Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by s.storm

  1. Shaun, Thanks for your attempt to get the developers of LFMN to reply. I will just have to wait and hope for a future FS9 version update. In the future, I will wait for non-Aerosoft screen shots to be posted in other forums, before making a decision to purchase a product. Cheers, Stefan
  2. Shaun, Another 2 weeks have past without a reply from the developers. Perhaps they are on vacation? Meanwhile, I would like to add another item to the list of "questions" for the FS9 version: Night time ground texture quality is very poor at close and medium distances. Strange squares/boxes are visible (perhaps due to poor resolution of the photos used?). I can post screen shots of these, if you require. I sincerely hope that an update to the FS9 version is planned to match the advertized screen shots, as well as my additional "questions". Stefan
  3. Shaun, Any news from the developers regarding my earlier questions? Stefan
  4. Thanks Shaun. I am looking forward to the developers reply. I have also noticed that some taxi signs are located in "odd" places. I can post screen shots if required. Cheers, Stefan
  5. Shaun, 1. Can you please confirm/check if the FS9 version of LFMN also uses default taxi signs, and not the included taxi sign textures in the texture folder (LFMN_TaxiSigns_01 and LFMN_TaxiSigns_02)? 2. Can you please confirm/check why the FS9 version of LFMN does not include the aerial photo textures for city and road areas behind the terminal, as well as the areas across the river, as displayed in the screen shots? The coastlines around the airport and city in the screenshots also look like aerial photo textures, which is much better than the current mixture of aerial photo textures and "modified" FS9 terrain. Users having their "TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL" set at 21, will experience the sea "climbing" the airport edges, with the current design. 3. Any news on the earlier posted "shadow issue"? Thanks, Stefan
  6. Shaun, thanks. Checking out now. Stefan
  7. OK, this topic works. But my earlier topic page is still blank. Very strange!? Shaun can you please post your reply here, and delete my original post? Thanks, Stefan
  8. Shaun or anyone else at Aerosoft, I can view all topics except my own topic (http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/46081-nice-airport-as-advertized/), which I posted this morning and which now has a reply from Shaun. When I click/link on the topic the page is blank. I have tried reseting and clearing my IE(9) cache etc, but nothing helps. Aerosoft has access to my email and can mail me a reply, if I cannot view this topic. Thanks, Stefan
  9. Hello, First of all, I really like this scenery. Very nice textures that create a nice ambience. Below are my observations. Some may be the intent of the author, but I would like to mention them anyway. 1. Rotating beacon on control tower is static? 2. All RED aircraft warning lights on lamp poles and control tower(s) are not on at night. 3. Uneven size/scale of gound equipment and vehicles? 4. "Exotic" or strange trees? Happy flying......
  10. Nice update, but I still have some comments below: 1. In the Deicing area (Stands J80-87 and P10-14), the lamp posts have been moved but the night time red warning light on top of the poles, are still in the old locations. 2. In the same Deicing area, the old(?)stand signs P10-14, are in the path of the taxiing. I believe the new stand signs are the ones on the lamp pole foundations(P10 is missing). Also one taxi sign, "A", seems to be misplaced in front of P14. 3. More taxi signs would be very nice. 4. Night time airport viewing distance seems shorter then the corrected daytime viewing distance. I also experience strange texture behavior, especially during dark hours. I know that my personal computer does not like large 32 bit textures and/or any large textures without mipmaps. I usually adjust/convert these type of textures, when possible without affecting quality, which also always helps with stutters etc. I am still working on this for EHAM. EHAM is tricky in regards to elevation, flattening and hard surfaces. Having Cloud 9 scenery installed earlier as well as other "experimental" EHAM files spread out in the FS9 folder, it took me some time to get rid of these and reset the EHAM area to normal, with reinstalling FS9. However, I also still have "ground friction" (dust from wheels) along some taxiways. And of course my usual wish to the developer: I hope you are developing a high quality ESGG for us Stefan
  11. First of all, another excellent scenery by Cornel(the additional AESLite traffic on the surrounding highways is also superb). I hope Cornel will update most of the items discussed in the forum with time. The main things I would like to see are the remaining taxi/runway signs and the airport visibility distance. I would like to add one more item which may be classified as an "initial release issue". In the texture folder there is a bmp called "grassedge" which I cannot see is being used in the scenery. Perhaps this is a leftover from development? It is however a nice feature of any scenery, causing a realistic 3D effect on the grass surfaces. Is there a chance of "activating" this texture in a future upgrade? PS. If anyone already has the freeware program "TreePlanter" (by George Davison) installed, I have added 740 extra trees(default type) to the EHAM area, partially based on the satellite textures include. I could provide this bgl-file if anyone is interested. Cheers
  12. OK. Thanks for the information.
  13. Thanks for the fast reply. I understand your reasoning regarding buildings and jetways, but since all aircraft generate shadows(if option enabled), would you consider adding shadows to the vehicles(follow-me, pushback etc.)?
  14. I noticed that with version 2.06 shadows have been removed for vehicles and jetways for EGCC, EHAM and LEMH. Will this be the case for all future AES supported airports?
  15. Shaun, About 50% of the taxi/runway signs are still missing at Arlanda, if you compare to other versions of the airport by other designers. I hope Cornel will update/patch this (and some other things) after he completes the FSX version of this nice scenery. Stefan
  16. Oliver, Sorry, I meant AESlite. I am sure you will find a solution to this one day. Would be nice to have consistency and reality work together. Good luck. Stefan
  17. Oliver, I have tested Aerosoft products (EDDF and earlier) with and without AES vehicles and/or shadows (same day, time, weather (partly cloudy), traffic (100%) etc.) and I see no impact on my system. My computer is a laptop ASUS G2P (year 2007 model). FPS aim is set to 21 and FS9 maintains this well. All my sliders set to Max, all boxes checked, ATI control panel AA and AF at 4x. I also always add extra scenery with Rwy12 and Lago's FS Enhancer that include shadows. You chose not to include shadows for AES the way it was in the first versions and this was only a suggestion by a customer on perhaps approaching the subject in a different way. I agree that some designers make it look like an "oil plug", but some make it look very good, at least on my computer. And some Aerosoft products do include this technique. I do not see why mentioning a game "core feature" should be such a big deal considering the vast amounts of suggestions and complaints mentioned in the forum. Regards, Stefan
  18. Cornel thanks for your reply. Yes I am still in Gothenburg. Glad to know you are working on an update to ESSA. Keep up the good work in setting a new standard for Scandinavian sceneries. If you are secretly working on a new ESGG, good luck with that also. No need to confirm or deny . I understand your commitment to FSX customers. They also need a good Arlanda. I purchased FSX but removed it for perhaps different reasons than others (Mid-Atlantic size waves in lakes and rivers when using the new water features, was very irritating). I hope development/design of the next version of FS will not be cut short by risk management. Is the exclude of Autogen comment I made a big job? If not, this would be great to fix and include in the initial update since it adds so much to the true environment of Swedish airports surrounded by forests. The additional things/fixes you mentioned sound great. Cheers, Stefan
  19. This is overall excellent scenery that truly captures the environment at the airport. Many hours of very good work by Cornel. The good frame rates are among many other techniques also due to the usage of the alternate shadow technique (a texture used instead of FS9 default shadow rendering). Perhaps a technique that can be used for AES vehicles shadows? I would however like to add a few items that I feel need to be addressed: -Some have been mentioned in forums already (many missing taxi-signs, the approach and taxi lights etc). -Incorrect size (and type) of wig-wig and PAPI lights. -An AFCAD that can be modified by the user without the purchase of AFX from Flight1. -Incorrect size of some of the otherwise excellent and authentic vehicles (push back, buses, fuel trucks etc.) and the animation speed. -The current exclude of Autogen removes too much forest/trees closest to the airport and needs to be minimized. -More buildings etc. for the photo-real airport ground textures now not included. -More fences to separate public roads and parking from taxi and runways. And perhaps also an airport perimeter fence. I hope that Cornel continues to work on this scenery and also for more high quality Scandinavian scenery (I hope for ESGG, which is also his and my home airport). Stefan
  20. Thanks for your reply Oliver and for the masterpiece EDDP2008. I understand your view on the subject and agree with the limitations of FS9 and shadows. However as I mentioned in my initial post, shadows could be added, as an option, only to the apron vehicles. I believe 99% of all FS9 aprons are flat and this is the area where it is most noticable when using AES pushback(has shadows) and taxiing. I am only looking at perfecting something that for me is a small irritation . Perhaps I am alone in thinking this. Stefan
  21. First of all congratulations to a scenery master piece with EDDP2008. I would however like to bring up a topic which also applies to other Aerosoft sceneries; Shadows for the otherwise excellent dynamic vehicles. The shadow feature was implemented initially with the new GAP series, but is now completely gone. I am aware that scenery designers in an attempt to gain frame rates, will avoid shadows for any object if possible. However, I believe that removing shadows sacrifices realism. At a minimum, there should be an option(perhaps selectable within the Traffic Configuration Tool) to include shadows for vehicles on or close to the apron. At the moment, with scenery and aircraft shadows enabled within the FS9 options menu, it looks strange with all objects and aircraft having shadows, but the dynamic vehicles are driving around without shadows. I would really like to know the opinion of the scenery designers and fellow flightsimmers on this topic. Fly safely, Stefan
  • Create New...