Jump to content

Lawman

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Lawman

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork
  1. Balearic Islands X is "just" a collection (in one box/download) of the separate products Ibiza X, Mallorca X and Menorca X. Biggest advantage of Balearic Islands X is the (considerable) lower price compared to the separate products and (in the boxed version) a booklet with the charts .
  2. Thank you very much for the speedy fix .
  3. Hi Matt, Just a small HU (maybe you are aware of it already): there's a small error on your Canadian SAR Huey-repaint. On the right hand side it accidentally says "Forces Armess". Or maybe that's just the way CAF-pilots feel . It's on the "Bell205-003.dds"-file. Love the repaints, especially the Aussie ones .
  4. Thanks for the reply, Shaun. If I may make a suggestion: I reckon Weeze may have greater appeal if the former "Laarbruch"-base was truly usable, for example by making the big entrance gate to the military side movable/passable. It may not be true to life, but it's a simulator after all . It's a real shame to have that beautifully modeled military base "unusable" behind fences .
  5. I'm interested in Weeze X, but from the screenshots it looks like every taxiway from the military side to the runway is fenced off. I'm wondering if the military side of the airport is still usable without having to taxi through fences/entrance gates ?
  6. Snave, let's hope Aerosoft also takes (at least some of) this to heart .
  7. Michael, you have been very candid with your replies, for which I thank you (it also must have kept you from doing work on the Tomcat, so sorry for that ). I understand your position, I hope you do mine. My post may have been kind of provocative, but unfortunately it seems that sometimes you have to "kick someone in the nuts" to get their attention and (hopefully) get them to listen. I also hope you understand that I wasn't taking a swing at you personally for doing the F-14. Rest assured I would have given you/Aerosoft as much hell if y'all would have announced another Hornet . And I coul
  8. Michael, let me explain the reason for my OP. I have been following your replies both on this forum as well as on the SOH. What you read below is basically the "condensed" version of my reply to you (and more importantly Aerosoft, because I explicitly and purposely directed my post towards them). First of all, it wasn't my intention to try to talk you and/or Aerosoft out of doing the F-14. That would have been a futile exercise, especially (and I mean this in the kindest way) if the developer wants to pursue his own "pet" project. I can understand you want to do something that is close to y
  9. Well Snave, of all the planes you mentioned there is only one that is military, namely the Catalina. And I was referring to Aerosoft's military projects.
  10. In the interest of fairness I should point out that it isn't just Aerosoft. I just found out there are two developers doing the same mark (!) of Spitfire (though in that case they didn't know about each other's project). One has to wonder if the add-on market is driven by news events (the 70th anniversary of the BoB) and/or movies ("Top Gun", "The Aviator") . BTW, it's interesting to see that the announcement of the Tomcat at the SOH has quite a few members there questioning that choice.
  11. I've thought long and hard about writing this, but I just have to get this off my chest. Knowing I'm a guest on this forum I'll strive to do it as politely and respectful as possible, even though the first paragraph below may suggest otherwise . What prompted me to post this thread was the announcement that Aerosoft are going to do an F-14. To say I'm utterly gutted and disappointed would be the understatement of the year. The only way Aerosoft can add insult to injury would be the announcement of the F-5E. It's not the F-14 as such I find disappointing: from a business standpoint it all
  12. I'm not affiliated with Aerosoft, so I can't speak on their behalf, but I would like to say this to Vibraman and others: As you can see no one from Aerosoft has prevented you from speaking your mind. What you do see is a (heated) debate amongst simmers themselves. Now the "problem" as I see it (and I've said this before) is that the "hard core"-simmers want to turn this add-on into something it is not meant to be. Aerosoft aims this product at a specific type of simmer. In doing so, they are fully aware that they may lose the "hard core"-simmer as a customer for this particular product. And
  13. The fact is this add-on is not meant to 100% realistic. Instead it is aimed at people who like to fly something more engaging than the default planes, yet not so complex to set up as say a PMDG-aircraft. These simmers don't care if the waypoint is named correctly, they just want to have some quick fun. In Vibraman's mind, this add-on is not "realistic" if the waypoints are not named right. The "target audience" for this product couldn't give a [add your own expletive here]. There are a lot of "hard core"-simmers posting here that want this add-on to be something that it is not designed to b
  14. Personally, I'd love to see an European aircraft like the Blackburn Buccaneer , the EE Canberra (much more countries flew it than the B-57, so more repaints possible, even USAF) or the AlphaJet. I guess a Saab J-32 Lansen would be too obscure for you guys . If you have to do an F-5, why not do an F-5A/B? First of all it would make Dag happy . I also think it is easier to find information about it. It could also complement (instead of compete with) the Flylogic Tiger II you also sell. And finally, there would be a sufficient number of repaints possible. After all, there are enough countries
  15. Not saying this is the answer, but the smaller filesize can also be caused by the format in which the file was saved: UTF-8 vs UTF-16 or something similar IIRC. There was another product (I think it was in FS9) that did this. Can't remember if it was an Aerosoft-product or one by Cloud9.
×
×
  • Create New...