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

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Zorropisa

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. Yeah, that is a relevant question. Are the airports too small or are the aircrafts too big? I forgot the second alternative. Touching, or almost touching, wingtips is very common, when you have another aircraft parked at the next gate. But whatever is the case, I can see no reason why it should be so. In the simworld you can construct aircraft that travel 10 times the speed of light, airplanes that are larger than the planet earth etc. Then it must be possible to make aircraft and airports in fs9, that have the same relative sizes as in real life. Krister R
  2. There is one thing I have thought about for some time. This regards almost all airports (perhaps all) in fs9 (I do not fly FSX so I don't know whether it is the same there). I do not know where to address my question, but as the problem is easily seen in Mega Airport Stockholm Arlanda, I put my question here. When taxying to let us say gate 15 after landing at ESSA, the whole area between the terminal "fingers" (gates 11-24 and gates 1-10) feels very small. You feel that you are rather close to the aircrafts parked at the terminal "finger" on the other side of the apron area between the fingers (gates 1-10). The last time I landed at Arlanda in real life we parked in this area (an Airbus 319) and I looked out to closely observe how it looked in real life. Compared to the simulation the real life area (between the terminal fingers) seems to be much, much larger (perhaps 3 times or even more). The parked aircrafts at the opposite terminal "finger" are very, very far away and you have no feeling at all of being close to them. The disctance to the opposite finger seems to be at least twice compared to the simulation airport (relative to the aircraft size). This goes for most (if not all airports) in fs9. Last year I landed (in real life) at Alta airport in northern Norway and compared this to the fs9 scenery of that aiport (not the default scenery but the scenery called Norway Airports). In fs9 the apron is tiny, tiny, tiny (it hardly has space for a B736 -- which is a daily guest there), but in real life the apron is very large (many times the relative size in the fs9 world). I know this is not a specific Aerosoft problem (although it affects Aerosoft sceneries). Has anybody else observed this? And what is the explanation? If everything is scaled down it should look the same, shouldn't it? Reynolds numbers and similar stuff can't apply here. If the distance between the terminal "fingers" is 30 B736 wingspans in real life, it should be 30 B736 wingspans in fs9. Otherwise something is wrong. Of course If the disctances are doubled, the area will be four times larger, as the area scale is the square of the distance scale. But that can't have any bearing on what I discuss here. I don't think this could be related to my computer or graphic card etc. Best regards Krister R
  3. I asked Oliver a couple of years ago about a lite version of AES (I am not talking about what today is meant by AES lite). He was thinking about it he said. What I mean with a lite version is where you get functions which are related to aircraft parameters only (vehicles and stairs) and not to the aiport (jetways and pushback and follow me car). I fly (FS9) a lot in Scandinavia and few FS9 airports there have AES (only ENBR, ESSA, EKCH, EKRN and some airports in Finland). I especially like to fly to the small airports in northern Norway, some with thrilling approaches of which none have AES. Most of them do not have jetways so there is no need for speically prepared airports. And for those that have jetways there are normalley some gates without jetways which you can use (or you could pretend that the jetways do not function today). But just having stairs, catering, fuel and luggage vehicles would make a big difference. As it is now the airports are very empty and dead. Push back can be done with the push back function in fs9 or some planes have their own push back engine (in most really small airports you park the planes so no push back is needed). Regarding payment there are two possibilites. One is to pay a few Euros for each airport where you use AES Basic (or whatever it would be called). The other is to take a reasonable price once and for all (let us say 30 Euros). The Basic version would not compete with the full version AES so there is nothing to loose for Aerosoft as far as I can see. Krister R Uppsala, Sweden
  4. Thank you so much Oliver! Many of the new airports were on my wishlist. So this was a nice Christmas gift. I wish you a Happy Christmas! rgds Krister R Uppsala
  5. Hello, In my eyes it would be an improvement if Aerosoft added dates for your different updates. I have so many of your products so it is difficult to remember if I have downloaded a certain update (and the problem grows as I buy more and more sceneries etc). As it is now I go to your Update Page perhaps twice a month. Each time I have to go through all my products, first selecting the product and then press "Continue". And then I get a list with "Service Pack 1" or "Update 2.1" etc. I don't remember which updates I have downloaded (well some of them I recognize) and as I have FS9 on a different computer (never used for browsing the Internet) I have to run back and force again and again to compare the upgrades I have saved on that computer and what is in the list. I you stated each time you upload an update the date (day, month and year) it would simplify things immensely. Even better would be if you had a system, so that in the list you would only see updates you have not downloaded yet. It would probably be difficult to design an automatic system. But this could be solved by a "Click in the box to mark as downloaded". And if you wanted to see all the updates (even the ones you have already downloaded) there could be an option for that. Or the downloaded file could be visible but marked so I can see that I have already downloaded it. As Aerosoft gets more and more products this problem will be more apparant. simMarket has solved this in another way, which is better than yours but far from perfect. Thanks. Krister R Uppsala, Sweden
  6. I can now report that, after installing the optimized texture set, I at last (after two unsuccesful attempts with the old texture set) managed to complete a 12 h flight from Singapore to Munich with real weather on and landing in darkness. No problems whatsoever. Many thanks for the upgrade! I am deeply impressed with the Aerosoft Munich scenery (excellent frame rates, lots of different vehicles driving on the apron without stuttering, taxiway bridges etc, etc). Krister Renard Uppsala, Sweden
  7. I have tried several flights from Stockholm Arlanda to Munich, with PIC Boeing 737 as well as PMDG 747-400. I have tried landing at Munich both in daytime and at dusk. No problems whatsoever. After parking at the gate after one of the flights I let the simulation continue for several hours, during which time I opened different panels etc again and again. Everything worked perfect. I have also tried two flights from Singapore to Munich (Munich to Singapore worked flawlessly). The first flight to Munich ended about 8 nautical miles (according to the ILS DME) from runway 22R. It was dusk. When I tried to open the overhead panel during the descent fs9 froze and the instrument panel disappeared and was replaced by a black rectangle (this happens when you have fs9 own AA on and the command "panel as texture=0" in fs9.cfg). I had to restart the computer. The error was, according to the log, related to g2d.dll. My next attempt ended about 7 nautical miles from threshold of runway 08R. I heard a beep and was directed to the desktop. This was, according the the error message, caused by OOM. I have a display on my keyboard which shows percentage of processor and RAM usage. According to this about 28 percent of the RAM was used. The interesting thing (which has never happened before) was that fs9 was still running (I left the error window without pressing any button). I was able to reenter the simulation and complete the landing. However my landing lights did not lighten the runway and the airport was dark. The runway lights however were functioning properly. I tried to set the simulator time to daytime, to be able to taxi to the gate, and then the simulation froze for good. During all these flights I only used 2d cockpit (I have uninstalled 3d cockpit in PIC 737 and PMDG 747-400). I often make very long flights and seldom get any problems, even when landing at complex airports. My set up is: Windows XP SP3 32b, Nvidia 285 1 Gb DRAM, 4 Gb RAM (although only 3.2 is visible to Windows). I had real weather on (static) and was using Radar Contact 4. I have AES installed at Singapore and Munich. Looking forward to the texture light alternative. rgds Krister R/Sweden
  8. Understood! Thanks guys! I will never do that again. But I do not think this is the problem in this particular case. Shaun, please read this: When I go to the European-English language page and then scroll down (under News in the center frame) to "AES 2.06 released" and then click on the link "Product page" I am taken to the German language page. This link points to the wrong page and should be corrected. Thanks! /Krister Renard Uppsala, Sweden
  9. Hi Shaun, Well, I first go to url "" and then choose "Europe and Other countries". After that I search for "Madrid" and get three results. I click on "Mega airport Madrid" (the result I am interested in) and then click on "Add to cart". So far so good. I now have Madrid in my shopping basket. Now I click on "Resume shopping" and then twice on the browser "Back" button to come back to the Aerosoft first page. I then scroll down under "News" (the center frame) until I find AES and then click on "Product Page". I am then taken to a German language page for AES. If I then click on "Zum Warenkorb", the AES is put in another cart (I can only see the AES there and not Madrid). Maybe you did it in another way after putting Madrid in the Cart, but I think the result should be consistent independent of exactly how you do it. One strange thing is that if I use your page for USA, I still get the old version of your home page. /Krister Renard Uppsala, Sweden
  10. Dear Sirs, I find the new Aerosoft webpage most unsatisfactory. Today I tried to buy Mega airport Madrid and credits for AES (two items). After putting Madrid into the shopping basket (so far everything worked as expected) I resumed shopping (clicked on the resume button) and went to the AES page. When I put the credit pack into the shopping basket, I suddenly ended up in the German language section. Well, that is not a big deal as I understand German quite well (however it does not give any credits to the person who coded the website). But the problem is that the AES credit pack ended up in another shopping basket. In the English language shopping basket there was the Madrid airport and in the German language shopping basket there was the AES credit pack, which means I must pay with my credit card twice (once for each basket). Of course this is doable, but not very professional for a company with Aerosoft's excellent reputation. In my opinion a home page should be in parity with the products of a company. And since you changed the home page some months ago, there have been too many flaws (I you have to choose between a fancy, "modern" web page with lots of bugs and a perfectly working web page that might look a little dull, I believe most people would prefer the latter). I hope this can be corrected as soon as possible. Krister Renard Üppsala, Sweden
  11. Interesting. I will try that. Do you have an explanation to how this works? /Zorropisa
  12. Hello Edin, Why not try my suggestion? As I said I have exactly the same problem as you with EDDL. There is no problem when I start a flight at EDDL, but when EDDL is my destination, or I come close during a flight (at a distance between 5-15 nm, which seems to depend on the altitude), I get a ctd 100 percent of the times. If after loading FS9 I first go to EDDL and in outside view pan around 360 degrees (to make sure all scenery is loaded) and then open Flight Planner and start the flight I want to fly (whether it ends at EDDL or I pass near EDDL during the flight), I get no ctd at EDDL. This is consistent and works every time (for me). As far as I understand this has nothing to do with a memory leak, but with the way Windows allocate memory. If I load up a flight to an airport after rebooting the computer, it can take several minutes before it is up and ready, especially from a complex payware airport like EHAM or EDDF. If I then exit FS and restart the same flight (without rebooting the computer), it loads in less than half the time. I believe "my" solution has something to do with this. Perhaps some knowledgeable person could give a more detailed explanation. EDDL is one airport with this problem and where the problem is solved by "my" solution. Alta (ENAT) in Norway is another (I use Norway Airports, an excellent and free addon). When I e.g. fly from Vadso in Northern Norway to Tromso I always get a terrain.dll related CTD about 15 nm from Alta (which lies enroute between these two airports). If I first move my plane to Alta and pan around there and then move the plane to Vadso and start the flight, there is no CTD when passing Alta. Never! This type of ctd:s often occur (for me) at about 15 nm from the problematic scenery. This distance could of course be related to my graphical setting (extended textures etc) and perhaps the altitude I am flying on. When flying PMDG:s planes from Las Palmas to ESSA I every time got pmdgoptions.dll ctd:s exactly 15.2 nm from Aerosoft's ESSA (this problem could not be cured by loading ESSA initially, but after removing some landclass files at the Canary Islands -- took many, many hours to find this out). So it seems that at 15 nm from an airport the scenery is loaded (maybe depending on settings). Of course the best solution would be to find the problematic file. I have done that for a few airports, by systematically excluding first sceneries and then after finding which scenery is the culprit, excluding files in this scenery (or intalling another scenery for the same airport). This however takes several days full time work. /Zorropisa
  13. Hello, I have had the same problem all the time (even with the earlier version of EDDL), and have never been able to find out what file is causing this. When I arrive at EDDL and am on the final approach I always get g3d.dll-related ctd. However I have found that if I start each flight at EDDL and pan around in outside view to load all the scenery, and then use Flight Planner to go to my departure airport to start the flight, I can always land at EDDL without problems. This must have something to do with FS9's memory management (which I suspect is far from optimal). There are other airports where I get a terrain.dll-related ctd. The procedure described above cures this to 100 percent. However it does not work with pmdgoptions.dll-related ctd:s. So try the procedure above. If you eventually will find out which file is behind the problem, please post this information in the forum. /Zorropisa
  • Create New...