Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/02/10 in all areas

  1. Tja, wenn du mal auf das Datum meines Posts gesehen hast, wirst du bemerkt haben, dass ich diesen Post im August geschrieben habe, mitllerweile nenne ich den "neuen Flusi" auch ASFS2013 Und ICH persönlich kann diese ganzen Posts über "Aerosoft ist schei**, die releasen nur halbfertige Produkte und wollen nur Geld machen" auch nicht mehr sehen! Auch dieses "Der FS2004 ist der Beste, FSX ist blöd" nicht! Vor Allem das "Warum macht keiner mehr was für den FS2004?" nervt! Bei jeder Ankündigung für ein neues Produkt wird die Frage gestellt "Und was ist mit FS9???" Seht es ein: Der FS2004 ist alt (ich habe nicht gesagt schlecht), wie der Name schon sagt. Mal ehrlich: Was sollte dein Post bewirken??? Warum hast du ihn geschrieben, außer um Stunk zu machen? Du kannst ja in zehn Jahren immer noch mit deinem FS2004 fliegen, während alle Anderen den Nachfolger fliegen (ASFS2013, Microsoft Flight, oder was auch immer) Ich bleibe erstmal beim FSX und steige dann auf den Neuen um, nachdem ich die ersten Rezensionen gelesen habe. Gruß Chris PS: Warum bist du in dieses Forum gekommen? Bisher hast du ZWEI Posts gemacht und bei beiden nur gemeckert und noch nichts produktives beigetragen!
    3 points
  2. Hmmmmmm....... We must be talking about a different Nick. The one I am speaking of has always stressed in his guides the need to check changes systematically, and given copious notices not only that results can vary from system to system, but that users also needed to experiment to see which changes (if any) worked best for their particular setups.
    3 points
  3. Well, in my case the plane flies great, until I'll have to land. Every landing is a crash because of the nosedive. If you cannot land, you can say that the plane is unflyable. I'll have to agree with that statement. I'm a huge fan of aerosoft software. Truly amazing in general. But the airbusx is a big disapointment so far. Since all these weeks there no solution for a part of the buyers. I cannot see how that could have happened.
    3 points
  4. I have nowhere read that a new version is developed. The Airbus X ist not flyable. I have already given up that I expect to fly an airbus with "system insinuation ", but i can not fly with this airplane. sorry, that is not acceptable!
    2 points
  5. To all users and especially to the Aerosoft Team, after my few posts complaining about the V1.20 FDE, I simply wanted to inform you that I went back to V1.0 and I was able to do a manual landing , this time, no problem! It's not the best FDE or aircraft behaviour but.........and it's a big but.........it works in a decent, acceptable way. The only thing I ma now missing is the fixed wing view that, honestly, doesn't bother me. I am still upset as a customer as I didn't get an official reply from Aerosoft as for the problem, a lot of people are experiencing landing this bird with or without autopilot. I was lucky tyhat I had kept a copy of Version 1 without deletting it. So, for your info, on my system both V1.1 and V1.2 do not work on manual or auto landing. Please I don't need anyone to lecture me on try this..... and try that....... I am a former, retired, airline pilot and I have flown this bird for years. I appreciate what Aerosoft is doing here re-creating an eye candy , framerate friendly, easy to use plane ok? Got the message! I use FSX for my enjoyment on a basic simulator but what bothers me is when I am paying buying a product that is defective and I get no replies from the poeple who sold it to me. This is my System info so hoping to help the Product Team in resolving the flight dynamics issues on landing: FSX with SP1 and SP2 + Acceleration Pack. OS= Vista 64 Bits Video Card 1GB ATI RAdeon 9GB SDDRAM Anything else I have missed here, please let me know and I will inform you. Take care and I hope to hear from someone at Aerosoft soon! Best regards, Frank D.
    2 points
  6. You are confusing (on purpose I feel) Nick Needham with someone else. Nowhere in his optimisation guide does Nick propose the use of the bufferpools tweak. As for your second point all it shows is ignorance. Here are Nick's advised fsx.cfg tweaks (copied and pasted from his W7 optimisation guide found here): ----- Close FSX and add this to your FSX.cfg [Display] WideViewAspect=True //If widescreen monitor in use otherwise False TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=xx //Most will use 70 to 80 If you are on a higher end system, start with 80 but BE AWARE this value may be best at the default of 30 or 40. You must test fly and tune. [Main] HideInfoText=1 <--- unless you want that annoying text on the screen, then dont use this DisablePreload=1 and PLEASE DONT ADD ANY OTHER EDITS at this point.. , including AFFINITY MASK, OR BUFFERPOOL ENTRY!! Do not increase scenery radius in the FSX.cfg! This is NOT THE TIME to mess with tweaks like that, this is the time to get the SLIDERS RIGHT first and push the tweaks to see how far you can get, LATER! ----- So, please do us all a favour and take your stupid and uninformed agenda elsewhere, ok?
    2 points
  7. Hello, I have been trying to read and wait for an official response from Aerosoft about the problems with the way this bird flies right now preventing, most of the users, to do a manual landing, not to mention an automated one, but no responses until today. All I have read even from Mr.MAthijas is concerns about FPS. Please note that I am not a happy customer, I have spent $44.00 more or less for a product that I cannot use for my enjoyment. Nice in every aspect but I can't land with this! Version 1.0 was way better than this last one and, unfortunately, I have delete it. What is Aerosoft going to do to fix the aerodynamics? Do we have to weait months? As a customer I would appreciate a kind reply. This version 1.20 is un-flyable! I can't land this nice bird it just gets out of control at 400 feet from the ground and wobbles and shakes like anything I ever experienced with FSX. I hope someone from the Support team can shed some light on what actions are being taken to address this problem in a timely fashion. Thank you, Frank D.
    1 point
  8. Hi Frank, A few people are complaining about the flyability of this aircraft. It has a few wrinkles left in it but Aerosoft is working on some improvements. The only time I have difficulty landing the Bus is when I'm not properly set-up on finals. If I'm too fast for example, it will be a bugger to land safely. You tell me as a retired airline pilot, what would you do if you're comming in too fast? I think a lot of people expect things to take care of themselves. I just finnished several manual landings, one at Manchester, one in Glasgow and another in Cologne and managed to get the passengwers home safely. One thing I have noticed however, if my FPS get really low, then the aircraft becomes more difficult to maneuver. I'm using the addon with Tileproxy, so all autogen scenery is off, I have my frame rates set to unlimited and maybe this why I have no real problems. Try setting your sliders to the left to see if it can improve flyability. Another thing, when I'm set-up on finals at the vref, I sometimes turn off the ELAC and she flies like if it was on rails. I don't know what else at the moment as a lot of people are enjoying this bird, I know I am. Try to get your frames up and disable ELAC when on final and get back to us here with a verdict. I'm off to another destination. best regards
    1 point
  9. I guess the big problem Frank, is that although you prefer v1.0, many others didn't. Personally, I think all versions have so shown both good and bad features in terms of the flight model and for me at least, v2 is the first that will consistently autoland! But, I really don't enjoy the nose dip issue on AP disconnect and that is proving to be a royal pain to solve. As someone with experience, perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining the "feel" of this Airbus "simulated/forced flare". One of the problems faced with the FSX FBW simulation is that this flare is created by simply turning off FBW at the last minute (100ft) which also zeros's the trim I.e. Nose goes down and forces flare! Why no personal reply? I guess when the same thing is reported over and over, it'd be a waste of development time to personally reply to each post.
    1 point
  10. Hello everybody, Had enough of not having any information from aerosoft (about all Orly's issues) despite several request on this support forum. Wrote them an E-Mail just right now and waiting for their reply... Will let you know if anything new about the scenery and their ongoing (or not) work on it. Alex ps: Don't want to be mean at all about Aerosoft. I just don't understand why there is no communication...
    1 point
  11. Thanks for the tip on the FPS i will try that soon, but about the drop effects, im sorry its just ridiculous. We shouldnt have to work our way round this addon so much for it to work.
    1 point
  12. John and I had over 70 paints ready when it was released, and there have been about 35 more since, so I have no idea what you mean here...aahh, no master painters...sorry.
    1 point
  13. Shouldn't the uninstaller take care of these issues? Seems like something that should be included with 1.21.
    1 point
  14. Just fix the bloody descent rate. Versions 1.11 and above.
    1 point
  15. I second that. Nick is by far the most reliable and consistent source of good advice.
    1 point
  16. Hi In regards to what other people have reported, I to am fustrated also. To say that its unfair to blame Aerosoft just goes up my you know what sideways. You cannot release a product, charge people MONEY, and not expect this kind of reaction regardless if the product has bugs or not. The throttle is a basic function, loading an aircraft is another basic function that brings about fatal error. And the list goes on... I have flown version 1 for ten minutes, version 1.20 Zero minutes, multiple ctd and reinstalls, almost six hours of debugging,paid $40.00 for what. Sorry to disagree I mean no disrespect to anyone regards N.Garcia Winpro7 64bit, AMD PhenomII 965 Black Ed., Ati5870 10.9a AMD fusion, 4gigs DDR3 1600mHz Cougar Hotas with Realsimulation force sensorstick base R2, F16 Simped rudders, Saitek yoke and throttles quad.
    1 point
  17. ja das sehe ich auch so. vorallem weil Köln langsam aus der sicht von GWI-Virtuell ganz schön eng wird ;O)
    1 point
  18. A new FBW and SID/STAR... that's all we need.
    1 point
  19. hum personaly i wait this airbus since 1st august and now we are 1st october and this airbus it's not perfect In 2 months or before there is boeing pmdg out and i think if aerosoft not resolve the issue before most of people will abandon aerosoft and this airbus! You can see many people angry with this airbus on this forum... So it's challenge for aerosoft team !
    1 point
  20. If you guys could post some screens from the runway, that would be awesome....... Thanks!
    1 point
  21. I´m one of the developers of this project. We are working on 1.21 right now. Sorry, but is "unflyable" not an overstatement ? We know there are some issues with nosedrop etc also in 1.20 I have now flown under all kind of conditions: -Full loaded + Autoland -Totally empty apart from a few drops of fuel + Autoland -Full loaded + Manual flight with FBW On -Totally empty apart from a few drops of fuel + Manual flight with FBW On I had no troubles with any of the above configurations. Passing 100 ft on approach causes a slight "wobble", but still managable with no risc of crashing. Pitch up/down on AP disengagement occurs, but nothing that can´t be managed. This is with my current 1.21 alpha files. Finn
    1 point
  22. Hi Shaun, Just to let you know I still have 30/40% decrease in frames using this method....I'm using SP2 not Accelerator. V1.11 is good with 28-35fps at add-on airports and 50-78fps up in the air.
    1 point
  23. I agree with most of what you're saying. Yes, there are bugs, yes, there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and yes, the FBW sucks to the point where you have to turn it off altogether to properly hand-fly this thing on approach and landings. Still, I think that the Airbus X is a nice package and should provide a solid basis for further work. I only hope that there will be an "advanced" package made available which will give us a more functional MCDU (SID/STAR support, recalculation of TOC, TOD and other parameters when changing route and altitude in flight ...), IRS, a better FBW implementation which finally allows proper transitions from autoflight to manual flight and vice versa, and more of the good realism stuff. However, I wouldn't want to hear stuff like "We don't do this because of fps" or "We don't want to do this because we'd like to stick with default FSX behavior". While fps and leveraging existing FSX assets is certainly something to keep in mind, it should not prevent the implementation of advanced features (within reason). Nobody expects a complex airliner addon have the same frame rate as the default FSX trike. Most of us guys are running other complex addons (PMDG, Level-D ...) as well so please don't use fps or slavish adherence to FSX default behavior as an excuse to not implement advanced stuff. (The stripped-down FO displays are such a thing. I replaced them with the CAPT ones in the aircraft.cfg without suffering from a noticeable performance hit). IMHO, the Airbus X is currently the most promising FSX Airbus package available. Keep it up!
    1 point
  24. Ja klar das behaupten sie immer und wenn dann das nächste Mega Airport Projekt vor der Tür steht, dann wieder wie ein kleines Kind an Weihnachten aufführen... Darf man fragen, ob das Update gut vorran kommt?
    1 point
  25. I can now confirm this will be for FS2004 done as well.
    1 point
  26. and can we download your liverys somewhere? i haven't found any downloads on your homepage, so if you make such big announcements here about your liverys then please also tell us where we can get those liverys too! regards Emi
    1 point
  27. Dem kann ich mich nur anschließen. Gruß Bahner2010
    1 point
  28. Hi, eine gute Idee wäre noch bei der Zugfahrt den Mauszeiger unsichtbar zu machen solange er nicht bewegt wird Gruß Craxler
    1 point
  29. It is another module based on the A-10c, i think the plan is to release 1 aircraft yearly and make all modules compatible with each other. And they produce simulators for the military so while iv never flown a real Black shark or A-10 im guessing these are just about the most accurate sims out there? i personally can't wait for DCS:A10 which should hit around christmas time. Here are a couple of vids that show how in depth this sim is, not one for the ace combat crowed i think.... Looks very promising....
    -1 points
  30. Was ist das bitte? Hab gegoogelt, verstehe aber nicht, was es damit auf sich hat? mfg Reinhard
    -1 points
  31. Hallo Chris, Du glaubst wohl an Wunder ? 2014 wird es sowieso mit dem Geschirr und dann kaufen Ihn erst einmal Alle, damit Aerosoft sein Geld bekommt und dann während dem Reklamieren, mußt Du dann erklären, dass in einem Simulator auch Flugzeuge sein sollten, damit mann damit auch Fliegen kann. Dann bekommst Du resourcen fressende "Virtuell - Cockpits", weil das dann eben so ist. Gestochenscharfe 2D-Cockpits wird es ja sehr wahrscheinlich nicht mehr geben, weil der Aerosoftchef angekündigt hat, dass Diese nicht mehr üblich sind. Also sitzt Du dann in Deinem verschwommenen virtuellen Cockpit und verdirbst Dir dann stundenlang die Augen. Das ist die Zukunft. ------------------ So wirds wohl Laufen. Ich denke man gewöhnt sich besser an X-Plane, sobald Die ein vernünftiges ATC einbauen würden. ---------------------- Dieses "Hoffen" kann ich schon nicht mehr hören. Dass der alte FS 2004 der Bessere ist kappiert ja kein Addon-Hersteller. Alle Hersteller stieren hier nur wieder dem neuen FSX nach, um Ihre Entwicklungs-Kosten niedrig zu halten. Dabei ist der perfekte Weg der FS 2004 als Basis und dann die besten optisch aufbauenden Addons, die schönsten Airports bauen und die schönsten Flugzeuge in bester Optik fliegen. Aber das kappiert ja Keiner. ----------------------------------------------- Wie mit vielen Dingen in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung >>> Profit >>> Profit >>> Profit. Dabei machen FS 2004 - Addons am wenigten Arbeit. Aber so wie mich ja jetzt keiner Versteht - verstehe ich das Zukünftige auch nicht. es grüßt Michael
    -2 points
  32. Yeah please explain the part where he goes on for 3 years saying the Nvidia tools don't work, and please explain the change of heart. Are you saying it took Nvidia 3+ years to fix a bug... Oh that's right everyone of you avoided that question the first time.... don't bother Sharrow: youre the idiot who can't think for himself... TWEAKS DON"T DO ANYTHING IN AN EVENT BASED PROGRAM!!! Now I"m writing like NiCK
    -2 points
  33. I know some people think that STARs are always used....Not. But the SIDs are. This addon is useless to poepl who have to go on VATSIM or Boston Virtual ATC and have to fly sids manually....Most SIDs arnt easy as pie o fly manually. It's almost impossible to fly the exact path of a SID without the assistance of an fmc or something like it. Just BSing the SIDs leads to embaressment when the atc calls you on it. AEROSOFT: You're releasing a 1.30 im sure because your Airbus needs WORK. So add SIDs. It isn't that hard and will make the difference for your LOYAL customers who shouldn't have to put up with this. And that's the truth!
    -2 points
  34. WOw there's a quick way to throw out half your framerate just follows Nicks useless advice...
    -3 points
  35. Like I said I don't need to turn my system into a stuttering slide show which is what Nicks optimizations will give you. You ever wonder why some people don't need bufferpools=0, it's because we don't listen to people like Nick in the first place. This is the same guy who after all insisted that Nvidias Tools didn't work and you had to use nhancer... now that nhancer is no longer under development he's back to using Nvidia tools..... kind of schizo if you ask me.
    -3 points
  36. Hello, maybe you could explain why it is not possible to fly the aircraft for you?
    -4 points
×
×
  • Create New...