Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

krivadesign

members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

krivadesign last won the day on January 1 2018

krivadesign had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

125 Excellent

About krivadesign

  • Rank
    ATCO - EBBR

Recent Profile Visitors

3106 profile views
  1. The airport will get quite a few major overhauls in terms of aprons in the next year or two. Are you guys aware of this, and do you plan to include these updates? It will be quite an impactful change, with works continuning throughout for the next two years.
  2. A side question, which may have already been asked, but I may have missed it: Will the relevant VFR reporting points within BRU CTR also be modelled, or will it 'just' be the very close vicinity of the aerodrome?
  3. Technically possible, I imagine? I still wonder whether it would be economically feasible for you guys (an A340, I mean). But then again, I'm quite certain you already have those numbers? ;-)
  4. Of course it would, but with the A330 as a base, it really wouldn't take them anywhere close to two years, especially if you look when development for the A330 started. Like I said, there's quite a few differences between the two, but it's not like they would have to start from scratch.
  5. Once more, this forum is not indicative of the market Aerosoft serves, nor any other sim producer or developer. They've repeated that a number of times. As such, polls on this forum are next to worthless for them. This forum consists of a small but vocal minority, mostly avgeeks with roes tinted glasses. Again, if their research shows that the investment they would have to do, wouldn't pay off, who are you to contest that? Even though the A340 is a 'derivative' of the A330, their are quite a few changes between them, which would take a lot of time to get right. Developer time costs lots of money. I bet, if you're willing to pay for all of the time spent, they'd gladly do an A340. This is a direct quote from Mathijs himself in the A330 topic: Now, either Mathijs is trying to throw everyone off the trail, or he's speaking the truth. He's not really known for doing the first, and very much known for doing the second. Which seems more plausible, then?
  6. Just repeating "A340" over and over again won't make them change their mind. A solid indication that the market is there for an A340, might. However, one person is not representative of the market, nor is this forum. The vast majority of sales come from outside the forum. A (very) vocal minority on this forum might like to see the A340, but if the market wouldn't supply ROI, there's no reason to even consider it. As PMDG found out with their MD-11.
  7. I had a look earlier today, and the markings are still pretty much exactly those you can see on Google Maps. (Only leading in from one side, and overshooting the gate on pretty much all of them.)
  8. I do, and I'll try to have a look tomorrow, if I remember it, and have time to do so.
  9. I had some time to check during my breaks today, and the markings I was able to check, seem to conform to the AIP (or rather the AIP to the markings), as it should, of course.
  10. According to the AIP here, at least the markings for 161 are still "overshooting" the stand itself. The AIP should be correct, in principle, but just to make sure, I'll try to check later today from the tower.
  11. Sure, but that's not what Schnuupi was on about, hence my reference to the date in the upper left corner. He said that there have never been jetways at the Satellite building. There were jetways, I've used them in the past. The previous developer of the Brussels Airport scenery probably had to pick a date in time for which they had all info, data etc. they required. As will this developer have to do. For this scenery, that date will probably not be the same date as the release date, since it would be impossible to have the entire airport up to date, all the time. For example, if they launch this scenery early 2017, it may "only" be up to date with how the airport actually stood at some point in Q2-Q3 2016. For all we know, even though the previous version of this scenery was released in 2007, they may only have been able to get all the data they needed for some date in 2005.
  12. Soooo... You're saying that this sattelite image is incorrect, and in some way photoshopped by me? Take a look at the date in the upper left corner.
  13. While I certainly understand work is still very much in progress, I'd like to remind you guys about a fairly recent addition to EBBR, the "football pitch" between 25R and 19, put in place to avoid pilots lining up on the wrong runway. It can be seen quite clearly here: https://goo.gl/maps/wfNiueRySP42 Although, in real life, it looks a lot greener than it does in the photos on Google Maps.
  14. I'm sorry, but there's really no use to those kind of posts. It's not like the developer would have forgotten they were working on a new version of BRU, only to wake up and start development again because somebody asked about it on some forum. Give them time, they'll provide updates when they feel it is opportune to do so.
  15. It may be a bit pedantic, but it's actually runway 01 these days, not 02. And in a few years, 25R might/will actually become RWY 24, dependant on variation changes.
×
×
  • Create New...