Jump to content

Arnaud

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Arnaud

  1. Finally got to install. Very nice, as expected from SimWings devs. One small suggestion however: would there be any chance, if there is an update one day, to add some more 'life' in the ramp cargo areas, which look rather "empty" around the parking spots, i.e.: containers, loaders and such things ?
  2. Brilliant news! One question: I have just bought the scenery, and I've got one question for which I'd like an answer before I install it. I use FSGenesis' mesh: do I have to check the installer's box asking for "addon terrain mesh such as Ultimate Terrain Alaska "? Before I go further, thought I'd ask. Thanks !
  3. Hello, Could Tiziana report back perhaps and tell us if the note about the compatibility with high resolution meshes had been taken into account by the developpers of Simwings Anchorage? In simpler words, do the devs care about avoiding the plateau effect that we get in Anchorage, and is there any sort of a flatten file or something like that in the owen? Meanwhile, I've just find that video out of Anchorage, watched it at least five times, makes me even more impatient to put my hands of the Simwings scenery For heavy iron crafts and tough weather lovers, PANC is a true heaven. Any hope that Simwings implements some winter snow effects in the scenery by the way, like some russian team did in the freeware Novosibirsk scenery? Regards
  4. Cant agree more, finally Trans North Pacific and polar cargo flights can be dispatched to us I will re-post a question I had posted in the other thread though: could Simwings be so kind and consider an option in the installer for those of us who use 38m(LOD10) or higher mesh in that specific area (FS Genesis notably). Because those mesh in the Anchorage area, although spectacular, cause 'plateau' effect on the PANC airport and along the ocean coast lines. That'd be a sure plus if Simwings took that into account.
  5. Hi Thorsten, That's wonderful Anchorage news . That is no doubt my most awaited scenery for 2011. I tried to register and post at the modelplant forum, but since I dont speak german, I could not. I would like to ask if you could consider customers that are using FSGenesis mesh, because on the default PANC the mesh produces some weird effects on the airport (not only light plateau effect, also the coastlines and sea are messed up around the airport area. So, if SimWings could take into account the FS genesis users that will buy your scenery, that would be marvellous.
  6. The fix on the performance is indeed impressive since 1.03 and further. No more performance issues on my side. However, there is still some problems, mapping problem this time: as you can see on the screens below, there is some defaut scenery poking into the Orly scenery, between runway 24 threshold and the A6 highway. So you can see the nice AES traffic driving on the defaut scenery, evause some part of the LFPO ground 12.bmp bitmap isnt mapped. It's a pity, since this is very obvious when on final to runway 24, the problem is just too noticable. The first shot is taken from within Flight Sim, the second one is showing how the texture normally contains the whole motorway A6. Could that be due to the new separate exclude file, that part of the scenery had been forgotten?
  7. I agree with Benjamin, schipol looks good. It's the performances that arent very good. especially at night, the load is such that even the user aircrafts loses its own textures. I've never witnessed this anywhere else, even the virtual cockpit textures are messed up when in Amsterdam at night or dusk I would also like to know where the EHAM fs9 thread has gone, because all the posts from Gerard refers to the FSX version, from what I understand. Beside the taxiways signs, the runways lights and ALSs are still missing -or unservicable- in EHAM fs9.
  8. Yes, 'except me', as you say, and that's why I said it's all about personnal taste. I am well aware of this. What do I have to understand from your reply, I am unsure. Did you think you were going to 'catch' me at something? Where you're wrong and what you dont understand Oliver, is that I do use the defaut halo.bmp, unlike you obviously, because you didnt even reply to my previous post where I was surprised to notice that 'your' halo.bmp is different than my own defaut halo.bmp which is older than yours. Of course I know about the additioanl [DISPLAY] runways light tunning and tried different values before I stepped back to the defaut 1.0 value. Either you size the lights down and then you dont see them at all from the remote, either you size them up and then you end with 'christmas tree' airports. Flat lights suit better fs9 than so called 3d light simply because fs9 itself is flat and use a flat lightening engine. 3d lights in a flat world look bad. You see, it's very easy: I dont like the lights of all the sceneries you're quoting: Balears, Antalya, Faro, Barcelona, Innsbruck, Luxemburg and now Munich. It looks very odd, and noone never complained most likely because few people fly at night, or simply because people like them. I even spotted those 3D lights on the upcoming Stuttgart preview screenshots, hundreds of UFOs over the roofs. I am lucky enough to sit in real jetliners cockpits and witness night landings to tell you that what I see looks more like default lights than christmas tree like 3d lights when on final. Want it or not, using customed lights with defaut fs9 setting gives an unreal look, and some other designers who still develop for fs9 nowadays have understood it. The conclusion is that it is perhaps safer to design something on a defaut fs9 basis, rather than on an already tweaked sim, and then provide customed stuff. Why on earth would I change my halo.bmp and light ONLY for aerosoft sceneries, when all other scneries use defaut lights, including older and still nice aersoft releases? That doenst make any sense. Last, there is of course no point making an update for just one loosy customer . I understand that very well. Thanks for your help anyway.
  9. Hi Oliver I believe this is all a question of personnal taste, so I wouldnt qualify any of these shots 'unacceptable' but if you ask me I'd vote for number 2, or something between one and two. The best of course would be for me to test it out directly in the sim. The first shot is of course the actual look of EDDM (and LEBL btw) and I can see on the number 3 that the featured light spots use a modified halo.bmp texture which I had tried some time ago but didnt like so much (was it Nick's lights or something I cant remember). I certainly appreciate that you look into this. And if the designer decides to update the 3d lights, dont forget the blue and green taxiways lights as well as the top buildings red lights which also need to be slightly reduced: in fact, they lights look too big also when you're on the ground in Munich. And since those lights look exactly the same than the LEBL's lights,, I'd be delighted if you could also update LEBLs. The PAPI lights also need some tunning: this morning I was doing a foggy approach in EDDM, and the 3D PAPI lights looked really enormous in the distance. The truth is that I dont like 3D lights in fs9. While 3d lights looks stunning in FSX, I've always found that 3D lights in fs9 look very odd from the remote, I've always prefered default lights, and also because default lights lit on correctly when visibility dropps in FS, opposed at modelled lights which often fail (like in AS Schipol, the light will never switch on, only at night)
  10. Regarding my previous post about runway/taxi lights: in EDDM those are definitely 3D lights (EDDMRWYLampen.bgl). So, Thomas, is there any way to adjust these so they look less protruding (blurred spheres)?
  11. Thank you Oliver for your help. And my apologizes for hijacking the performance problems topic but... This is getting even more strange now: some years ago I tried out various alternative halo.bmp files, but at the end and after testing, I reverted to the defaut fs9 bitmap. I have a backup of the whole original Texture folder on a drive anyway. What is strange, is that your original halo.bmp file is not the same that my own original file Yours is dated 10/19/2003 09:59 and mine is 05/06/2003 00:31, and if you look at it there defintiely not the same. So mine is older than yours. I use the english version of the sim, maybe that is where the difference lies, if you use the german version? So I dont know what is going on there, but it's strange enough so that we find the cause of this. Would be very interesting to hear if you managed the Barcelona lights, because in my Sim they look like München's ones. Blurred. Please compare the results I get with EDDM and my default lights, as you see it's completely different, which shouldnt be. That's why I thought Münich used some 3D lights: Here's my OEM halo.bmp out of any interest (not sure we're allowed to upload those MS files though) Furthermore, I noticed one specific texture in the Münich texture folder, EDDM-LICHT.bmp, which clearly looks like a dot for lights spot, and I found that Mega Barcelona use similar bitmaps for lights (RWY-LICHTY.bmp, RWY-LICHTG.bmp etc for yellow, green, white and red lights) and those bitmmaps look exactly the same as Münich's one. I had the idea the look into the Barcelona's folder because in my sim I was also disappointed by Barcelona ground lighting at night. Perhaps Thomas can throw some light in here, because my conclusion is that the problem is not caused by the halo.bmp, it's because of customized lights for EDDM (and LEBL). And as you can see, the result of these customized lights produces very blurred spots, especially from the remote and when low visibility (which happens very often in Münich). Halo_OEM.zip
  12. There one thing i wished could be sorted before the update is released, about Munich: it's the PAPI and RUNWAY lights. Everyhting is stunning in the scenery except those lights. I knwo there are 3D modelled lights, but they do look very odd from the remote. I prefer by far the default lights, they look more much more sharp that the modelled lights (unfortunately the latset Simwings Barcelona suffer the same PAPI/RUNWAY lights, as well as many other sceneries nowadays) Could there be a way to provide us with some different lights, less 'orbish' and sharper lights? The same occur with top buildings 3D red lights, at night: from the remote the whole airport area looks like a christmas tree
  13. As I wrote sometime ago: No need for screenshots. Again, I get normal FPS when right on Orly. The problem is when you're approaching Orly, and also, as I also wrote, when you're as far as Charles de Gaulle airport and you look in the direction of Orly, the FPS drop immediately. But here's the situation: I give up with your scenery, I simply consider I lost 25 euros and that's it. I'm not going to waste my time anylonger posting screenies or giving my specs, you seem to be unable to admit that there is a problem for some of us with Orly, so you ask for screenshots. . Good day.
  14. I believe you guys are being mistaken: it's not 1.2, it is 1.02 (oh here we go again, looks like a remake of the Schipol neverending thread), and nothing had been changed except the few mipped textures that were available in the update section. We still need some com. Ed, you see, that's such a pity, I bought and had Orly installed, and I cant stress enough how nice the scenery is, it really deserves a fix. Imagine what nice video you could work there If nothing is done, I can swear Aerosoft wont see a penny from me until Simwings' Anchorage.
  15. mmm... All the latest posts prevent me from trying to update to 1.01 I have the initial release version, with the small correction from Thomas for the bridges, and the scenery works spectacular. Sounds like something is wrong with 1.01 huh? I still get incredible framerate and no other issues so far.
  16. My answer is hard but must be linked to my previous polite posts in that same thread, see first and second page where Peter the designer talked with us. What is unacceptable is the easy way to blame customers' PC when some performance problems are reported about a scenery. I run a nowadays and recent powerful PC, like most users around here I believe. The performance issues have nothing to do with the details of Orly scenery, nor fs9 default autogen or anything like that. The scenery is indeed very nice, so instead of assuming that the performance isses are due to the high details, which is totally wrong, the developper should try to get more information from us as to what other sceneries we have installed in the area etc... It is obvious that the performance issues of Orly are caused by a conflict with 'something' rather than the 3D objetcs details or the weakness of our rigs. Lets get to work, period. Aerosoft is really about to lose one customer: we've all understood very well that fs9ers have become the parias of the community and many people are upset at us that we slow the FSX market down, and this had been wrote many time by some Aerosoft project managers in this forum. Which, I can certainly understand, but once you've sold something, you ought to support it. I've already had to rework myself all of the Orly texture's folder to add mips, that is enough. Aerosoft talks about their beta testers, that is quite funny, because it actually seems that no serious beta testing is being made before release, 'we' the customers' are their beta testers actually, and we have to cash in. And where it gets nasty, is that once we dare to report some problems we're being told that our PC is a piece of crap. This is what I call 'unacceptable' behaviour.
  17. That reply is totally unacceptable . Why dont Peter come here and post himself? He had already posted in this thread and he knows very well what is going on. That's just ridiculous. He's part of Aerosoft, unlike some other devs, Aerosoft consider its customers like morons, how pleasant is that? To Peter: Orly is small airport. How do you explain that we run FSDT JFK, Mega Frankfurt, Heathrow etc at 30FPS with full AI when on final and that we get less than 10 with Orly, ON THE SAME PC? UNACCEPTABLE REPLY FROM AEROSOFT. Really pathetic.
  18. I noticed the box version has reached the shelves yesterday, so, Peter, is there anything you could tell us regarding an update for Orly? Is there any chance I can reactivate your superb scenery one day, have you found any possible cause for the performance issues? Or, since the box version is out now, does it mean it will remain as is? I'm sure we're quite many customers waiting for some more informations about it.
  19. Thanks Egbert, that's actually what I thought, so I believe Gerard was talking about FSX. Wanted to make sure. And that's also the reason why I asked if we could be provided an optional 'elevation' file at zero feet, to avoid this bug. Although Schipol is in real life an intersting airport because it's under the sea level, 7 feets dont make such a difference in FS. I wouldnt mind having my fs9 EHAM at 0ft instead of -7, so that I could enjoy the fog after landing till I reach the gate. And that would also probably fix the ALS not functionning under LVP situations.
  20. Hi Gerard, I am glad you have no issues with Schipol. However, are you talking of FSX or FS9? I am talking about FS9. And, we are alot of people here having issues with Mega Amsterdam for fs9, and let me add that it has nothing to do with the PC performance, I run every other heavy scneries with heavy weather and heavy traffic without any problem nor loading hickups as per Schipol. I never had any other scenery installed in the Netherlands, nor any Swiss Pro or whatsoever. Anyway, here is what I am talking about, with the fog issue: That is, with default weather engine, default airplane etc...This, is a problem. Another problem is the runway lighting system isnt switching ON when low visibility, as it should. 'Something', in Schipol, just doesnt work right, like it does everywhere else in FS9.
  21. Thanks for the update Gerard. How about the performance problems? Not performance when right on the airport, because then it's pretty good, but the sim pauses when approaching or departing Schipol? And also the problem of Schipol being eleven feets bellow the sea level and the simulator not able to set a visibility layer under zero. The result of this is that when you fly a low visibility approach, as soon as you hit the ground the fog disappear in a rather blunt way and ruins the realism. Anyway to cheat that simulator failure? Like perhaps provide users with an optionnal 'elevation zero' file? Looking forward to getting the update.
  22. Like Rob, I am another dino. It's not that we are impatient, it's that we would like to read from someone here at Aerosoft if yes or no there is going to be another update for Schipol. The scenery is undoubtely nice, but the performance issues when you're on approach still need a major fix. I performed not later than today a flight to and from Amsterdam, and the strong hick-ups with with which you're welcomed to the near scenery area is everything but unpleasant. Hickups during departures as well. Hickup meaning: complete stop of the sim for one full second, one full second during which God knows what is being loaded... In fact, I am pretty sure something is in the owen from the developer(the Ultimate Schipol Service Pack!), all we beg for is a minimum communication from the editor.
  23. Okay, I've been taxiing for about 30 minutes all along N(orth) and S(outh) taxiways, also on every exit/entry bridges, without any problem. Thought I'd report back that the problem is over. Now that was a quick fix!
  24. Could any german guy here be so kind a give a quick translation of what Thomas writes, for us non german readers?
×
×
  • Create New...