Jump to content

Shane

Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shane

Shane's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

4

Reputation

  1. Any chance of the OV-10D the US used in the Gulf War?
  2. I could see the prop just fine on the real Katana I flew. You can watch videos on Youtube and see the prop as well.
  3. Why is it people continually mention that Wingflex and other graphical enhancments are not worth the performance hit? Where is this "huge" performace hit everybody thinks exists? Same with the VC rain effects. PMDG added VC rain effects to the J41 and there was nowhere near a huge performance hit from it's addition. PMDG has Wingflex for the MD-11 and performance is pretty darn good, and that aircraft has a crazy amount of systems modeled as well. Is everybody getting 10 fps from add-ons with Wingflex? No. lol People feel "droop" from lack of hydraulic pressure is good to add....but not something you will see every time you fly the aircraft? I don't get it. How often do people expect to see "droop" from the hydraulic pressure? I think some folks blow the performance hit from wingflex and vc rain effects WAYYYYYYY out of proportion. Many seem to have forgotten that there are add-ons already out for FSX that have wingflex or VC Rain effects and have quite good performance. Last time I checked, the PMDG J41 was pretty highly regarded as is the PMDG MD-11. Thoughts/opinions?
  4. I always noticed the wingflex on the Airbus flights I have been on. Here are a few pics. I had a really great one but I can't find it now (it pretty much destroyed the entire "they hardly flex" arguement). http://www.airliners.net/photo/TACA/Airbus-A320-233/1780681/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Nouvelair-Tunisie/Airbus-A320-214/1780276/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Southern-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1780100/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/AirAsia/Airbus-A320-216/1779329/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Shenzhen-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1779327/M/
  5. IMO, if Aerosoft wants to do an "Advanced" add-on, I say bring out all the stops. VNAV, SIDs, STARs, Airways, new FBW, Wingflex, vc rain effects, hydraulic droop, Navigraph support, etc..etc.. Make the add-on a force to be reckoned with. Create an add-on that will make all fans salivate, not just Airbus fans. Create an add-on that won't just peak the interest of current Airbus fans, but an Airbus that will draw new fans in. The Airbus X already has phenomenal graphics, why not go one step further. Will performance be affected? More than likely. But that goes with the territory. "Greatness" isn't free and it always favors the bold. Don't create an Airbus add-on, create THE Airbus add-on. Eveyrbody already knows that Aerosoft has one of the strongest development teams around, and if anybody can do the Airbus justice, it's Aerosoft. "We have the best looking most feature rich and functional Airbus sim for FS. Backed by one of the best groups in FS with one of the strongest customer service groups in FS. If you want the definitive Airbus for FSX, step it up and get the Airbus X : Advanced, or get less elsewhere." It's a market just waiting to be tapped. So many people are/were waiting for the Airsimmer bus. So many people are waiting for the Airbus from FSLabs. So many people throughout the last couple of years have asked if PMDG will do the Airbus. The market is there...who is going to take it? Boeing seems to be PMDG ad iFly land. Airbus is...????? I tell you, if Aerosoft put out an announcement stating they were going to create an Advanced Airbus simulation and were going the distance, they would crush the competition. Why, and I know a lot of people will agree with me, because Aerosoft is not only known for very good add-on products, but also for having a strong community and great customer service. Strong add-on development + Strong Community + Strong support = Success. For folks out there that want it all and "stellar" performace in every situation, guess what, it isn't going to happen. Advanced systems, advanced animations, advanced graphics, etc.. come at a price. You will either pay to ride or watch from the park bench. Yes, it sucks that FSX is real bear on systems, but if you want evolution, you have to put up with the growing pains. It costs a lot of money (relatively speaking) to run FSX well when employing in-depth add-ons. If Aerosoft decides to go the route with the hydraulic droop, vc rai effects, wingflex, high fidelity systems, etc.. I would recommend doing what PMDG and Feelthere did by adding in a "Configuration Tool" that essetially allows each user to "choose their performance hit" so to speak. Nowadays, it is almost a must with regards to an advanced add-on. Not having something such as this, in the end, essentially negates one of the groups. My .02c
  6. That PSA livery is awesome. PSA was my favorite airline.
  7. I have a querstion pertaining to the product description from a while back. It states: Is this still the case? Also, are the sounds for the 2 different engine types represented in-game? Thanks and congrats on the release!
  8. Shane

    Airbus X

    While I definitely would have preferred to have wingflex, I am not an FS modeller so I am unsre of what that would have entailed, therefore I trust Aerosoft to make the best decision with regards to that. I did find this screeshot though which shows quite a bit of wingflex (not trying to fuel the fire), just found it interesting as I too don't remember much Airbus wingflex (on many flights, on others the flex did seem noticable): http://www.airliners.net/photo/US-Airways/Airbus-A320-232/1763732/L/&sid=2faed3193d3c633d426020905db5fdc2
  9. Hello Mathijs, Not sure if you remember me or not, but I used to beta test for you long ago (and do some PR work) on the Venice project as well as other projects. I am not sure if it helps at all, taking into account I would be a new purchaser myself, but if you happen to release earlier than the Monday timeframe I would be happy to hang around and help out in any way I can. Perhaps even collecting bug reports from people (I used to send you reports a while back when I was testing/and doing some PR for you). Again, not sure if this helps or not but I would happy to lend a hand. Regards, Shane
  10. I have never used the logbook feature or the ability to change the pilot voice via the options menu.
  11. The cockpit does not look too dark to me at all. Looks great!!
  12. I don't like photoreal cockpits. They never look right. The cockpit looks out of place within the simulator, which as whole, is not photoreal. To each their own.
×
×
  • Create New...