Support overload. We are currently seeing 65% more demand for support then we normally see. We can only assume this is because more people are at home due to the corona crises. Our complete support staff is online and they are working flat out, but it will take some days before we can scale up resources. Please be patient.

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by KLM737

  1. What is going to happen in regards to jetway animation for airport sceneries? Everybody is doing different things in trying to achieve the same goal. Would it be possible to come to some kind of universal standard? We will soon have the following systems: 1. FSX default, inverse kinematics, Ctrl +J jetway animation. See here: http://www.fsdevelop..._video_tutorial Limited system, simplified animations, lots of bugs, implementation is not developer friendly, free for the end user. 2. AES jetway animation based on BGL opcodes & graphics engine hacks. See here: http://forum.aerosof...-more/?p=588234 Perfect animation options, relies on low-level hacks & legacy code, not cross-platform, requires implementation by 1st party instead of scenery developer, (most of the time) pay-per-airport for the end user. 3. Simobjects Display Engine (SODE) using FSX/FSX:SE/ESP/P3D native Simconnect interfacing. See here: http://www.fsdevelop...control.433492/ This is what FSX native jetways were supposed to be, allows multiple user-controlled jetways, very developer friendly, still in development, no licence required for developers & users (donationware). 4. Airport Controller (AC) using FSX/FSX:SE/ESP/P3D native Simconnect interfacing. See here: http://forum.aerosof...-preview/page-4 http://forum.aerosof...eview/?p=630991 Not much is known, appears to be similar to SODE, licensed by developer/Aerosoft. I really don't think the end users would like to use 4 different jetway systems, depending which airport scenery they are using at the moment. Can Aerosoft as a large player do something about this? What is the plan for the future for the development community?
  2. ICAO: ESGG NAME: Göteborg-Landvetter TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: RC-Design Link:
  3. ICAO: WMKK Name: Kuala Lumpur International Type: Payware FS: FSX Designer: A_A Sceneries Link: AES 2.37
  4. Awesome work, it good see that things are coming together nicely. Please don't forgot about an extensive amount of apron clutter and animations to make the airport feel more alive. Are the jetways build with AES compatibility in mind?
  5. Is there a PMDG 300ER template available? Thanks in advance!
  6. ICAO: PGUM NAME: Guam Won Prat TYPE: Freeware (payware quality) FS: FSX DESIGNER: Morten Van Der Linden (v4) LINK:
  7. ICAO: EGAC NAME: George Best Belfast City Airport TYPE: Payware FS: FSX DESIGNER: shamrock112/Eiresim LINK:
  8. KLM672: Beautiful sunrise overhead Quebec, on the return-flight to Amsterdam
  9. Looks pretty neat! Will the approach lights be customized to fit on the poles, instead of being on the ground?
  10. Coualt.exe runs outside FSX, it has no access to the memory occupied by FSX. It communicates with FSX in order to load the GSX vehicles for example. The Coalt-engine itself has no impact on VAS usuage...
  11. Wasn't that supposed to get captured during the on-site photography survey that is required for these high-end mega airport scenery's?
  12. Maybe you should also support a developer who can bring AES (or someting similair) into P3D?
  13. Major +1 for iksvorn! Sent from my PadFone 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
  14. Hoewel ik het FS gedeelte van P&V altijd een beetje oppervlakkig vind, zal ik dan toch maar het juni nummer op moeten halen. Bedankt voor het inscannen, Mathijs!
  15. Because it is you who is asking it: NO! When will you realise that your little 10 year old platform is dying! Just because you can't afford modern computer hardware, it doesn't mean we should be limited by such an old platform. You have no idea what a pain in the ass FS9 developerment is for developers, they have to make everything backwards compatible for a small group of people. It means developers have to hold back on technological progress. When will you see that FSX-only prodcuts are so much better! Pleas, stop you everlasting cry for FS9 products!
  16. AES Lite is a features that the developer of a 3rd party scenery can choose to include. Oliver Pabst has to custom make the AES Lite traffic on every airport that wants to include it. I think AES Lite is quite an expensive feature for scenery developers because not all developers can or want to include it. AES Lite is nothing like GSX...
  17. May I feel free to bump this topic as is it still curent. Would like some statement from Aerosoft (support, project manager or the developer)...
  18. May I feel free to bump this topic as is it still curent. Would like some statement from Aerosoft (support, project manager or the developer)...
  19. Air Holland, please stop the everlasting whine for FS9 version of FSX only products, keep your dignity! There are multiple reasons for FSX only and I very much encourage FSX only development (look at the NGX or FSDT LAX, Flightbeam KSFO, Orbx). And I therefore respect and encourage Aerosoft decision making when it comes to FSX only products. People who are always whining for FS9 products just bug me. FS9 is old, limited and not a viable platform anymore. Buy a good PC and stop flooding every topic with your pro-FS9 propaganda!
  20. This seems to be the most current thread on MAP Amsterdam and it's problems so let's continue... A mysterious product has been added to the pre order section of the shop: Mega Airport Amsterdam for X-plane 10. So besides the announced Rome Fiumicino project, Cornel from DFS seems to be alive again (given that Cornel is needed for the conversion). This seems like the perfect time for an update and optimize the scenery for FSX as well. Can we expect such an update?
  21. If you have the shadow's enabled, the AI aircraft dissapear because of a bug involving native FS9 AI aircraft in FSX
  22. @ Eric Bakker: Turn of your Aircraft Shadows. Native FS9 AI aircraft in FSX are not compatible with the shadows on Aerosoft addons.
  23. Dear Mathijs Kok, Thank you for our answer. As I said: I don't mind if a scenery addon is heavy on the FPS but that addon has to have a reason (quality wise) for the bad performance. If an airport addon has 7 cm/m ground textures and bad FPS; that's fine because it looks good. If an airport addon has 3D taxi way bridges which draw performance; that's fine because it looks good. If an airport addon has a great amount of detail on it's 3D models; that's fine because it still looks good. But Mega Airport Amsterdam doesn't have any of this. It doesn't have many details on the land side (look at FlyTampa Athens), It doesn't have good looking, high res., photoreal ground textures (look at Orbx), it lacks high res. textures and details on the buildings (Look at Flightbeam KSFO and Flytama Athens). Mega Airport Amsterdam doesn't seem to meet the modern standards in scenery design for FSX. Mega Airport Amsterdam is just messy. Look at the way the photo real ground textures are cut out. Look at the cars on the highway with AES light cars driving on top of them. Look at the AES light cars sinking into the ground to drive through flat tunnels, etc If customers want good FPS and bad looks; use FS9. If customers want awesome looks and bad FPS; use FSX. I'll repeat it again: a scenery can be heavy on the FPS but it has to look good to compensate. MAP Amsterdam doesn't look that good and has bad performance... I know, it sounds complicated and I hope you understand me. I don't mean any disrespect. Greetings from Holland
  24. Dear Mathijs Kok, I've been using Mega Airport Amsterdam X since the FSX release and I really appreciate all the work Aerosoft and especially Cornel put into this to give the Dutch simmers a new rendition of their main airport. But there are a few key items where this project has failed. I would like to discuss these things, if you don't mind. First of all, Cornel is a great scenery designer who delivers high quality products. But there are a few things in the way he works. The impression I got during development, release and support periods was an impression of ‘missing communication’. While Cornel was working quietly on his big project, there was not much information about the project. Aerosoft didn’t seem to know what was going on. I think Cornel visited the forums just a couple of times. If you look at some current projects, like Corfu X, you see the developer heavily engaged with the community in the forums. There are clear previews and clear information about content and release date. Something the Schiphol Project lacked. Things like ‘good performance’, ‘accurate rendition’, ‘release in (MONTH)’ were promised but these standards were not met. I don’t know who is to blame and I don’t want to speculate about it. But Cornel and I exchanged some e-mails some months ago and he was really friendly and responded quickly. I’m just trying to show that the developer is not the only one to blame for a faulty product… Speaking about a faulty product. I’m not saying Schiphol X is faulty; there are just some annoying bugs. No product is perfect, that’s obvious. To start with, before the release it seemed the Beta phase was rushed or not done thoroughly. Bugs like the ‘RWY 24 Runway Light bug’ and the buggy ‘excludes’ would have been discovered when the Beta phase was completed thoroughly. Oliver Pabst had to fix it and luckily he managed to do it quickly. There was no word from Cornel. (I think developers should be active in the forums to give previews, information, status updates and to answer questions). There were a few small updates (1.00 to 1.04), for which I’m grateful, but there was no serious work done. (Neither on the FS9 version). There are still quite a few bugs and problems left, besides the dreadful performance. I’m okay with an addon that is heavy on the FPS, but that addon needs to be perfect and detailed to compensate for the heavy performance. I made a list of the things I came across during the last year or so while approaching EHAM and walking around with Ezdok Camera: FSX v1.04: - Approach Lights not on the poles - Low resolution photo real ground scenery - Bad connection (water & road) to the default, UT2 and NL2000v4 scenery - Blurry textures on terminal buildings - Low LOD on jetways (with AES) - Misplaced and missing taxi signs - Missing 3D taxi way bridges - AES Light Traffic drives into the ground. - Horrible photo scenery coverage area. Pictures can be found here: (NOTE: there are spelling mistakes in the pictures. Sorry for that) I would like to see the Photo Scenery get fixed (alignment, coverage and quality) Could you please consider the following coverage area of the MAP Schiphol Scenery: Instead of following the roads and some random lines, you could follow the channels and water surrounding Schiphol. I’m looking forward to your reply and if anything isn’t clear (maybe because of my English) let me know, I’ll try to explain it futher. Greetings from Holland! EDIT: Oh, I see there is an other topic for other issue's regarding MAP EHAM, but it's still closed...
  • Create New...