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

Aviator1985

members
  • Content Count

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aviator1985

  1. Let's hope so. That's the one thing that's keeping P3D alive for me ๐Ÿ˜‚
  2. At this moment the A330 is pretty much the only thing that's keeping P3D alive for me. This might sound a little immature, but right now I am spoiled pretty badly by the new previews. Yes I am currently a bit emotionally impaired lol. But I do know that I won't be able to wait for a potential MSFS version of the A330, so I will for sure be using P3D for the A330... that much is certain. And you surely have got my attention with that "kick ass high end aircraft". Are we talking about release as in release or just the release of information? I must admit I am quite surprised about this approach to a project. Not that I don't welcome it.... the contrary actually... I actual like the "Here is what we got and bang... two days later it's ready for purchase" like you did with Madrid. It's just unusual for Aerosoft ๐Ÿ˜‰
  3. Well I will be honest with you. Yes we are all fully aware that a Flight (as in Pilot) Simulator should mainly focus on the pilots job and his experience. I will 100% agree THAT should be the highest priority. That doesn't mean however that I wouldn't welcome extra features around the model IF(!!) the hardware can handle it. Many of the top aircraft available, while not having a super detailed HD cabin within the interior model, they got a rather decent interior model coupled to the exterior model. It's not a must have, but one of the "nice to haves". Detailed virtual cockpit is an absolute must have. An aircraft with cabin but no cockpit is a no-go for me. Now, why the he** would I consider a modeled cabin a "nice to have" rather than "irrelevant"?? Well in my opinion it does add to the immersion. I could go and ask "Why a virtual cockpit when 2D panels are sufficient, get the job done and are easier on resources". It gives more depth to the aircraft you're flying if that makes any sense. I like to wander around outside and inside before and after the flight and mostly on long-hauls in-flight as well. I think I've mentioned this here already Flight Simulator for me isn't just training (well pretty much not at all as I don't fly for a living) but it's the experience and also the exploration. And virtual interiors for me are part of the exploration. It's not a show stopper for nor on the priority list of choosing aircraft Add-Ons nor would I try to convince a developer to think otherwise. Just wanted to point out why I regard it as "nice to have" rather than an "what for?!" Long story short.... as long as all the essential parts are there for the pilots job and there is room to spare I'd vote yes for extra details like cabin.... if there is sacrifice required on the pilots side or there isn't anymore room to spare then I will vote no for extra detail like cabin Cheers,
  4. Gotta agree on that, too. If I had to choose one A333, RR would be on top of the list. BTW if it's all about sound one could still use PW or GE soundpacks I guess although I am not sure how specific engine performance might change the experience. In any case I am starting to feel the hype ๐Ÿ˜
  5. I also don't mind having repaints of the A330 with the false engines like Delta Qantas or KLM. After all we are also "cheating" with the B77L, so why should the A333 be different?
  6. My favorite route however is Aerosoft - My Computer
  7. I never suggested otherwise. And I don't believe I have made the impression of not understanding your house is under construction. I personally never did (at least I can't remember) bring an input as I am probably one of those too respectful of the term "WIP", even though I might have had the urge to do so (and I am not just referring to the A330 project). Although I wouldn't in the slightest feel offended or disrespected when being reminded, even annoyingly, of the "WIP" status. This time I did feel like defending those that do, sincerely wanting to be of assistance. Like the "WIP reminders" aren't disrespectful towards "outsiders" voicing their observations, so aren't the outsiders that do so. Likewise it doesn't mean we are not aware of the project's state nor is it lack of trust in the developments team to deliver the project correctly in it's release state. I am not fighting for the right for us to be wanna-be beta-testers. I just believe even "outside" input can be of some value (I am speaking from experience here). After all isn't redundancy of significant importance in the aviation industry? ๐Ÿ˜‰ Cheers,
  8. Maybe it's just me, but if I were a developer and someone pointed out potential flaws (especially when it's in WIP, regardless if member of the team or not) I'd appreciate the input as it shows interest. After all my team or me, however unlikely, might have missed something and more eyes are always more effective than less (especially eyes that are "neutral"). Perhaps a response like "Yeah we've noticed and are working on it" rather than a reminder of it being WIP or even an annoyed/ironic "You did see the WIP right?" In most cases it's not intended to be a negative "review" or lack of trust towards the team, but rather on the helpful side. I'd hate to see possible bugs or imperfections making it through the final release, just because some of us had too much respect towards the WIP "banner". Nobody is perfect. Anyways, very much looking forward to finally flying my favorite bird.... hopefully not alone ๐Ÿ˜‰
  9. Yeah got carried away again. Sorry about that ๐Ÿ˜‰
  10. They however officially unambiguously confirmed FS coming out for PC, and PC first and being the priority, pretty much instantly. But I don't know. It seems people rather prefer to practice "Zweckspessimismus" (German expression). Anyway if I understand correctly they do intend to offer an Xbox (the future Xbox generation) version. But whether or not the Xbox version will release, I don't see how anyone can make an assessment of what hardware really is required. More graphics and features doesn't mean it requires more hardware, at least not proportionally (100% more doesn't necessarily require 100% more hardware). Anyway enough off topic. When will the A330 be re..... Just kidding๐Ÿ‘น
  11. Why not have both professionalism and shiny graphics? Don't get me wrong, I myself also rather put myself in the latter category and would buy an aircraft more prioritized in systems rather than a virtual cabin. That doesn't mean I wouldn't take an optional virtual cabin to add to the detail if it were possible (in terms of development resources and hardware limitations). I probably never will fly a real A330 or B777, so I don't use P3D or any other Fight Simulator for training purposes. I use it for the experience. And not just flying an A320 out of the same hub five times a week. I like to mix it up. Fly GA over Alaska, do island hops in the pacific, cargo runs on a B748 in Africa and yes also do scheduled flight on an A321 out of the same hub five days a week. So while I put myself rather in the latter category, shiny graphics are not far behind my wanted list and I actually see no conflict in having both of them. I also like to use Flight Sims to explore the world (go places I probably never would in real) and I would use defaults (mainly GA) to do just that until more sophisticated flying material gets developed. I see not problem with that. But yeah I would never use autoland and then watch my plane land from outside view. In fact for many years now I never even leave the interior during flight ๐Ÿ˜‰
  12. Honestly? If this new Sim is everything we all hope to be there is not much that will keep me bound to P3D. For the same reason I didn't look back at FSX when I switched to P3Dv3. Fair enough a lot of Addons were P3D v3 ready ween I switched but then again this new FS may very well be an enormous difference to P3d4 compared to P3Dv3 vs FSX. I will remain hopeful and optimistic as I am keen to see a fresh wind and an entirely new core software to set new standards. I am going pretty much off topic here. But the thing is while I may still be willing to use P3D I am hesitant in purchasing new products for it. The A330 is one of my favorite aircraft and still can't wait for it. But let's just say this new FS will win over most of the simmers (P3D and X-Plane) and Aerosoft will bring this beautiful bird to the new sim I might as well wait for it rather than buying it twice. After all I've waited this long.
  13. Can't argue with that. But it appears this one is starting over again from start to bug free all over again. This thing has been scheduled for 2016 (latest 2017). Sure sh** happens, but I got the feeling that this project can't keep up with all with the evolution of it's host and thus is going into a neverending cycle and will probably stall very quickly. I'd rather go without PBR if that meant a project start-over, which may cost another 2-3 years. There seems to be a huge zig-zag between alpha- beta- amost done- alpha-almost done- beta-...! I assure you this post is not meant to be disrespectful or trying to put pressure on this project. The developers sure earn my respect (any that takes on aircraft, especially popular ones like the A330). It's just genuine disappointment after being excited for 2-3 years and seeing it going always further away and I am not talking about potential deadlines that haven't been met, but the apparent lack of progress.
  14. Uh oh. That sounds like at least another year development
  15. PMDG e.g. uses a dummy airframe to produce the aircraft shadow visible from inside the VC
  16. Will there be a preview thread for CFD progress (also for the smaller busses)?
  17. The thought that people (even the most loyal FSLabers) are trying to find some justification for what has been done is very disturbing. This line of thinking might go all the way and could see future governments getting enough support or defence for chips within people with the ability to kill/hurt them when going against the law. I know that's an extreme example, but when you think about it, it's the same principle. If people are able to find justification for the former they are certainly capable of finding justification for the latter.
  18. Imagine the coffee machine were not working and everyone were to get out of there unharmed. That'd be beyond lucky.
  19. Well I have seen worse livery transitions. It's just that Lufthansa had a clean, elegant and timeless livery already. It's one of those airlines where the livery itself already represented high standards and one of those where the euro-white worked. Now it seems to be rather flat. Will take time getting used to. Kinda like the Air New Zealand transition..... not much has changed, but the one with the blue-green was very elegant and clean and now the black seems very flat.
  20. Of course there always is Kerbal Space Program ;-). Not sure if it still exists (and if it's still freeware), but there is also quite a good "As real as it gets" Space Simulator called "Orbiter", which includes Space Shuttle and the Apollo Program (Add-On). But make sure you really read into it and perhaps even check out some YouTube-videos. Whatever you know about flight-flight cannot be used for space-flight. It's not apples and oranges... it's apples and tomatoes
  21. Was just about to post the same topic. I can confirm getting the same. SAK is enabled and even the associated Orbx *.bgl files are active, while the others are off. Even deactivated all the default PANC files within Orbx SAK and Vector without any luck. Here are my two shots including one lake/puddle with seemingly elevation problems.
  22. That's because (at least the way I understand) Boeing is much more transparent and more willing to participate within the Flight Simulator world than Airbus.
  23. Well if the Embraer is a "valid" request... then so is Seoul .
×
×
  • Create New...