Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/06/20 in all areas

  1. 28 points
    Warning… this is work in progress and if you dislike us to toot our own horn, better not read on. As you know we have been working with Microsoft and Asobo to get the new sim into retail stores (with great success, it will be available widely in Europe) but less known is how our developers have worked with Asobo on making complex add-ons possible. The major credit goes to Stefan Hoffmann and Hans Hartmann here. But Asobo has been incredibly kind and it was a fair exchange of ideas and code. They helped us getting a product done, we helped them shape the SDK so it will benefit all add-on developers. And honestly, companies like PMDG, and Carenado are friends of us, this is not something written to get our code to work, if this works any complex code is possible. We have just been selected by Asosbo to assist. In response we have invested a lot on the new platform, hired new people specifically for the MFS products, moved resources around. To be honest, we have been seeing and using the new sim for over a year now and we believe in it. Now other companies have shared images of their models in the new sim (or will do so shortly) but I can assure you none will be able to show you something like this. Complex displays, using nonstandard code. P3D V5 standard. There will be video soon, shared in combination with Microsoft. This is code that actually works. Not bitmaps. Things like the reflections still need tweaks (did I mention this was work on progress?) but we really wanted to show you what people have been working on for the last few months. These images are pretty high definition, click on them to see the best resolution the forum allows. Now as you might assume, complex aircraft are not our only market. Airports are a major part of our product line and the scenery developers that work for us have been working with Asobo to get our airports in the sim. Of course, Paderborn airport, where our HQ is based, had to be first and we are happy to see Microsoft has included the files Jo Erlend Sund made, that we send them into the default sim. And yes, you will be able to find our office. In pretty high detail. We will have more images soon but here is a first image. The CRJ images are also on that airport btw. Again, all shown here is work in progress, things might and will look different when released. In the first release some stuff might not work as we want it, but we’ll be open and honest about that. As said we are working with Asobo to get things working and in the end we believe we will match all features the a mature platform like P3D offers. Speaking about release. No, we are not willing to give out dates for releases. Things are still very much in flux. Every single day changes in the SDK allow us to tweak things. We are also not hurrying things. MFS is an incredible product. When you get it you will need many weeks to explore what is possible, how to tweak the hundreds of settings to your liking, see how Chernobyl looks and no, Asosbo did not model this, this is a fantastic example how their code create scenery from data). When you are done with that, we hope to have the CRJ and some airports ready for you to download. Ahhh, I see the first questions… is this a free update from existing products? No, my friends, it is not. There is a shite load of work already been invested in this new version. It is not a simple port, almost every single file is new. Prices will be decided when we get closer to release. As a last comment. No, we are not abandoning X-Plane or P3D, we love all simulators at Aerosoft and while we might have our own likes and dislikes, we sell what customers buy. You decide, not us.
  2. 13 points
    Today I will talk about the flight (drive) model. I mention drive model specifically because perhaps the biggest change you will immediately notice it. We all know that FSX/P3D sucks balls on the ground. It is like driving on ice that is very sticky at low speeds. It takes way more power than it should to get moving and when you have some speed the nosewheel only has a modest influence on where you are going. It seems just as happy to go sideways than forwards. Complex aircraft add-ons have tweaks for that (FSUIPC also has) but they never functioned as they should. But not only on ground there was an issue (or several) but also at the moment you lifted off. See, in FSX/P3D there is a major change in physics when there is no wheel (or technically, contact point) on ground. It toggles from a ground model to a flight model in some way. Rather sudden. That’s why you always have that little ‘jump’ into the air when you lift off. On landings it is incredibly hard to a real ‘greaser’ because there is no real smooth transition between flying and driving. The best way of testing this is by trying to take-off without moving. Just increase the wind until you get enough lift. YouTuber Squirrel shows that in this vid: Now do not tell anybody, but this was something that Dutch Air Force guys used to do a lot with Super Cubs. I grew up in the household of a fighter pilot who flew everything from Spitfires to Starfighters and who was the persons responsible for introducing the F-16 in the Dutch Air Force. He claimed he could only do that after being checked out on type, riiiiiight. Basically, he just loved flying and as base commander of Leeuwarden AFB was a checked-out line pilot on the first F-16 to arrive. Send up to intercept the Russian Bears. As a full-blown colonel. Never happened again. And yes, I am that old. And yes, he did take me up in the two-seater F-16. And yes, I did puke. But they had two Super Cups and when there was a lot of wind, they had contest on who could take-off and land and get negative ground speed. Land behind from where you took-off (without flying around the world). Hours upon hours. Several props were wrecked. But as it was easier when there were two persons in the aircraft, I got a lot of airtime. And what that video shows is what I remember. The unstable wobbling because air currents ARE not stable, you will never get the same lift on your left wing as you get on your right wing. Stepping back into 2019… I was visiting Asobo and one of the devs showed me how they model air flow over objects. They asked me to fly at a steady speed, steady heading, steady altitude over a runway with steady (!) cross wind. Every time I got in the wind shadow of a hangar, I had to do some serious correction. Honestly, I made a mess of things. Simplifying the wind model to what FSX/P3D/X-plane does and it was easy. That is bloody amazing. What you see around you (buildings, trees) affects the aerodynamics. Now that is all about the mechanics of the sim. How this works out to what is to actually fly aircraft is a bit open. Though major steps have been taken, there is still some comment on how the default aircraft behave. As somebody who has flown at least some of the aircraft that are included, I am not always very impressed by the bug reports. I often feel that the people commenting are trying to make the aircraft fly the way the think it should fly. But a Robin is crazy stable and it needs a lot of stick to turn. A Cessna 152 is a trainer and when you do not ‘fly’ it all the time it will default to level and steady. How many of the tester that commented on the ICON A5 have actually flown it? I certainly have not so I would be very hesitant to make any comment. In the larger aircraft, like the A320, B747 I find the comments even harder to swallow. I have 11 minutes of stick in an actual A320 and around three hours on the sims pilots train on. But based on that I would not dare to make any comments. The advisory pilots in the Bus projects we run would tear me a new exhaust port if I did. When we started working on aircraft for the new sim we learned a lot. Aerodynamics are far less ‘stable’ then they used to be (good!) and making a good flight model is far more complex then in FSX/P3D. It compared more to X-Plane as it also models actual airflow over surfaces. But the air in X-Plane is rather static while it is not in MFS. You can trim all you want but 90 seconds later the aircraft will wonder off. And it should. Yesterday I told you that MFS smashes the other sims in it’s representation of the world. Today, about the flight model I am not so sure. In the default aircraft I still feel some tweaking needs to be done, but the characteristics or the aircraft I know (like the Robin), is most certainly there. As add-on developers we are still trying to learn what is possible. Most certainly more than ever before, but we need to understand it. We need hundreds of hours of testing and tweaking. In the end I think FSX/P3D will be beaten hands down, X-Plane got a major fight on its hands. What matters most is not how realistic things actually are, but how believable they are. How many hours do YOU have in a Pitts Special, ICON Z5 or a Xcub? I have none so I will not comment on how it should fly. I got the documents on how fast a A320 Neo should climb but I also know these are VERY complex tables where even the temperature of the fuel plays a role. I also know B747 pilots tell me they use these tables as guides and would hesitant to judge an add-on based on them. Not long ago I was flying on IVAO with a friend of mine who flies busses for a living. He was told to fly heading 333. When we were at 336 the controller commented on that. He later commented on the fact we were 200 feet low. Drove my friend mad. He said, “do they think I am flying a simulator here?”. Aircraft are not trains. You can’t fly heading 333. You can fly something close to 333 and on average, if you are lucky, it will be 333. Simmers often miss that and ask for precisions that simply should not be there. I think that with the more unpredictable way MFS aircraft fly, we will see that a lot of people will complain about how unstable things are. And you know…. That’s great!
  3. 9 points
    It is still impossible to determine because the SDK still has so many holes, what I can say is that we hired a new modeler next to Stefan for this project. When we interviewed applicants for that project we asked them all to create the front nose strut of the Twotter as a sample. Anne made by far the best one (see below) and we are very happy to have her in our team. Having a second high end modeler will make it possible for us to work on multiple projects at the same time.
  4. 8 points
    In this series of posts I will write down my personal (!) ideas on the new simulator that is at this moment on approach. They are a combination of what we learned over the last year working with Microsoft and Asobo and my personal experiences. I hope to make one posts a day, but you know, life.... I'll start with the big round thing. The world. As there are a kazillion images and videos (check out my good friend ObsidiantAnt on Youtube) that show it far better than I can so I will stick to text. Feel free to comment. Again keep in mind these are my personal views. ----------------------- The MFS world might not be perfect (surprisingly there are some airport missing because the sat imagery was not available, even in Germany and the US!) and there might be a kazillion places where things do not look exactly as they should, but we get a ‘believable’ world. I know X-Plane used the term but MFS's world is far more believable. Go to any place you do not know intimately, and you would not know that the sim showed something that is not there. You will ALWAYS get a rather good impression of what that area looks like. If you take P3D v4.5, add all the terrain add-ons you can get for a region and you get what default MFS will show. Some bits will be better, some will be worse, but overall, it will be very comparable. The difference is that MFS does it world-wide. Check out Fouleix where I live and you will see the three small lakes in my garden, the house, the stable, the workshop and the black dots on the car park are my cars. All the very big trees on my terrain are correctly placed. That is in the middle of bloody nowhere in France. In the default sim. Not just a sat image, but 3d buildings and 3d trees. Correctly placed. And again worldwide, that is mind boggling. Microsoft always said that MFS would be the showcase of what Azure (the network of MS servers and storage) and Bing (the databases) could do. And boy, does it deliver. Google might have more up to date imagery but in combining data and making it into a 3d world they are way behind. Google Earth looks childish in 3D compared to MFS. Not StreetView, but that is just a bunch of pictures, incredibly cool, but basically amazingly simple technology. It just takes a lot of cars driving around to get the data. MFS is with some distance the most detailed representation of our globe we now have. Google could do the same as they also got the data, but they have no business case to do it. Microsoft did. In many news programs you now see Google graphics when there is a news event somewhere in the world. They slowly zoom into the location, but it remains 2D. I guarantee you; you will see Microsoft Flight Simulator used in news items. It is that good. I have spoken to professional simulator guys. They train pilots. And they all said that there is no simulator, no matter what you pay, that gives the same sense of depth, same sense of distances. The sim now does not have full seasons, it has 'summer' and 'snow' but a snowy landscape looks perhaps even better than the summer one. When the sun sets (those sunsets are fantastic btw) the inhabited world lights up like we have not seen before. I have been able to fly over Paris South to North following the outer peripherique . There is NO way, no matter with what add-on, I could have ever done that in any other sim. I think I like night flights even better than day time flights. Fly towards a big city and you see the light slowly build up, first a glimmer, then a dome of light and then you start to see the roads and structure. Try Paris or Seattle. Can it be improved upon? Ohhh yes, If you know the color and EXACT shape of a building you can make a better one. Certainly airports can be massively improved, even the high definition ones made by Microsoft/Asobo. What is clear if you look in some details at them, you see they are made by people who have little or no experience with flight simulation. You see how they spend a lot of effort on parts you never see from the cockpit (the ‘car’ side of the airport, you miss the higher level of detail in the normal sightlines (mainly on final) and you see how they did not understand why details on the departure routes matter far less then on the approach routes. I have been in Asobo’s offices a few times and I never approach charts on the desk of a modeler. Hey, don’t knock them, it took our scenery developers two decades to perfect those skills! And I have seen the modelers at Asobo learn amazingly fast. They intend to keep on adding more content and if they listen to what customers want, they will be damned good damned fast. These are skilled and trained people. And P3D and X-Plane? Highly respectable platforms but comparing the ‘default world’ can only lead to one winner. MFS blows the competition out of the water. You can spend hours and hours just flying around, looking at the world. From the Norwegian fjords, via the Italian lakes to the Amazon, it is stunning. Just absolutely stunning.
  5. 7 points
    Okay, I officially put a Beaver project on our project management system....
  6. 7 points
    More Paderborn airport. As said a free product.
  7. 7 points
    So to be clear on MFS aircraft projects... our plan is to do the CRJ first, Twin Otter next (that one is seriously intended for the use on the Xbox) and then one of the Busses. Most likely the 320. Moving to a NEO model is considered.
  8. 6 points
  9. 5 points
    Here's some work in progress screenshots from MSFS
  10. 5 points
    Hello folks, Just a quick note that we have updated our Microsoft Flight Simulator knowledgebase in our help centre with some extra information: Any questions we can answer have likely been answered at the above link.
  11. 5 points
    Prop and jet aircraft are on separate development trajectories, so hardly affect each other.
  12. 5 points
    I lend Jouka, the test lead to MS for a few weeks to assist in testing and advising, but otherwise we were not involved in that. Work on our busses for MFS has also been in progress for a while but nothing yet to be shown.
  13. 5 points
    I applaud Aerosoft for putting in the work on the SDK for the benefit of all developers, this is truly what a leader does, and it makes me proud to be your customer. Now I will save up money for a new rig that can handle MSFS, because I am hopping on this train
  14. 4 points
    I just wonder, will it have wingflex?
  15. 3 points
    Even before I was allowed to see MSFS on my own screen half a year ago, it was clear to me that this would be the beginning of a new era. Or continuation of the Golden Age which I was allowed to be part of (as an Aerosoft customer already) from FS4 to FSX. While I have always defended Prepar3d, even at a time when it was not yet popular, it became more and more clear that it includes so many hurdles it never would attract the masses as its forerunners. As Mathijs states, the combination of distribution channel, mandatory credit card, the clumsy update mechanism (despite improvements far from today's standards,), the dubious EULA, limitation to English language, strict LM information policies... all that factored in. I never had the illusion of getting the perfect God sim with MSFS, as some seem to believe, but I am sure it will be the way into the future. And no, I don't think Prepar3d (and also X-Plane) to disappear anytime soon, notably X-Plane has a devoted user base keeping it alive while I see Prepar3d focusing on the enterprise market - which it originally was made for. Kind regards, Michael
  16. 3 points
    We kept on making FSX add-ons while we already seen that sales were not okay, we were one of the very last to still have FSX production lines for serious products. I know you disagree and that's fine. But we have sales data, do market research and talk to customers daily, all things you do not have access to. So I believe our point of view is pretty solid. And market segmentation, yes of course we know that, but if the cost of production is higher then the profit, it means nothing but a failed strategy.
  17. 3 points
    For sure there will be still addons required. MSFS is not a simulator where you will get worldwide high end airports. Default is better than FSX default, but still default. Even the deluxe default airports will require addons. Cologne is for us an important POI. But not for other. Asobo can’t model worldwide every POI. Most is still autogen generated by AI. And it is based on bing satimages. So go to bing and you see what you can expect in different regions (age and quality of satimages). So at the end MSFS is still a giant step and a great future sim, but we will still have to buy addons.
  18. 3 points
  19. 3 points
    Next week... Being tested.
  20. 3 points
    Thanks for the interesting insights. Looking forward for the Twin Otter. I also miss the Aerosoft Beaver. It would be a perfect aircraft to explore the new sim. Regarding the Airbus I'd also appreciate the A330 first. Actually I'm a bit surprised about your announcement it will most possibly be the A320, given there already is an A320 in the sim. At least I had the hope that the quality gap between the default A320 and the Aerosoft A320 (in its current state) would be closing over time. You seem confident enough that the Aerosoft A320 will be so much better than the default one that enough people will buy it. That either means that the default A320 will generally stay at the quite basic quality we have seen so far (which would be a little disappointing regarding Asobo's own standards of excellence) or that the Aerosoft's Airbus steps up significantly (which would be great). Of course you will have the necessary insight to assess this. Nevertheless I'd like the A330 first and use the default A320 for the time being.
  21. 3 points
    Well, we only shared one very basic image and you have a rather strong opinion based on that little information. You are wrong. It looks actually very very good.
  22. 3 points
    Oh yes. As we have shown with every new version of the sims we never do a simple port, we will always try to use all new options.
  23. 3 points
  24. 2 points
    We never direct customers, we go where they are. As long as there are enough X-Plane users buying add-ons we'll keep on making add-ons. We love all serious flight simulators.
  25. 2 points
    Many reasons. First of all, Flight Simming is at this moment a very small hobby. But the main reason is that P3D can only be bought at Lockheed and it clearly states that it is not intended for hobby use. That the practise is different might be the case but the EULA is totally clear, not for entertainment use. MFS will be sold everywhere, at MS, at steam, in over 500 retail shops, the amount of marketing is massive, I counted over 200 YT videos uploaded in the last 36 hours, P3D never had anything like that. For Lockheed the hobby simmers were just the people who paid to create the platform for professional use. We worked on a box version with them for 2 years but we never got anything done. That, and selling it everywhere online, would have changed things. Where the product is sold makes a HUGE difference. When Dovetails sold FSX on Steam they sold many many tens of thousands. It tripled the amount of simmers in 6 weeks. Most of those did not end up buying add-ons but I can tell you in confidence, for many companies it was a lifeline. And after all, just look at the MFS. It is so much more attractive, so much easier to sell.
  26. 2 points
    The key words in there are 'the community'. See we have some idea on how many copies Microsoft has to sell to make money. And we know roughly how many copies of P3D are sold. Those numbers are not in the same ballpark. Not even the same city. There might be 500 MFS users to one P3D user, It would not surprise me if it would be even more, seriously more. And though we seriously love P3D (version 4.5 that is, V5 not so much), we will go where our customers are. And as always, there is a huge difference between user and customers. We still have a lot of people in our database that use FSX, but they stopped buying add-ons around 30 months ago. So while the users are still there, development totally stopped. We will see exactly the same with P3D. In fact we already see it. sales for add-ons are very low right now.
  27. 2 points
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us! Good to read the positive vibe. A lot of people in the community are very sceptical and traditional towards new platforms. Personally I have reinstalled my PC, pre-ordered MSFS and P3D is history for now. Yes, I cannot fly the Aerosoft Airbus or PMDG 737 from day one, but lots to discover... VFR has my attention for the first time in FS history!
  28. 2 points
    Since this topic has such a large audience, I would like to make a small request to all who have pre-ordered the boxed version. This thursday I start the preparation of every single pre-order. Since we are talking about thousands of delivery notes and shipping labels, the effort is huge and takes a lot of time. If there is someone who does not longer want to receive the boxed version, I would be really happy to receive the refund request until friday. A refund normally takes up to 5 minutes, but on monday it would take much longer and slow down the shipping of every single pre-order. Thank you in advance and stay tuned!
  29. 2 points
  30. 2 points
    Since I saw Paderborn/Lippstadt will be in the MSFS, hopes were came up again, that we would see a revival of the good old German Airports time. Sooner or later we'll definitely see the bigger airports, but I hope, maybe Aerosoft could take care again of the smaller ones, like Münster/Osnabrück, Saarbrücken, Erfurt or Karlsruhe Baden/Baden. Especially these smaller ones, are interesting for both, either IFR or VFR, with especially VFR being super interesting in MSFS
  31. 2 points
    I have found the culprit!. There is a file in <<C:\Users\"user name"\Documents\Aerosoft\Aerosoft CRJ Pro>> named FMS.CFG with these values: [FMSDefaults] DOW_550=44731 DOW_700=44731 DOW_900=48790 DOW_1000=51055 The last one being the CRJ1000 51055 = 23159KG when converted. I modified that number to 54748 and problem solved = 24.834KG and the FMS now received the correct input from the EFB. Why did my copy of the CRJ have these FMS.CFG values?. I do have the latest version, including the beta.
  32. 2 points
    I'm not familiar with Milviz products. Was the amphibious version in the same package as the wheeled version? Also I am familiar with the Quality of Aerosoft products and I trust them to deliver a high quality and great value product with excellent customer support so I will wait patiently for the Aerosoft version.
  33. 2 points
    Leider nicht. Das ist einfach nur ein Layer mit Strassenlaternen, der sich auf alles addiert was darunter ist und auch auf alles was drüber liegt und keine Exclusions hat. Dabei hat der Autor das Beispiel-Script wohl so verwendet wie er es irgendwo gefunden hat, weshalb die Verteilung der Lichter wenig Bezug zur Realität hat. Ich nehme an mit "EXE" meinst du "EXT" damit "Extended Nightlights". Wie ich in der .org ja schon versucht habe zu erklären, bringt der Network-Layer von XE seine eigene Beleuchtung mit. Da dieser (Armin möge mich da bitte korrigieren) auf ähnliche Weise erzeugt wurde wie "EXT/ENL" hat der prinzipbedingt schon die erhöhte Anzeigereichweite wie "Extended Nightlights" und IIRC (ich benutze den Layer nicht) hat der auch mehr Lichter als Default. Da nun nochmal einen Layer mit noch mehr Lichtern draufzulegen wäre also unnötig und kann auch voll nach hinten losgehen, nämlich dann wenn man auch noch eine modifizierte Lights.txt benutzt, von denen die meisten für die Default-Beleuchtung gedacht sind und zusammen mit mehr Lichtern und erhöhter Reichweite mal eben 1/3 der FPS kosten können. Das mit OrbX hast du auch nicht ganz verstanden, die bringen ebenfalls ihre eigene Beleuchtung mit und die ist ziemlich schlecht und tlw. regelrecht kaputt. Besonders in Städten stehen massig Lampen 3-fach an exakt denselben Koordinaten ineinander (das kann man im WED überprüfen), während die an anderen Stellen viel zu weit auseinander stehen, das hätte man ökonomischer lösen sollen. Du kannst die aber nicht wirklich verbessern indem du "Extended Nightlights" drüber legst weil die alte Beleuchtung dann ja immer noch vorhanden ist. Anders als bei XE hast du da aber auch keine Alternative weil das bei Orbx kein Layer ist, sondern komplett in die Overlays integriert ist und nicht einfach abgeschaltet werden kann. Bei XE kannst du entweder den Network Layer benutzen oder Extended Nightlights mit dem Default Network, oder beides wenn dir das Chaos gefällt. Die Frage "drunter oder drüber" ist hier sonst besonders schwer zu beantworten, weil der gesamte XE-Komplex eigentlich relativ weit unten in der Scenery_packs.ini stehen sollte und andere VFR-Szenerien relativ weit oben. Der Network-Layer sollte ENL eigentlich blocken, daher kann man es auch drunter schieben. Wenn dann noch andere VFR-Szenerien besser unter den Extended Nightlights stehen sollten, hat man zumindest ein ziemlich kniffeliges Sortierungsproblem zu lösen.
  34. 2 points
    Please put it at the bottom of the project list because the Twin Otter is already a great plane for bush flying. And we already have lots of GA planes. I personally would prefer the A330 (or A320) first because at this moment we don’t have a large study-level airliner in the new sim.
  35. 2 points
    But they are all MODERN and shiny ... there needs to be some noisy scruffy old round-engined planes ...
  36. 2 points
    This new sim is just crying out for a D.H. Beaver so I really hope you guys will consider adding it to your roster in the near future. I would love to get out into the Alaskan bush and do some flying and water landings with that plane.
  37. 2 points
    Congratulations to Anne for joining the Aerosoft team!
  38. 2 points
    Let's say this is still a bit of an open question. Let me explain. See, it is incredibly hard to predict how well P3D will hold up to the new sim. It is well known we are not fans of P3D V5, Backwards compatibility was broken in some areas that make no sense whatsoever, memory management is still problematic, 8Gb of video memory is not enough in many occasions if you have a complex virtual cockpit. But P3d V4.5 is mature, stable, fast and just one of the best sims we have ever seen. Now the A330 has a more modern modeling/texturing system that works fine in V4.5 and V5, but the A320 range needs tweaks to be optimal in V5. So when P3D remains important it makes sense to work on the A320 first as it will be easier to update it for both platforms. As this are all decisions that means months of work and a lot of money they are hard to make.
  39. 2 points
    Great news Mathijs! Thank you very much for the update. But I must say I was hoping for the A330 to come to the plattform first as I just love this plane.
  40. 2 points
    Oh yeah, wheel, tundra wheel, floater, amphib and probably ski (we have no yet tried anything on snow in the sim).
  41. 2 points
    We believe MFS will be a more efficient platform, that's all we can say at this moment. But it is very hard to say as a lot optimizing is still missing from the SDK's. No matter what, complex stuff will always be slowish because add-on builders will always add more stuff.
  42. 2 points
    Not 101% sure, could be it will be in the Flight Store (the build in shop). For sure it will be free though.
  43. 2 points
    And what about Airbus pro?? Are you working on it or are you helping Asobo to complete their A320 Neo (it's still far from Aerosoft level)?
  44. 2 points
    The CRJs wings were carved out a pure, pristine piece of solid meteorite. They are so solid that even Thanos and his infinity stones might only be able to muster a twitch out of them. Jewelers everywhere purchase scrap pieces of RJ and Challenger wings to shape their diamonds. As far as I'm concerned, the wing flex is already perfectly modelled
  45. 2 points
    What key combo do I have to use not to see my user ID 15 times on a screenshot like with those other dev previews?
  46. 1 point
    Da hat er recht! Habs versucht, war dann zum einen frustriert vom Gedanken: Jeder andere kann es wieder ändern, weil er anderer Meinung ist, oder nicht hingeschaut hat: Arbeit futsch. Zum anderen findet man da soviele Fehler, dass man am liebsten alles neu machen möchte. So ging es mir mit einer W2XP Version von Oahu. Generiert, sah komisch aus, und zack, in der Kurzarbeit mal eben mehrere tausend Fassaden und Häuser per Hand gesetzt. Jetzt gefällts mir besser. Danach ist man nur eigentlich reif für die Klapse... Außerdem kann man ja nicht selbst generieren, dass muss der Meister.👍 Für ein sofort nutzbares Ergebnis bleibt also nur der WED. Trotzdem Hochachtung für alle OSM-Spezialisten. P.S. Die neue X Amerika hab ich noch nicht ausprobiert. 😉
  47. 1 point
    Mathijs told me today that we hope to do some more work on Connected Flight Deck next week. That's all I can say at the moment.
  48. 1 point
    A new patch with a lot of new teaks is being tested, next week we planned a few days for Connected Flight Deck and CPDLC is still in hot development for P3d V4&5!
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point
    New York: Key West: Toronto: Vancouver (da fehlt wohl Landfläche in der Standardszenerie): Panama City: Rio de Janeiro: Sao Paolo:

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...