Mathijs Kok

Root Admin
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mathijs Kok

  1. Because the previous topic was merged with something else I open a new one with two new images. To be clear about a few issues: Release is expected in 2016 (but hey, shit happens) We start with the A333 with RR engines but we might expand, nothing decided yet though, a full coverage of all possible models is not our goal As with the current busses we focus on the task of the pilots as this allows us to make an realistic product for a reasonable price. We do not include anything that does not occur at least once every 5000 hours of flight As with the current busses we will try to include many features that are normally only added with other add-ons And yes it will have wingflex.
  2. Mega Airport Singapore X (by Antti Haka), It's still some way off but we thought it would be nice to share some first images!
  3. Sorry, of course you are right on that. A350 and 380 are the difficult ones
  4. Well just look at the cockpit. It's really a very visible object and in the A350/380 fully integrated with other systems. Having that large screen there and not being able to use it as a moving map makes little sense to me. But the EFB is just one system that is hard to model.
  5. But if MS did not put that airport in the database there is not a lot we can do to change that.
  6. Best contact the developer of that livery.
  7. Your system is fine. If you plan to update this winter I would not worry about it right now, things are moving pretty fast in hardware these days. But $3000 will be total overkill. Spend half that and the rest on something else that's fun.
  8. No, I think you got a good point. For smaller companies it will be more difficult, certainly if you do not want to charge separate for every version. It's really a question of money. And for a good long time the FSX:SP2 and FSX:STEAM market might remain the biggest. We do not know sales data of P3D but we can safely assume it is not even a small percentage of what FSX in all it's forms sold. The only thing that makes P3D important for us is that these customers invest in add-ons. We still have a huge amount of people that fly FS2004, but they do not invest in their sim anymore.
  9. I am reading a lot of nonsense about the 64 bit sims that are coming online. Some people think we'll have 4K textures as standard or models with half a million polygons for the VC. Sorry to say that won't happen. At least not soon. Many people forget we have got a 64 FlightSim for several years now, XP10 was 64 bits and of course XP11 is as well. Now XP never suffered from OOM as bad as FS/P3D but it still was an issue. When it went 64 bits some developers got wild and scenery and aircraft textures got massive. Of course that overloaded the graphics card and every other pipeline and caused very low FPS. So basically not a lot has happened when XP went 64 bits. It always was pretty well optimized, making things bigger simply meant making it slower. Flight Sim World is the odd duckling. We simply don't know. We had very minor information and only beta's a few weeks before we all could buy the beta. We did not expect that from Dovetails, certainly not as they asked us for high end add-ons in a meeting a few days before release. Without an SDK and a lot more information on what will still be changing that is not going to happen. We will not spend a lot of time making things that might now work later. Most important here are lights and animations, both parts that we know are still not set in concrete. We like what we see, but we need a release version and a full SDK. Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D V4 was the opposite of FSW. We got very early access to beta's, we had ample opportunity to give our input and we did see how the developers listened to comments. They have ALWAYS done that. The latest version, that should be very close to the release version, is stable, the SDK is up to date. We had a lot of time to see what works and what does not work. Basically a lot works and making the rest compatible does NOT seem to be a problem. Making use of the new opportunities, for example in lighting, of course is more time consuming but it all looks good. What we appreciate is that LM did not waste a lot of time on updating the world and aircraft. They realize that we can take care of that (and of course from a professional point landclass in Siberia is not very important). It truly is a follow up on P3D V3. Personally I think it is the best flight simulator I have ever seen. -------------------------------------- In the end it is important to keep in mind that memory was just one of the bottlenecks. Do not think 64 bits sims mean that things will start to be a lot more complex and detailed. You will run head first into FPS issues (even though it seems faster graphics cards could be the way out for that). There are other things to consider. Development costs for example. A 2K textures takes a lot more time than a 1K texture. Doubling the amount of polygons on a complex aircraft means tens of thousands or Euro's more in development. And as things are it is hard enough to get your investment back on complex add-ons. Are you will to pay 25% more for something that looks a bit better? Also loading times will be an irritating issue. We all know how long it can take for FS to fill up 3.2 Gb, now imaging filling the 32 Gb that Lockheed advises for P3D V4. Or download sizes, we now have a lot of customers who have problems downloading big files. These challenges aside, we are seeing a new heyday of flight simulators. It's like 2004 again and that is great news for everybody. Also see this:
  10. There is a very good reason there is not even a modestly realistic A380 on the market. There are simply many systems in that aircraft that will be incredibly hard to simulate. The EFB comes to mind first, there is at least a full year of development in that alone and it will always need licensed (meaning you as a customer have to pay separate money for that) vector maps that can be opened in the VC. That alone is enough to think twice about such a project. I can almost guarantee you that in the next two years there will not be a realistic A340, A350 or A380. Not to the degree we do our Airbusses.
  11. The same way as a pilot does it, via the AOC menu pages. We'll show this soon.
  12. Okay if you feel this so massively important you might not buy our product. We feel that this is a very minor feature and not even in the same class as a good MCDU etc. Each his own. For P3d V4 this will not be an issue, for the other sims it will be as it means doing away totally with the build in light systems and thus compatibility with the more simple hardware we sell.
  13. Yes, should be in there.
  14. It all depends a lot on Airbus Industries.
  15. If you show me serious market research that confirms that we will sell a lot of A380 then CRJ.... In OUR market research that did not show. Besides, a full blown A380 is not possible at this moment because a lot of information needed is simply not available. Even for the A340, A350 this is a major issue.
  16. We decided not to do dimmable lighting in the FSX and P3d V3 version. For P3D V4 this should be very easy to implement when Lockheed completes the scripting options (currently not the case). We do not feel dimmanble lighting are a big deal. The light level we selected is judged by our real pilot advisors and they tell us that's what the recognize. Making it a bit lighter or darker would not add a lot of realism. Now in a $120 add-ons things are different, even if you never use it, you would expect it there.
  17. But..... only late 2015 did the sale of FS2004 add-ons drop to a level that made it impossible to create add-ons for it. Developers can think what they want but we'll go where the customers are. It's them why will decide.
  18. First images! And yes, we know there are other projects covering the same airport, but as explained often, we do not see that as a problem.
  19. With every update of Windows there are some people who find it affects their framerate and thousands where it does not seem to have any effect. Unless you have done some serious testing it is rather hard to see where the updated windows could affect fps. A graphics driver can have effect, in extreme cases even a significant effect. But ALWAYS keep in mind that you need to do serious testing, same settings, same conditions to make serious claims. I do these test before any windows update and I actually never have seen any Windows update making FS slower. Only faster.
  20. Don't expect an update next week, we'll be working on P3d V4 mostly next week.
  21. Yes that would be possible. But not planned.
  22. Just a quick word on P3D V4. We have been testing this internally for some time and are very enthusiastic about this new release. It's stable, it's fast and it compatible to a certain degree. Scenery seems to be rather easy to 'make work', aircraft of course have to be compiled again got 64 bits. This is NOT a trivial task. At Aerosoft however we rather not make things 'just work' without making use of the new features us the sim. So how older products are updated depends. Most older stuff will be made compatible, but newer stuff most likely will be changed to make use of the new features. New releases will most likely be made compatible from day one. Just keep in mind we have over 300 add-ons and not a handful as most of our competitors. As a principle (not a rule) we will work from the newer or most important products backwards. That means the A320 is one of the first that we'll work on. It's also by far the most to convert btw. How enthusiastic we are is best shown in an image showing our Bali. That is not at max settings or anything, but if you check the image you see it is looking more then okay. And it does so at 180 fps. P3D V3 did the same at 90 fps.
  23. I propose to follow up on this here:
  24. I seriously doubt the issue is one of Windows.
  25. That reminds me, got to talk to them! Did we ever show this screen of the configurator?