• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tyrion last won the day on November 30 2009

Tyrion had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About Tyrion

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/16/90

Recent Profile Visitors

10089 profile views
  1. Radials you say? There's four of those on this beauty!
  2. I'm not sure I used the right description. What I mean is the lack of options when creating a starting scenario, the way the sim tries to lock you into a to-from flight, yet lacks of a decent flight planner,... Do keep in mind that I haven't used it much yet. As for the Steam aspect of it, I don't mind at all. It's very user-friendly in installing and running. I am worried about them making it into a closed environment though. I'm not really tempted to use steam for Add-ons.
  3. Yes, but not for flightsim. For that, I prefer to go directly to the developer/publisher. Also, I'd like to maintain more control over my add-ons than Steam allows.
  4. As I owned Flight School, I also have FSW installed and working. But as long as it's early access, I'm going to be reticent in putting a lot of time and effort into it. When I do start it, it still fails to impress. It's better than Flight School, but that's no achievement in itself. Fully keeping in mind that it's early access: - I'm not impressed (at all) by the lighting system. - The aircraft look good (the VC's especially look good), but so far have failed to convince me regarding functionality, systems, flight dynamics and sound. - For it being 'the next big sim' building on the legacy of the MSFS line, I'm seeing a remarkable lack of open-world-accessibility, versatility and all-round usability. - The User Interface and menu system feels like it's designed more with looks and 'feeling game-like' in mind rather than usability and common sense. And finally, well, it's Dovetail Games. They have already received more money from me than I'd care to admit, and what I got in return has more often than not failed to impress either in quality of value for money. So I'm getting to be very, very critical with what comes out of their offices. That being said, when Dovetail Games Flight Sim World is released out of Early Access, I'll try very hard to look past my prejudices, and give it an honest chance. You never know, it might still surprise me in a good way.
  5. Cutting it close to the deadline, here's my entry: Watching the sunset while hauling cargo...
  6. Agreed, it's not that hard. I've gone with a custom documents location for the last 7 years. Although I still have to look up how every time I reinstall windows (which is not that often, hence the having to look it up. ) Still 2 reasons: you might not want documents and flightsim files on the same drive (dedicated FS drives are one use case, but there might be others). And it relies on user-intervention and windows tools for a "problem" that LM should have considered and worked around. I really like the 'install add-ons outside of the sim' idea. Lots of good reasons for it. I just think the solution LM came up with is not as well implemented as it should be. Just my 2 cents... P.S. This discussion seems to have derailed the A330 preview a bit. Sorry for my part in that.
  7. As I have dedicated SSD for flightsim, I would very much appreciate if you'd allow for custom Add-on locations. Preferably in a user-friendly way, without having to move files and rewrite config files. Personally, I really don't get why LM wants the add-ons in the documents folder. For most people, that's still on the C drive, which nowadays is a relatively small SSD for many. I have it moved to my D drive, which is a big, but slow, mechanical HDD. No problem for pictures or text documents. Not something where I want simulator assets installed, especially as I have that dedicated drive for those. In my humble opinion, the best solution would be for LM to allow for custom Add-on folder locations from within the GUI or installer, which can be autodetected by third-party installers. But that's up to them... (I know about tinkering with the add-ons.cfg and stuff like that, to do this manually. But, apart from potential stability and update problems, all this tinkering in config files has never been my favourite part of our hobby. That is flying, at least virtually...) Thanks for considering...
  8. I haven't gone deep enough into testing them to provide anything definitive. But there are 2 reasons I personally prefer the AS radar over the Aerosoft one. Firstly, add-on support. The weather radar uses active sky in several of my favourite aircraft. While I quite like the Aerosoft Airbus, I don't fly it all that regularly. Second, frame rates. On my system (<= emphasis here) there is no impact on frame rates with the AS radar that I can see, but when I try the WX radar in the Aerosoft busses, I see quite a noticeable drop in frame rates. To aswer Mathijs' question: No, I don't use the REX Wx radar, simply because I already us Active sky and my favourite aircraft support that radar without an additional purchase (that's to say, on top of the already very expensive active sky). I would like to see a more realistic and feature-rich experience with the AS-based radars, but I vividly remember the time when EVERYONE kept insisting Wx radar was impossible in MSFS, so I'm quite happy with what we've now got. Just my two cents, but I hope it helps.
  9. I want to add my thanks to this as well. Very happy to see increased P3Dv3 compatibility.
  10. Sorry for going off-topic on the A330, but Mathijs, I really, really want to thank you for speaking up about this. This relatively sudden increase in prices is something I have noticed as well, and we haven't seen a corresponding increase in depth and quality of said add-ons in my opinion. At least not to the same degree. Stuff that used to retail for $25 a couple of years ago now costs $45, way more than can be explained by inflation. Thanks A LOT to Aerosoft for not going down that same road!! High quality combined with accessible prices and outstanding support is what defines Aerosoft for me, and makes me a happily returning customer. Sorry for the off-topic post, but I just couldn't keep silent when I read your post.
  11. I wanted to add my voice to this. Thank you very much!
  12. After a new PC built, I'm quite happy with both FSX:SE and P3Dv3. I'm surprised myself by how much I'm using FSX:SE over P3D though. Mainly because of compatibility with old(er) scenery products and some utilities. If those are not an issue, I will select P3D over FSX for my flight though.
  13. Alright, sorry for the late update. Just started a new job, so my focus has been away from FS... The reply from the UTX team came down to the following: that bridge is one of tens of thousands placed around Europe by an automated process. It's weirdly placed, but it is just an autogen extrusion bridge. A simple object exclusion should get rid of it. I've been thinking of creating a bgl with just an exclude rectangle myself, but I'd have to look up how to do that, and as I said, my focus has to be at my new job for a while. So the question remains, why doesn't MA EDDFv2 just exclude this bridge as well? I understand the team behind MA EDDFv2 can't check compatibility with every other possible add-on out there, and I'm not asking them to. It's not a deal breaking issue for me either. But I do find it weird that I'm the first to report this (as far as I've been able to find, at least). If I ever get around to creating the exclusion myself, I'll share it here. If EDDF ever gets another update, I hope a fix is included in that update. P.S. I've had input from other users that they see the same bridge in the same location, so not limited to my system.
  14. No, I haven't. Will do so now. Just checked with EDDF v2 deactivated, and that bridge still looks weirdly placed there. Still wondering why EDDF doesn't 'exclude' it into oblivion though.
  15. Thanks for the input Otto. I have all UTX airports deactivated, if that's what you mean. Not sure if there's other ways you can turn of specific regional files in UTX. I could of course turn of highway bridges in UTX, but in my opinion, that would be quite overkill, getting rid of all highway bridges in Europe just to solve this issue at EDDF.