Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content

Dillon

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dillon

  1. Harpsi I like the static aircraft (sorry it took so long for me to respond, I've been very busy lately). I was hoping you could close the spots down that have static aircraft already parked. This is especially true with the lone DHL plane in the cargo area. As far as GA aircraft go I've only seen them parked at the parking spots I mentioned above. If you close those spots down to GA I'm sure this issue will correct itself. I could only imagine two more additional GA spots to accommodate these aircraft else ware around the airport. Frankly I'm not sure how you get GA to stop parking in the wrong spots. I see many AFCAD designers have a problem with this as they either don't have allot of GA in their setup or they struggle with how to resolve this issue. Either way it would be nice if you can address the GA issue and if not you did a great job anyway. I like the Afcad overall in this version if nothing else...
  2. Lisbon's 'Puente Vasco de Gama' bridge lights are hanging in the air...
  3. Harpsi, outstanding job so far. The only thing I'm seeing is GA aircraft parking in airliner spots J01 an J06. GA is also parking in the cargo area where the DHL static aircraft it parked. The cargo area is not that big of a deal as long as GA doesn't use all the spots but the parking area might need a look as you'd never see a Cessna or a Kingair parked over there in the real world... Again great job so far. If you didn't do anything else to this AFCAD I'd still be appreciative considering what we had before...
  4. Harpsi thanks for your effort on this, you always seem to be around when we need you...
  5. Just a few things about this awesome scenery: 1. GA aircraft is currently parking all around the airport in areas only Airliners should be parked at like main and cargo terminals. 2. I'm seeing a Fokker 100 in Korean Air livery at the airport, it that right??? 3. AI programming should take into account the static scenery and not park on top of static aircraft. I'm seeing this in a few spots... I am glade and appreciative you guys did this for FS9. This is once again an outstanding job to say the least...
  6. Just like Manhattan, something like this would look good in FS9.
  7. I just read some great news on Simflight today... All I can say here is thank God for FranceVFR and their new sceneries for FS9... :wink: Aerosoft your FSX rendition looks very promising from the screenshots listed here, great job on this effort so far...
  8. Your reloading for the updated '.bgl' files not the textures. You may want to use the lower res textures (which look exactly the same as the high res textures) next time around anyway. Granted Thosten spoke of improvement to some textures here and there, most are concerned with a resolution to the CTD issue. You have to understand when you buy a brand new product there's bound to be bugs that have to get ironed out requiring you to reinstall the product. There's no way around that unless you want a less than stellar product... :wink:
  9. Thorsten maybe you could do Dublin next for FS9... :oops: Great job and great support... Don't mind Eric as his frustration is understandable by all of us. I was a little put off by the CTD myself after a long flight over the pond... :wink:
  10. He just said he's going to do that... :wink: You need 'testpatch2' which solves the problem outlined in this thread. The first patch was just an updated AFCAD file that none of us needed...
  11. Will do... Why was it call 'bgx' in the first place??? :shock:
  12. Well I'm happy to report after trying 'testpatch2' (without the updated Afcad file). I made a successful landing at EGLL without a CTD... I guess we officially have a fix for this issue... :wink: I still would like to know why 'AF2_EGLL_Simwings' has a '.bgx' extension instead of a '.bgl' extension (this came like this with the original install). Should I change that extension to '.bgl'??? :shock:
  13. I'm with you on this I just wish I had the time. I'm currently testing testpatch2 as I write this...
  14. Can someone tell me why the original 'AF2_EGLL_Simwings' file has an extension of '.bgx' instead of '.bgl'??? :shock:
  15. Just chiming in to report I'm getting the crashing problem as well. I just tried a flight from CYYZ to Heathrow and got a CTD on approach to runway 9L... :cry:
  16. Have a nice wait... It may be another year (or two) before you see the same performance we're seeing now with the Level-D 767 on approach over London proper in FSX (that surprisingly seems to be o.k. with many of you so like the saying goes, 'to each his own')... The bright side to this dual sim situation we're faced with today is we at least have options from some developers. If a Simmer wants framerate headaches he can have at it, if a different simmer wants performance and fluid flight just like the aforementioned he can have it as well. :wink:
  17. You can use this scenery with the static aircraft (which I recommend) and see almost no framerate hit. Using AI alone leaves the airport too sparse, you need to have the static planes present and like I already said there's 'NO' framerate hit (on a side note, I don't use the high res textures and the airport still looks fantastic)... Speaking of UK2000's scenery you can't compare. Although they both look comparable the difference in performance is like night and day... :wink:
  18. Awesome job!!! I'm getting 0% framerate hit on my system; very good job Simwings...
  19. I'm downloading now... Simwings you made my weekend...
  20. I changed the shots... I have to disagree concerning FSX vs FS9 being a dead topic (within the context of developments like this scenery and PMDG). When you can see what I posted above yet you have major developers like Cloud9 and Aerosoft beating a dead drum as to the validity of making FSX only products we need to discuss this. I for one support what Simwings is doing with Heathrow and this also explains why Cloud9's forums have went all but dead since they decided to drop FS9. People nor FSX is ready for that yet... I want Simwings to know how important and glade we are that they are still making FS9 products. The screens above tell it all. The FSX pic above will give you around 15 or less FPS at the most for a shot like that (with todays latest hardware) where as that FS9 shot is all but fluid at 30+ frames a second (and I do emphasize the '+'). I don't know about you guys but with gas as high as it is these days I don't have time to spend tones of money on hardware for results like I'm seeing above.
  21. Duval I hate to go into this again but a year into FSX's release moderately powered new hardware should be able to run FSX. If top of the line hardware at this time can barley squeeze out GA flying in FSX that says volumes about the condition of the release version a year ago. Maybe next Chrismas of 2008 we'll be able to fly over major cities without a framerate hit. Maybe by Christmas of 2009 we'll finally be able to use Level'D's 767 and land at Simwings London's Heathrow airport. :wink:
  22. Getting back on topic I hope Simwings sprinkles some static aircraft around the airport. At certain times of the day traffic can be pretty sparse using programs like Ultimate Traffic. A little static aircraft here and there insures a nice rounded level of traffic around the airport at all times... :wink:
  23. I have the same computer I bought when FS9 first came out (Dell 2.8gig processor with 1gig ram) and FS9 still runs great with 90% of the products out there. The only add-ons I have issue with is PMDG's 737 using the VC and Eaglesoft's new Beechjet 1.5. Everything else from LVD's 767 to Cloud9's KLAX runs great. I would shudder to think how my install would be running now if I bought a machine a year into FS9's release. I wish you guys would quit trying to compare FS9 to FSX because there's no comparison. We're a year into FSX's release and it's still not a great performer on machines built today let alone machines made when it was released a year ago... :? The threat of MS not making another version is no reason to support something that doesn't measure up to previous efforts by Aces. At this point FSX is worse than FS2000. I have every confidence FSXI will be a reality. But once again as long as we have developers like PMDG that get it and other shops like Simwings that see the writing on the wall we'll have something to continue to enjoy until Aces finally get's it right again. I thought there was no toping FS2000 in the blunder department, I see I was wrong. I'm glade to see your one of those dual FSX/FS9 users I spoke about earlier to Mathijs who seems to feel FSX is the only thing most are using now. As an example many here in this very thread are using both FSX and FS9 versus FSX exclusively (that's why we need dual platform products at this point in time Mathijs. You can thank Aces for the extra work load)... :wink: Thanks again Simwings for a winning decision here with Heathrow...
  24. Mathjis how would you break down Flight Simulator users? Your saying most purchases are for FSX yet when I look on all the major FS sights I see most freeware being produced for FS9 (both GA and Airliner). How do you explain that as it's clear FS9 is being embraced more than FSX at this point (at least by the community as a whole). Are there these one time buyers of FSX (and FSX related products) that never visit the web to see what's going on??? You can make a case all day but there are only a few of you (developers that is) reaching solely for FSX. Most are wanting to push that way but realize FSX isn't where it should be and many simmers are still using FS9. Bottom line is I don't have your sales numbers yet the word I'm hearing from my sources is the market is still hot for FS9 products. Put that all aside and just look at what sim most freeware guys are developing for, add that on top of what most payware developers are still developing for, then see what allot of people are talking about and it's clear FSX hasn't taken off the way you claim. Look at Avsim's front page today and see for yourself what sim most of the freeware of any substance is for... Mathjis I agree GA is an awesome development in FS (the ability to fly down low with a since of speed) but somethings not passing the smell test... I'd really like to know who these phantom purchasers of FSX related products are or should I say where they are. I sure don't see them represented in this day and age of the internet. No one get's involved with anything these days without searching out the support base on the 'World Wide Web'. Your argument makes it sound as if there's this huge segment of people that buy only FSX/FSX related products then takes them home to hide behind a couch without an internet connection (that's insane because they would at least have to search out and download the various FSX patches to get the sim to perform remotely decent on most machines. They would have to at some point find their way into the community for support one way or another). I know of no other computer hobby where alienation of the online community would be applicable. Online gaming is huge and pushes a perspective product along (heck even FSX built upon this with many new online features). We have years of this community building on top of FS and now all of a sudden with FSX that's no longer relevant (you and others constantly allude to more purchasers of FSX in the world than in this community that support, create, and buy the products). Not saying your being untruthful or anything like that but I'd like to know where these people are because it seems we've went backwards... How are these people receiving support among other things??? Now what makes since is a long time simmer like myself (for example) bought FSX and never uninstalled FS9. I would purchase any FSX related product for the new sim but FS9 is still alive and well on my new box. Most FS9 users at this point will buy FSX related products with hopes of totally moving over to that platform but have yet to abandon FS9. You hear these people very vocal in the forums. If I had the extra cash I'd have FSX myself along with Aerosoft's Aspen scenery with the same hopes. That's not to say FS9 is dead but that is to say people who have FSX up and running want more detailed places to fly. Many in this community don't purchase boxes so I don't know where those people come from :? but the basic point is this community is very well many of the one's purchasing FSX products because it makes since to do so if you've taken the time/trouble to have FSX installed, tweaked, and running. But to say FS9 is almost dead because of this is false due to the fact users have both sims installed and have to switch between the two for either GA or Airliner flying (something that should be unacceptable for the new sim). We still have a couple patches to go from Aces that will hopefully bring FSX fully to Vista with the headroom needed for add-ons. Until that happens FS9 will continue to be a player. The longer it takes for FSX to get up to speed the more people may decide not to even bother. Sorry for the long winded post... :wink:
×
×
  • Create New...