Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dillon

  1. Lisbon's 'Puente Vasco de Gama' bridge lights are hanging in the air...
  2. 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...
  3. Harpsi thanks for your effort on this, you always seem to be around when we need you...
  4. 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...
  5. Just like Manhattan, something like this would look good in FS9.
  6. 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...
  7. 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:
  8. 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:
  9. 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...
  10. Will do... Why was it call 'bgx' in the first place??? :shock:
  11. 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:
  12. I'm with you on this I just wish I had the time. I'm currently testing testpatch2 as I write this...
  13. Can someone tell me why the original 'AF2_EGLL_Simwings' file has an extension of '.bgx' instead of '.bgl'??? :shock:
  14. 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:
  15. 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:
  16. 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:
  17. Awesome job!!! I'm getting 0% framerate hit on my system; very good job Simwings...
  18. I'm downloading now... Simwings you made my weekend...
  19. 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
  20. 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:
  21. 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:
  22. 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 buil
  23. 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
  24. This justification of a sim that can only do half the job is disturbing. Like all FS versions before it, FSX should be able to perform all around (up high, down low, over major cities, etc). There should be plenty head room for add-ons no matter what the genre as that's what drives the FS franchise in the first place. If we're going to settle for half the experience maybe the name of FSX should be changed to "Microsoft General Aviation Simulator", then there would be no complaints. :roll: WEA-JHD (don't know your real name) you have more than enough hardware for any title. In another l
  • Create New...