someone brings it up, im a cross platform AS user. mainly in OMSI2 as I spent years on that before returning to FS. Out of 20+ products, 2 of them I would go with "meh" and only because of VAS, which is a platform limitation and not a direct product shortfall. Mathis while being one of the main people at the company has no direct control over individual products timeframe. Release was actually expected in 2015, pushed for 2016, later delayed to 2017. Its normal. Again. But the more people demand, the later it will come. If you want to argue actual dates....... And my CRJ post was also on point. I'd hate to cross reference that here, but let me just say that a VC developed in 2010 is not in standard in 2017 and has to be redone. So the more something is delayed, the more things will have to be updated just to keep it current with present trends. Im a little confused how anyone could have misconstrued that to mean anything else. If your modeling takes 5 months and your systems 7 years, you will likely have outdated modeling by the time you get the systems done (again, I will not name examples). So if you want to deliver you have to start redoing parts of your old completed sections. Again, its normal. Hope that explains your gripes with my CRJ thread post (whoever it was that actually brought it up)
  4. It has not? I mean sure, if a second in your clock amounts to over a year, then sure.. its not even a second.
  5. More features, more bugs, less time spent on actually getting the stuff that needs doing right - AP/FCU, FBW and FMC. This plane has been delayed long enough, do we really need even more delays so some systems can be put in last minute and not even done right because 1 out of 500 customers think its a necessity? (also, more systems, more VAS usage, and we all know how that goes) It seems the devs are pretty well defined on what they will do and that's good. I like that
  6. Im confused about this project. At over 7 years now, assuming its still actually being worked on, it raises a question. How much of it has to be redone from scratch to bring it up to 2017 standards? Its almost like the devs are just going back on their own work doing it over multiple times the longer this is delayed... Food for thought.
  7. VAS crashes every time when I get there...... After tweaking orbx ncal (removed some features) I managed to land but then boom.. out of memory once I stopped at the end of the runway. That's the farthest ive made it on that airport. 2048 tex load (no, not going to 1024, ever. don't even bring it up if yours runs "fine" on 1024. this isn't 2002 anymore) 5.5 lod no airport clutter no static vehicles yes on 3d grass no ai traffic installed in my sim. I get 800mb left 20 miles out down to 200 5 miles and once on the airport.. boom. 0. bye bye if I load same plane at the airport as the start flight, I get 500mb left to play with. what a shame. so basically all the posts that have no problems with this airport are full of it or have never flown INTO said airport. this is actually normal since fsx/p3d always leave some out of range scenery and what not loaded from along your route. so testing at the actual airport as the start flight is pointless and does a disservice. you need to test into any airport after 4-5 hour flight to see what it actually does. frame rates are perfectly fine. its unusable due to eating memory like no tomorrow. this and Nassau are 2 sceneries that should have never made it past beta. .but here they are... being sold to the masses.
  8. Hey I was just looking at all the people who cant figure out how to install this because of the wrong word usage. You seem to get annoyed at them. I just pointed out why they can't figure it out. Why would anyone complain? Its the usage of an English word that's wrong (and I seen a bunch of people getting confused by this, so I pointed it out, as a favor). There is nothing to complain about with the actual textures. I bloody even complimented you on them. Stop being so emo.
  9. Please. Do you run 1080p? guess not. because things aren't legible. 4k and 2048 are completely different. I run a super loaded sim and have never ran out of memory. No, that's being lazy from the texture artists. Then I suppose, this product is a few years old. Back then texturing was still stuck in the 90s. Everything new nowadays (that's worth it) is 2k+ and its pretty apparent when you look around. Your harsh comments will hurt my feelings deeply. No really...
  10. you are saying it wrong. bad english delete all files CONTAINING the word "mainpanel". including means delete all the files along with those named mainpanel.... nobody caught on that for all that time? fantastic work btw. thanks for making these and shame on AS for not putting the effort to release it with proper textures.