BPL
-
Posts
306 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by BPL
-
-
How often would we be called upon to write a review, and would there be any deadline for completing one? I might be interested, but I have college classes starting back on August 20. I'm not sure how easily I could juggle college assignments and product reviews.
-
1
-
-
It appears that MS has stopped development of FLIGHT!. Frankly, I'm not all that surprised. I don't see how the market for that game could be very large.
http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/reports-of-ms-flight-shutdown-r489
-
So you say, and I wont argue that point...... But there is still an active market and forums and many new scenery's etc for FS9 even all these years after the introduction of FSX. The arguments FS9 fans make are in many cases the exact same type of arguments being made against Flight. In fact, I have even seen some FS9 people make the jump to Flight instead, because they never felt they had, or needed to buy machines with the horsepower to run FSX in they way they wanted.
They would not agree about FSX being a "true" successor any than more then you would agree that Flight was a "true" successor.
Should Flight survive, and not be pulled by Microsoft because the market is to small to justify wading through many peoples hostility (And good luck finding any large company to wade into that now-proven morass ever again) then there is a non-trivial possibility that the program could rise one day as a "successor" to Fsx, at least for the next generation of simmers, who can accept it without the previous baggage of expectations.
Those numbers are growing as we speak, and they can be accepted into the sim community as another welcome part, or be rejected as not "true" simmers by way of not hewing to a single "Accepted" mode or style of play. This does not mean that the numbers will stop growing, or that other avenues will remain blocked.
Only time will tell.
Very true that there is still a dedicated FS9 community. I can't argue with that. I just think that it's a bigger jump to consider FLIGHT! the successor to FSX than it is to consider FSX the successor to FS9. True, however, that only time will tell how the state of FS will evolve.
-
The interesting part is that most of these sentiments are the exact same ones expressed by the FS9 crowd when FSX was released! With flight only about 5 months old, it will be fascinating to see how things (and attitudes) evolve........
This is an interesting point; however, this is a somewhat different situation. I was on board with FSX from its beginnings. I left FS9 and never looked back. But I am not at all interested in FLIGHT!. The difference is that FSX was a true successor to FS9. We really lost nothing by upgrading; instead, we gained much. Some of our add-ons may not have been completely compatible, but it wasn’t long before much better add-ons became available for FSX. FLIGHT! is not a true successor to FSX by any means. It panders to a different market. I don’t think these attitudes toward FLIGHT! are likely to change much.
-
2
-
-
A lot of electronic stores still have a nice selection of FS Add-Ons here in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I also found the PMDG 737 being offered €10 less than Online (ask me if you would like to know where) and it's always good to compare to Online prices, you'll find some good offers around. Sometimes online cheaper, sometimes you're local store.
Wow! I wish that were true here in the US. It's hard enough to find flight sims in American electronics stores, much less add-ons.
-
I voted Yes, because I tend to be a very orderly, organized person. For example, I have folders containing hundreds of pictures of various aircraft on my PC, all of them organized by aircraft type and named with a strict nomenclature. Some people think I’m crazy, but I’ll tell you this: I’m not the one having trouble finding files on my computer!
Anyway, I know nothing about marketing, but a messed up naming system would bother me. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the change if you’d changed them without mentioning it.
-
I have never downloaded FLIGHT!. I have researched it a little and concluded that it is not worth the used hard drive space.
Personally, I feel that a flight sim that covers a small geographical area and has few aircraft could have potential, but not in this case. A sim of this type would need to have several characteristics in order to appeal to the hardcore simmer. The few included aircraft would need to fly and operate as close as possible to their real-world counterparts. The graphics would have to be superb, the weather complex and realistic, the immersion superior to what may be feasible in a large-scale sim. In short, the sim would need to compensate for its limited content by rivaling its large-scale counterparts in virtually every other area.
IMHO, FLIGHT! has failed at this. I, of course, cannot speak from experience, but I know what I've heard. What a missed opportunity! I have thought for a long time that a well-executed small-scale flight sim could be very successful, especially among hardcore GA pilots like me. FLIGHT!, however, has missed the mark. As I understand it, no ATC, simplistic aircraft physics, limited content—and, IMHO, graphics that just look like FSX on steroids.
I think this poses a serious question: What does FLIGHT! offer that is not available to us in FSX? Hmmm. . .unrealistic flight physics? Limited scenery coverage? No ATC? Few aircraft? An add-on market under the iron fist of MS? Don't misunderstand me. FSX is not that spectacular by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a whole lot better than FLIGHT!. MS has completely missed the mark here. They've alienated their potential long-term customers—the hardcore simmers—and embraced the market that is least likely to come back for more. As far as I can tell, FLIGHT! will most likely appeal to a younger crowd that will not be dedicated enough to purchase add-ons or future iterations of the platform. I'm certainly not bashing young simmers; I started about nine years ago at the age of ten. But I'm referring to young people who really have no passion for aviation or simming. These are the kids who will buy this game and forget about it in a year. If the people at MS are trying to increase profits through this new strategy, I'm not so sure they're going about it the right way.
FSX is decent, but definitely showing its age. FLIGHT! is—well—see above. X-Plane is good but not great, and the XP10 demo left me quite unimpressed. (But that's another story.) The FS community is in need of a new sim. Aerosoft. . . .
-
Good to hear that it's simply been postponed. I was quite disappointed when I saw that the thread had been removed.
-
Happy birthday, Mathijs. Sorry I'm late.
-
Congratulations, Aerosoft! Thanks for the great products and the great fun on these forums. I've really enjoyed being a member for over two years now.
You've been around for a long time. Twenty years ago I wouldn't be born for another two years. My parents got married twenty years ago.
-
My PC is over two years old now. I had it custom-built by a local computer shop. I haven't upgraded it since, but it still runs sims like FSX and RoF very smoothly with high graphics settings. One thing that greatly improved my frame rates in FSX was this post by Mathijs: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php/topic/30796-why-i-get-50-fps-in-fsx-and-you-might-not/. My fame rates went from about 25-30 to anywhere from 50-100 depending on the area. Thanks for that, Mathijs.
-
Go to the Aerosoft main page, and log into your account. A list of your previous orders should then appear. Click the "view" button on Dangerous Airports 1. Toward the bottom of the page there should be a link to the download.
Hope that helped.
-
Hello BPL,
Seems a few others have this issue so I will get it reported.
The actual file that seems to be causing the issue is cvxBURNSVILLE.BGL
So if you want to still use the airport just disable that file temporarily till its fixed.
Thanks for all the help and patience, Shaun.
-
I have the same issue and just started a whole thread for this a couple of weeks ago. Here it is.
-
Does it also affect a default airport in the region if so can you give me the ICAO of one please.
7A8, which is just a few miles from Mountain Air, is affected. Here are some other affected airports: 5W8, KILM, KRDU, KCLT, KMRN, and many others. Some airports, such as KBUY, KAVL, KMWK, and NC14, are not affected.
While checking various airports to find examples for you, I noticed something else strange at several of the airports, such as KAVL, KMWK, and KMRN. When I selected "active runway" from the airport menu, FSX would place my aircraft not on the runway, but off to the side of it and at an angle to it.
-
Hello BPL,
Can you please check that Dangerous Airports 1 is activated in the Aerosoft launcher.
Yes, it is activated.
-
Thanks, Shaun. I figured out what's causing it! It's caused by the scenery area "Dangerous Airports 1: Burnsville." With this area disabled and all the others enabled, the problem is gone. How should I go about fixing it?
-
Hello BPL,
Save a flight at an exact location you see the trees in the wrong place, then try disabling every single add on scenery you installed even disable the Add On scenery folder entry in the scenery library and then reload your saved flights and see if the trees are still there. If not add a few sceneries back at a time to see if you can find the one.
Thanks, Shaun. That's a great idea.
I'll try it and post the results. -
Hello BPL,
Did you try disabling UTX in the scenery library.
Thanks for all your help, Shaun.
I just tried disabling UTX in the scenery library, and the problem is still there. I can't think of any other add-ons that would affect the scenery in that area. I also can't figure out why the problem only occurred recently. Those airports were fine in the past, and I can't think of anything that would have caused this problem since I last saw them.
I don't know what else to try besides reinstalling FSX, and that's probably more trouble than it's worth.
-
Hello BPL,
Trees are normally autogen so you need to find out what scenery placed autogen in this area.
Thanks, Shaun.
The only scenery that covers this area is UTX. Do you think that could cause it? The odd thing is that none of my add-on scenery covers just that area. UTX covers it, but it also covers the areas that have no problems. I can't imagine what kind of graphical issue would follow state lines!
BTW, Shaun, sorry I originally posted this in the wrong section of the forums; I wasn't sure where to post a support topic that didn't involve an Aerosoft product.
Thanks for your help!
-
I haven't spoken with FTX yet. But I uninstalled my FTX demos, and the problem is still there.
I've discovered something else. The problem seems isolated to a certain part of North Carolina. I've checked airports in Washington State, Virginia, and South Carolina, and they're all fine. The airports in western North Carolina also seem to be fine. But KCLT, KRDU, KILM, and all the smaller airports around them have this issue. I've checked airports that are just a few miles apart but across state lines; the ones in NC are messed up, but the ones in SC and VA are fine.
I'm very perplexed. This is a big issue for me, since I do most of my flying in NC. Any ideas?
-
Hello BPL,
Or you could try FTX and seek assistance from them before un-installing.
Thanks. I hadn't thought of checking with FTX. I'm probably not going to have time to try anything for a while though; I'm very busy studying for the ACT.
If I get it fixed, I'll let y'all know. Thanks for all the help.
-
Yes it can.. I believe it swaps some default autogen stuff. Generally the FTX Central provides a setting for aus,pnw, and fsx default. You actually have to be careful to even select the right region before you add one of their airports.
Thanks for the help. I switched from North America to FSX Default in FTX Central, but the problem still exists. It did appear to change the look of it somewhat, but I think it made it worse.
Now the runway is completely invisible from the ground (but reappears at altitude). The odd thing is that the scenery underneath the airport continues as if there were no airport. The clearing was replaced by forest and town textures, and the autogen continues right over the airport.What should I try now? Should I uninstall FTX?
-
Some thing similar happened to me. Are you using FTX products? If so switch back to FSX default.
Thanks for the reply.
I have the demo for FTX PNW; but I'm flying in North Carolina, not the FTX coverage area. Could FTX affect scenery outside its coverage area?
Thanks for the great product
in Diamond DA20-100 Katana
Posted
Interesting stuff. If you could, keep us posted on how the flight training goes. I always enjoy reading these stories. I was hoping to take a few lessons over this summer, but I got sidetracked buying a car and fixing it up.
I don't have enough money saved up yet to complete a PPL. (I know buying a car didn't help that any, but it wasn't too expensive; it's an '89 Civic. 
) Anyway, I'm trying to decide if it would make more sense to just go ahead and take a few lessons, or to wait until I can afford to complete my PPL. Oh well, maybe next summer. . . .
In the meantime, good luck with your training!