Rob Ainscough
-
Posts
311 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Rob Ainscough
-
-
Customers are people that buy products you publish, past, present, and future.
As I pointed out, updated development and new development is still being done on P3D. Do you need more examples?
If you feel P3D is not viable, that's entirely your decision ... but such a decision is indicative that MSFS isn't providing sufficient funds to support bringing your existing P3D up to similar feature specification such as PBR, Sloped Runways, Material Scripting, Dynamic Lights, Dynamic Reflections, etc. ... these features were provide a long time ago, but only your "new projects" (some not all) would leverage "some" of these features?? I'm a 3DSMax modeler and know enough about both P3D/MSFS workflows to know they aren't drastically different (sure some difference especially around texture sizes MSFS being much weaker in that regard).
Many existing products (long before MSFS was even on the table) were never updated, forever bound to FSX limitations, the LCD in development. A few products were updated as paid "Professional" versions and still didn't leverage all the new features available in P3D ... and then you wonder why sales are not good??
Perhaps supporting the same features that exist in P3D that currently exist in MSFS would have helped with "sales" in P3D? I have no idea why you didn't embrace these new features in P3D (PBR, sloped runways, material scripting, dynamic lights, dynamic reflections, etc.) that were available long before MSFS even hit the market? The work effort to bring your existing products up to date with these features is a relatively easy process for any 3D modeler.
MSFS sales are better because of visuals, the same visuals P3D supports with one exception ... native Ambient Occlusion support. You made no serious effort to bring P3D forward ... if you want an good example of just how good P3D can look, load up P3D FlyTampa PBR enabled airports ... IMHO, they look better in P3D (certainly texture resolution) than they do in MSFS. Clearly the visual features where there and could be leveraged, but Aerosoft and those whom publish under Aerosoft seemed to just ignore them.
I get that you want ONE platform for all ... you made that clear many years ago during one of the FS conferences. But if MSFS sales are "so good", then I'm certain you'd have the resources to bring your existing P3D customers up to similar visuals as your MSFS customers? So either MSFS sales aren't good enough, or your pushing the ONE platform mission.
Rob
-
1
-
-
On 2/7/2022 at 2:06 AM, Mathijs Kok said:
As you might have seen most (if not all) developer of more complex aircraft have stopped development for P3D and are focusing on MSFS and X-Plane.
That's false, Maddog has been updated, iFly 737Ng updated and expansion pack, Majestic Q400 updated and visual expansion pack, Quality Wing 787 was updated, HiFi ASP3D was updated, FSLabs was updated, GSX was updated, ChasePlane was updated. There are also new products being released for P3D.
I don't mind that you don't want or have stopped publishing or developing for P3D, your choice, but I DO MIND that you make false statements.
Considering you also claimed to be the premiere company working with MS/Asobo before release so as to help provide a robust SDK and 2 years later the SDK still isn't able to provide for what could be accomplished in P3D years ago, then something clearly failed in your communications.
"Users are not customers"??? Wow! Just Wow!
Yes, I've taken a screenshot because I know this will get deleted.
Cheers, Rob.
-
1
-
-
Someone suggested my post would be more appropriate here (and I agree) so I'll link it:
Cheers, Rob.
-
1
-
-
Yes, but nothing I select on the right side lets me go forward.
You need to turn OFF "Hide file name extensions" in Vista (do this via Explorer options). If you don't do this, what Vista actually does is rename the file to Scenerycfg.fsc.cfg NOT Scenerycfg.fsc. So the FS Database manager never finds the file even though it looks correct under Vista. See my other thread on this.
Just more bad design decisions and assumptions from Microsoft -- sadly Windows 7 is no better -- clearly Microsoft haven't really learned much from the Vista financial disaster.
Rob.
-
Just wanted to say excellent work on FS Commander 8.5!!
Working flawlessly with FSX under Vista x64 linked via WideFS 7. Took a little time to get the networking sorted out under Vista x64. Tips for anyone using Vista, be sure to turn OFF "Hide filename extensions" in Explorer -- if you don't turn this off, the FS 8.5 instructions to rename scenery.cfg to scenerycfg.fsc will not work (what you actually get is scenerycfg.fsc.cfg). One more reason Vista x64 is the worst OS ever produced by Microshaft.
Great work everyone on the FS commander crew.
Rob
-
Hello Rob,
What happens if you load a default Cessna in first then go to the 2d panel then load the Cheyenne.
I think the problem might be related to my GoFlight system, the Cheyenne seems to keep fighting any Xponder changes I make with my GoFlight controls. If I set the Xponder manually via the mouse it seems to hold and doesn't reset.
All good, great aircraft BTW!!
Cheers, Rob.
-
I've got Piper Cheyenne for FSX v1.01. I'm running FSX with Acceleration (SP2).
If I fly with a flight plan, and load the flight plan into the GPS system -- after I fly for 2 mins and turn on the auto pilot, it resets my xponder to 1200???
This of course causes ATC to tell me to change my xponder back to the correct value assigned at the airport.
The only work around is to NOT load the flight plan into the GPS system.
Is this a known issue/bug? If yes, any fix for it?
Thanks, Rob.
-
Sorry for the German bashing -- it was a reflection of what the developer/support of MyTrafficX was presenting to me -- he had a bad attitude and a very bad philosophy being used to justify the problems of MyTrafficX.
I realize ALL Germans aren't like that, but cultural philosophy and behavior patterns do surface and hence the get associated with a common element.
Perhaps it was my experience at an F1 race in Germany combined with the developers apathy that influenced my response.
Anyway, nothing is being done about this issue soooo...
-
5.1 fixes some of what is broken (but apparently not all) in 5.0 and hopefully it'll fix the registry entry problems that screw up Add/Remove Programs list.
I'm looking for alternatives (there are a couple that seem as good if not better).
Rob.
-
Also discovered that this poor excuse of a paid FSX Add-on (MyTrafficX) creates an invalid registry entries for Add/Remove programs -- looks like it is using a bad GUID or is creating entries it shouldn't or using an invalid font type. End result is the "Aerosoft's - My Traffic X" is displayed in a large font size so it looks like just a huge section of black and white lines in the Add/Remove Programs list.
At first I thought this was a corrupted reg entry for Add/Remove Programs, turns it is just MyTrafficX. Had to find the Uninstall string in registry and manually run the uninstall. Once done, Add/Remove programs List is back to looking normal.
Just another reason to stay FAR FAR AWAY from the developer of MyTrafficX -- not only does he/she use dubious business practices, he/she is a bad coder or doesn't understand how to use InstallShield.
Aerosoft, you may want to seriously reconsider putting your name on this product (MyTrafficX) -- it really does make you look bad. If the developer needs help on how to use InstallShield correctly, then please pass them my way and I'll be sure to use the same pricing structure he/she uses.
Rob.
-
Uninstalling MyTrafficX as I type this -- I would highly recommend aerosoft drop the developer from their distribution. There are two other Traffic products now available for FSX -- I will be looking it buying one of them (one that has a reasonable upgrade policy and no obvious problems).
I'm not sure how Germany conducts business, but in the US this type of policy would ensure bankruptcy or closure. But there again maybe that's why the US GNP is 5X that of Germany and our per captia is almost 2X -- we have a considerably different philosophy towards the end consumer.
Rob
-
Your link is wrong (extra period at the end) - it should be:
http://www.aerosoft.com/shop-re/links/updates.html
Like I posted earlier to go from MyTrafficX 5.0 to MyTraffic X 5.1 will cost me 5 euros (about $10) and I have to mail my existing 5.0 DVD back??
Is this some type of joke? MyTrafficX is sold as an FSX version and that's what I bought -- again this is NOT acceptable. MyTrafficX has serious problems with aircraft texture NOT loading on the aircraft at further distances -- 5.1 fixes this problem, but I have to pay for it? So how many times am I going to have to pay for the same product??
If this is Aerosoft's policy then they can kiss any of my future business good bye. And, I'll happily report my experience on avsim and the host of other simulator forums.
Rob.
-
Anyone know where I can get the 5.1 patch?
Rob.
-
Are you serious, the upgrade to fix MyTrafficX 5.0 problems will cost me???
That's just NOT acceptable.
Talk to the management? Here's your chance...
in English
Posted
I don't need to prove anything, the facts speak for themselves ... you've avoided my question completely. Why didn't you embrace the same features now in MSFS that were in P3D BEFORE MSFS was released?
Visuals sell, P3D improved visuals and both internal and external and you did very little to embrace those visuals either by setting external "standards" or enforcing internal development of them.
This is a feedback thread, I'm giving feedback, isn't that the point of this thread? I haven't violated any ToS.
Rob.