Mathijs Kok

Roma Ciampino X Preview

59 posts in this topic

Fantastic! I've been waiting for this one for a long time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ca210270 said:

Is release close?

 

Close to what? To your door?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project is really making it hard for me to give up Prepar3d and move to X-Plane completely!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see first post: this is for P3D / FSX, not for XPlane

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-T580 mit Tapatalk

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, yes, I know that.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ca210270 said:

Is release close?

 

Maybe it is maybe it isn't but the video is pretty much done ;) 

LIRA1.JPG

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to having fun with the VOR-A procedure or the new RNAV A procedure (http://aeronauticalinformation.it/index.php/2017/04/08/rnav-a-circling-rwy-33-di-roma-ciampino/) to runway 33 during the days with northerly wind and clear sky... By the way, the rwy 33 procedure can be used only if

 

"– PAPI and strobe ALS for RWY 33 are available;

– The light on obstacle with elevation 728ft located at 2.5 NM from ROM VOR/DME is working;"

 

Is the obstacle light at 2.5 NM from ROM present in the scenery? (It should be the bell tower of a trappist convent)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeroen Doorman said:
13 hours ago, ca210270 said:
10 hours ago, ca210270 said: Is release close?

 

Maybe it is maybe it isn't but the video is pretty much done  

[...]

 

Can't wait for your video

 

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z017D utilizzando Tapatalk

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the developer, or is it an internal Aerosoft development? Whoever it is did an amazing job.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IAD (Italian Airport Developers)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 7:32 AM, ca210270 said:

Looking forward to having fun with the VOR-A procedure or the new RNAV A procedure (http://aeronauticalinformation.it/index.php/2017/04/08/rnav-a-circling-rwy-33-di-roma-ciampino/) to runway 33 during the days with northerly wind and clear sky... By the way, the rwy 33 procedure can be used only if

 

"– PAPI and strobe ALS for RWY 33 are available;

– The light on obstacle with elevation 728ft located at 2.5 NM from ROM VOR/DME is working;"

 

Is the obstacle light at 2.5 NM from ROM present in the scenery? (It should be the bell tower of a trappist convent)

:rolleyes:

2017-5-21_20-39-59-53.jpg

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ca210270 said:

Great!

2017-5-22_20-0-50-952.jpg

Also the Runway 15 Approach is really good due to a nice landing system with real heights! :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward! Aerosoft, please hurry up, there are no bugs!

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess the "T" on the ground :P

2017-5-23_16-22-20-398.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ca210270 said:

Looking forward! Aerosoft, please hurry up, there are no bugs!

 

As impressive, as the scenery looks from the images - how on earth can you tell?!

(You must indeed possess powers I don't)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some screenshot from P3D 

2017-5-1_16-54-24-168.jpg

2017-5-1_16-57-3-871.jpg

2017-5-1_16-57-28-249.jpg

2017-5-1_16-57-59-802.jpg

2017-5-23_21-15-54-399.jpg

 

2017-5-1_17-0-36-178.jpg

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope those static models aren't part of the scenery because as good as the rest of the scenery looks, the aircraft look like shit. Really, those are the most disgusting static aircraft I've ever seen. They don't even look like the real thing. Look at that Ryanair 737 tail and compare it to the real thing, the difference is obvious.

 

For me personally it's not a problem, I don't use static aircraft anyway. I remove them wherever I can and I trust that'll be possible here too, but for the people that do like them I think they deserve some quality so this definitely needs improvement. For now I'll just take it as work in progress.

-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry,they aren't part of scenery.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the negative votes, people? 

He's got a point... these static planes won't win any beauty contests... :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now