Jump to content

Wolkenschreck

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wolkenschreck

  1. Thank you for the fix Oliver! I noticed that "Dynamic Texture Streaming" affects the textures of the animated vehicles, as I am seeing the same at EDDF. Unchecking Dynamic Texture Streaming resolved it for me but it does, as far as I know, require a more beefy VRAM GPU.

  2. Hi Oliver,

    Thank you for the fix. After having a quick look at the airport I can say that the new concrete textures improved the contrast or the runway markings.

    But Timm's point about the alpha channel is very interesting. Is it possible that the there is a bug with the alpha channel of the yellow taxiway lines on the the new concrete surfaces on the BER site? All yellow lines over concrete have a black border at the old SXF part, while the black border seems to be missing at the BER site. Real life pictures support this assumption, showing the yellow lines at the new Terminal 1 aprons also with a black border.

    Having such a black border would of course significantly improve the visibility of the markings (and I assume that is the reason why such border do exists depending on the surface). But I assume that this could be out of your responsibility?


    Once again just a thank you for all the recent work you invested in EDDB. Very much appreciated.

  3. vor 11 Minuten, tstemmer sagte:

    Good morning,

     

    it is now the third time that I have a CTD in EDDB for pushback (GSX2). In the Event Viewer there is no error, only some warning/information at this time.

    At the moment I suspect that I am responsible for this (see following error messages)

    ,,,,


    Thomas, any chance that you are already using P3Dv5.1? There is a known problem with SODE and 5.1, which is being worked on by LM. You will find a workaround by Jeffrey (the SODE developer) here:

    https://sode.12bpilot.ch/?topic=p3d-v5-1-and-sode-1-7-1#post-4992

  4. Dear Sascha @Sasa, dear Oliver @OPabst,

    With the BER-part finally opening in a few days I tried out the new aprons and the south runway. Using P3Dv5 with default shaders and HDR settings everything worked nicely, but  the ground markings around the new Terminal 1 are very pale and it was hard to identify the runway markings during landing.

    Is there any chance that you could increase the contrast/saturation a tad? Knowing that you are busy with the MFS version I totally understand that this is a low priority item. After all the years the scenery still looks pretty good and I enjoyed it very much without the recent additions and changes, which I do not need. Only a little tweaking of the ground markings to make them more vivid would be much appreciated. The following video might give a better glimpse about what I have in mind: Reference

    Thanks and best wishes,

    Christoph

    2020-10-25_13-40-21-755.png

    2020-10-25_13-40-41-95.png

  5. Thank you for the update, David and Amos! Very much appreciated. 

    Some very minor problems that I noticed so far with the hotfix:
    a) It might be something on my end but I can not get the config tool to work. Deselecting the static aircraft does not rename the corresponding bgl's to off.

    b) Some runway exits in the AFCAD do not have hold short notes. However, hold short nodes are mandatory for every link that connects the runway with a taxiway. Otherwise the following will happen with AI after some time (not your scenery but the same problem):
    https://imgur.com/VXWzoN7 
    [img]https://i.imgur.com/gHNpix4.jpg[/img]

    Sorry for being such a pain in your back. LLBG is a wonderful scenery and destination that I really do enjoy. 

    Thank you,
    Christoph

  6. vor 2 Stunden , f.skywalker sagte:

    @ageva

    Good morning,

     

    you write "We are still working on the autogen issue with P3Dv4, this will go into 1.0.3.0 next week."

    Is this Autogen issue onlly in V4 and not in V5

     

    Thanks

    Frank 

    Guten Morgen Frank,

    The autogen problem with V4 was as far as I have experienced only happening when two airports added their autogen component via the add-on.xml. For example, FB Wellington used that method and did not play well with Gaya's Kos and JustSim's Moscow. This resulted mostly in missing trees.

    But V5 seems indeed to have fixed the problem. Having added the autogen of Ben Gurion via the add-on.xml does on my setup not interfere with FB Wellington, which does also use the xml method to add the autogen component. Gaya and JustSim do also keep their autogen at least for me with V5.

    The only autogen problem you should see in both versions is a lack of autogen around the airport, as the aerial was not yet touched with Annotator to add autogen. But David and Amos are aware of it and discuss this for a future update.

    Christoph

    • Like 1
  7. vor 22 Stunden , ageva sagte:

    Thanks Christoph for the feedback, much appreciated!

    I will discuss it with David, number 1 can be fixed soon. 2 and 3 probably with version 1.1


    Thank you for considering to replace the radar antenna, Amos! It was probably very hard to get good reference photos with the security measures at LLBG. Thus, what David and you have achieved is outstanding and one can really feel the love that was put in the product.

    And no hurry with the other points. Adding them with v1.1 or later would be totally fine. The scenery is nice as it is but just seems a bit unfinished and empty without trees, which is particularly noticeable when departing from RW26 or landing on RW21. And patches of grass and weed similar to David's LIMC would make taxing far more interesting with the added 3D effect. 

    Lastly, I also found a small problem of texture bleeding on the blast pad of RW21:
    7dFGpJB.png

    Best wishes,
    Christoph

  8. David and Amos,

    Let me first thank you for bringing Ben Gurion back to our sim. Following the progress of  your scenery on Facebook for some time I was very happy that you finally finished this project. I bought your first LLBG for FS2004 nearly ten years ago and was always fond of Tel Aviv. The newest rendition looks very good and it is impressive how many features you have packed in this add-on. 

    Hopefully you do not mind too much if I point out some points that could help to improve this airport even further:

    1) The radar antenna next to RW26 seems far too tall . Maybe you could replace the model with the other one you have modeled? That smaller tower seems just perfect in size and shape to replace the antenna next to RW26

    Reference: HERE
    fzkJDDx.jpg

    2) LLBG is an arid place. But some dry shrubs and grass next to the runways and taxiways would really help to bring this place to more life.
    Reference: HERE and HERE 

    3) Please plant some more autogen trees. The custom autogen buildings you added looks really good and captures the atmosphere of the airport. But it just needs a lot more trees on the aerial image. Particularly the area left of RW21 along with the airport perimeter looks at it could benefit from more trees. But this is true for the whole photo scenery.
    Reference: HERE
    6kZA5S3.png

    Again a huge thank you for this airport and keep up the great work!

    Christoph

    • Like 1
  9. Removing the EDDM_LIB-JetwaysDUMMY.bgl while using SODE jetways solved it for me until a real fix is found. But as far as I understood Oliver is this bgl normally needed. So no guarantee that disabling that file will not have some side-effect. But at least visually could I not see any adverse impact. 

    • Upvote 1
  10. Im internationalen Teil des Forums las ich, dass ein anderer User durch das neue SODE-Paket für München einen CTD hatte. Gleiches kann ich bei mir feststellen und direkt auf die SODE-SimObjects 1.0.1.0 zurückführen.

    Folgende Ausgangssituation:
    -P3Dv5 HF2
    -SODE 1.7.1
    -10:30 Uhr Lokalzeit; 30. Juli 2020
    -Standard F-35A
    -kein abgeänderter/gespeicherter Standardflug
     -AI-Traffic vollständig deaktiviert

    Mit den SODE-Jetways 1.0.1.0 hängt sich der Simulator bei 77% auf und wirft mich auf den Desktop zurück. Deaktiviere ich die SODE-Jetways, so wird das Scenario problemlos geladen. Ebenso funktioniert die ursprüngliche SODE-Konfiguration 1.0.0.0, welche ebenfalls problemlos durchlädt.

    Das SODE-Log ist leider nicht aussagekräftig und gibt keinen Fehler an, welcher auf EDDM zurückführbar ist. Aufgefallen ist mir, dass sich die Textauflösung vergrößert hat. Möglicherweise hat dies einen Einfluss? Gleichwohl scheint es aber nicht immer zu Problem zu kommen, da ich München dennoch manchmal laden kann. Gegebenenfalls liegt es an der Uhrzeit oder aber daran, dass ich erst einen anderen Flughafen vorher geladen hatte.

    Vielleicht hilft meine Ausführung etwas, um den Fehler zu reproduzieren.

    Beste Grüße,
    Christoph

  11. Thorsten, Oliver, Manfred,

    First and foremost a big thank you for the update. The support you give here was exactly the reason why I bought your Munich only some minutes after release. And let me stress it that your scenery is the best Munich rendition we ever had in our sim. And I hope you are not too much discouraged by our comments. It must be hard to work many months on a project in your spare time and then read all the nitpicking comments. But I think all of us here try to make an amazing scenery even better. So, once again thank you for listening to all the points that Matthias, Timm, Winston, Andre, and I bring up here. Your work and effort is hugely appreciated. 

    If I could pick one point of Matthias list (all of them are actually very interesting) in particular that could make the scenery even more real than I would go for point 6: 

    "6. i) The color is to warm, the concrete is more greyish, with less yellow in it. As it is, it looks more like Munich would be in Spain or Southern France...

    6. ii) The concrete tiles are not as strongly visible as in SW EDDM and the tiles seem to be too small.

    6. iii) The lines on the ground are better visible in real than in the sim. Maybe it is possible to enhance the contrast between lines and ground."

    Reducing the strength/visibility of the gaps between the concrete tiles would help a lot to make the apron perfect. Moreover, as Matthias pointed already out, could the ground markings even be more brighter. The yellow lines and gate markings could use a splash of bright yellow, along with a lighter red for the jetway movement area. 
    Further, the entry points N5 and S9 are painted with white color on bright red. Could you add the white color and make the red boxes brighter?

    And lastly if I can dare to add a new point 17:
    Would it be possible to add a very basic 3D-model for the metal structures between the taxiway bridges? That is from a cockpit perspective probably more important than the missing base of Vorfeldtower Ost, which I mentioned in another thread.
    yeImk4A.jpg

    In your past airports I did also very much liked the passengers that were visible in the terminal. But I assume that performance in Munich is very demanding and VAS needs to be considered. 

    Take care and maybe some of my not very urgent points could be considered to be added in an update in the next months. 

    Thanks,
    Christoph

     

  12. Guys, 

    Let me first thank you for bringing Munich to our sims. After switching to P3D I always missed the old GAP Munich and the competitor's offering never really got me too excited. Now we finally have a beautiful Munich done by developers who update their products and who are available for support. Dankeschön für München und tolle Arbeit!

    1) Some little thing I noticed is the missing Apron Tower that is above the terminal 2 satellite. The existing Vorfeldtower Ost was enclosed by the new satellite and the base of the tower is now in the middle of a food court. Would it be possible to add this structure as the terminal is designed in a transparent way? 

    2) Is there any chance to add just some 2D or 3D passengers to the terminals? Sim-Wing's Barcelona and Madrid have them and it would help to make the terminal at Munich feel bit more alive.

    3) At Gate 251 is a luggage cart parked into a vehicle. 

    Christoph

    JxTAWg1.png
    NvDiptd.png

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vorfeldtower_Ost_München.jpg
    (by Backupboy / de.wikipedia)

    Link
    (by www.munich-airport.com)

    • Thanks 1
  13. Hallo Oliver,

    nach nunmehr über 6 Jahren Mitgliedschaft in diesem Forum möchte ich meinen ersten Beitrag hier nutzen, um dir für die tolle Arbeit zu Danken. Es kommt mir wie gestern vor, als AES als neues Produkt auf der Startseite stand. Gut dachte ich mir, wer braucht schon solche Spielereien? Blödsinn, dieses AES. Die Neugier war dann doch größer und mittlerweile sind nicht nur 5 Jahre vergangenen, sondern auch über 17 Credits gekauft. Einen Flusi ohne AES kann ich mir mittlerweile gar nicht mehr vorstellen. Was du da als 1-Mann-Betrieb für uns geschaffen hast ist wirklich ganz großes Kino.

    Und mit den neuen Fahrzeugen in 2.20 hast du dich selbst übertroffen. So eine Detailverliebtheit habe ich noch nicht gesehen. Es war einfach nur ein Genuss, den Abläufen zuzusehen. Und spätestens bei den Vorgängen und Bewegungen im Pushback-Truck war es um mich geschehen. Am besten beschrieben es drei Buchstaben: WOW!

    An dieses Stelle möchte ich dir insgesamt für deine Arbeit danken. Nicht nur AES, sondern auch AESLite, die 3D-Runwaylichter und all die anderen kleinen Schmankerl sind für mich mittlerweile unverzichtbar. Leider ist gerade die deutschsprachige Community sehr undankbar, wie ich in manch anderen Forum immer wieder lesen muss. Ich für meinen Teil bin froh, dass die Flusi-Welt nicht nur von Italienern und Australiern beherrscht wird. Auf Kleinstflugplätzen im pazifischen Nordwesten (wenn auch unbestreitbar in toller Qualität) fühlen sich meine Dickschiffe einfach nicht wohl. Und was nützt mir die noch so toll aufgelöste Fototextur, wenn dafür sämtliche Probleme in unfreundlicher Art auf Limitationen des Flugsimulators zurückgeführt werden und der Airport ansonsten tot ist. Aus diesem Grund bin ich auch vom Zürich der Konkurrenz zum Mega Airport Zürich 2012 gewechselt und habe diesen Schritt keinen Augenblick bereut (seitdem einer meiner Lieblingsplätze).

    Auch das oft kritisierte Preissystem von AES finde ich fair, denn letztendlich ist jeder Airport Maßarbeit. Lass dich da nicht verunsichern, ich finde es genau richtig und durch die Rabattmodelle auch gut gelöst.

    Aber wir wären hier ja nicht bei den Bugreports, wenn mir nicht eine Kleinigkeit aufgefallen wäre:

    Bei der einen Treppe ist ebendiese auf der Rückseite durchsichtig, von der Vorderseite jedoch normal. DIes tritt bei mir auf allen Airports auf. Ich hoffe du siehst auf dem Screenshot, was ich meine.

    Danke für 5 Jahre AES. Ich freue mich auf die nächsten!

    Christoph

    post-4139-0-64275700-1323628330_thumb.jp

×
×
  • Create New...