Dillon
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Dillon
-
-
Harpsi thanks for your effort on this, you always seem to be around when we need you...
-
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...
-
Just like Manhattan, something like this would look good in FS9.
-
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...
-
thx, but... i mean the " new texture files to improve performance" textures...
and i dont want to load again 150mb, only für some textures ;-)
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:
-
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:
-
could you upload for us the patch(not testpatch) so we dont need to wait until tomorow and dont need do download again egll?
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...
-
Dillion,
My install named the AF2_EGLL_Simwings as a bgl.
So yes change it to bgl.
Will do... Why was it call 'bgx' in the first place??? :shock:
-
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:
-
G3D.dll error has been always linked with corrupted textures - usually "bad" DTX1 format. I had the same problem with Imaginesim KDTW and Overland RJBB. Perhaps, it's better to check texture by texture to see what may cause the problem
I'm with you on this I just wish I had the time. I'm currently testing testpatch2 as I write this...
-
Can someone tell me why the original 'AF2_EGLL_Simwings' file has an extension of '.bgx' instead of '.bgl'??? :shock:
-
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:
-
Okay now it's out of the way as I could care a less about AES or FS2004 . Any Idea when we can expect the FSX version. Just general Idea is fine.
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:
-
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:
-
Awesome job!!!
I'm getting 0% framerate hit on my system; very good job Simwings...
-
I'm downloading now...
Simwings you made my weekend...
-
Great new feature...
-
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.
-
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:
-
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:
-
@WEA-JHD:
Did you read my posting? Where did I wrote "FS9 is ancient history". I think we all spent a lot of money for FS9 and now most don't want to loose it. Thats ok. Next thing is that you describe hardware issues. How was performance of FS9 on pc hardware of the year 2005? With Level-D and Manhanttan Scenery at KJFK it was not very good... like it is in FSX with hardware of early 2007. FSX on current hardware runs good the only thing we are missing are addons like AES and a couple of airliner sceneries from fly Tampa. Thats all... but mostly the critics are hardware issues and connected to that performance. I think it is already a myth most people are telling in every thread and every forum til we all belive it. Even with my E6300 and a 8600 GT I get decent framerats. Especially the Level-D takes nearly no FPS in FSX. It is well programmed even it is an "old" addon. My E6300 from Intel and my 8600GT is not top of the art hardware in September 2007. What do you think FSX would be like on a current hardware... that is the problem in my eyes: FS9 runs good on most pcs but as before (and also for FS9) we have to buy new hardware. Thats a normal thing and what is boring about that is that most criticsim about FSX is that people don`t want to buy new hardware. But we also needed it for FS9? If you would "bash" MS for that they released the SDKs too late so that scenerie and aircraft designer could not begin their work early enough... ok, good point. But it is always performance and hardware .. that is whats boring about it.
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... :?
Ok, lets end it. Btw I agree with you on that. I think that was the same with FS8 & 9. But we need this step we call FSX and I think if community and designers would not support FSX we could not get a FSXI we all hope for but this is future.. who knows when this will be? So far I am looking forward to all the nice FSX addons and still use my FS9 (just bought Casablanca scenery yesterday ^^).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...
-
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:
-
Ah, but there you see is a principal distinction that separates you from the ranks of happy FSX devotees. You like to fly airliners! Have you noticed a trend? Everyone I know who swears by FSX (rather than at it) is also an avowed GA/bush flier. I can usually tell when someone is hooked on shooting coupled ILS approaches in a 7xx by their frequent use of the term "eye candy"... just like anyone who refers to "spam cans" most likely spends their free time poking holes in clouds with a propeller. I'll be the first to admit that FSX offers a whole lot more to GA fliers than it does to airline captains. We use simpler aircraft that are gentler on our computers, and we stay down low where things like high-res ground and enhanced autogen pay off.
If I flew airliners more often, I'd probably still be firing up FS9 whenever I wanted to sim, so essentially we don't have much of a disagreement at all.
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 life your hardware would have FSX running like a top. A comparable system with any version of FS in the past a year into it's release would be screaming with your rig's setup (I hope you get my meaning here). There's no excuse you can't run Level-D's 767 at an optimal rate a year into FSX's release. FSX is still not patched fully for Vista/DX10 nor is it optimized to it's fullest potential. FS9 gives the perspective simmer everything he wants (GA, Airliner, Vintage, etc), with add-ons it looks very close to FSX. I have to say this again, most screen shots I see of FSX look like crap because most people can't run the thing at an optimal level (a month shy of a year into it's release). Mountains look like very smooth hills, the US west looks like the Sahara, there's more mistakes in ground elevation (mesh) around the world than with default FS9, etc... Even the FS9/FSX comparison shots presented above don't look hands down better than the FS9 shots I presented. Like I said mountains in FSX have lost that rugged edge they used to have in FS9 (although their not jumping around in the horizon), it's like the FSX ground textures are too smooth especially noticeable with mountain areas that don't have any custom mesh applied (and the user has autogen turned down or off). FSX is not knocking my socks off by any means... Both sim's give nothing that was requested in terms of better ATC, holding patterns, emergencies, AI spacing, etc. Even to the GA fliers nothing has changed much outside visuals (and the requirement for more hardware). I always felt like "Give me something Man" for my hard earned dollar on new hardware. I nor anyone in these forums asked for better visuals (sorry to say it FSX under accels in this area as well, it's far from ground breaking at this point. More like an incremental update to an existing engine). Everyone asked for everything under the sun and visuals was at the bottom of the list. Now all that's been forgotten about. I was one of the testers sending feedback off my machine to Aces concerning my FS usage. How does a sim get released that only caters to GA simming with no overhead for more complex add-ons when they monitored a great many people in this community before it's release??? I've never seen such a oneness with the add-on community as I saw with Aces before the release of FSX. Then the sim get's released and it may has well been developed without any input from anyone outside of Redmond. What was all the pandering about? Don't get me wrong I love the round Earth, Space flight, poles etc. Everything Mathijs mentioned above is great if you could run the darn thing all around. It saddens me that all this is acceptable in any since... :cry:
Chris Brisland, Holgers new Tongas Forges is going to be a blast in FSX. I may try it next year around Christmas 08 when I decide to get a new machine (If it's even worth it by then). I'm leaning towards FS11 if that ever becomes a reality...
Once again thanks SimWings for the FS9 effort...
-
As a low and slow flier in the main, I just can't agree Dillon. The mere fact of 1m/px or higher ground texture res as compared to a max of 5m/px means FS9 simply looks fuzzy when you get down low by comparison. Yes, adding haze makes FS9 look more realistic. But flying up high and using wide-angle views also masks the fact that when you're down low, the ground in the old sim just can't stack up. And we haven't even considered bump mapping, environment mapping, specular mapping, fresnel ramps, smoothly gradated alpha blends at the edges of custom ground polys, the round Earth, flying over the poles, dramatically improved water... I could go on. Sorry to sound like a Microsoft evangelist, but as you can probably tell I'm rather bullish on the new sim. That doesn't mean I don't swear at it when I'm trying to fly for fun (my rig is pretty old and crappy), but I can see the potential, and FSX is poised to be a real knockout once the addon community gets a good head of steam worked up. We're just getting started.
Bill concerning low and slow I have agree, FSX does appear in many cases to be the better of the two as long as your not flying in the US Southwest. I just hope you guys don't totally forget FS9 until FSX is officially up to speed with comparable performance on most machines. Aerosoft's Aspen would have been great in FS9. I suggested to Mathjis to do Jackson Hole to go along with Aspen. Hopefully if Jackson Hole (KJAC) is concidered it would be a dual plateform product.
Once again a thank you to SimWings for doing yet another awesome scenery to be enjoyed by all. Mathjis has been a great guy since the Lago days and if something makes since I know you'll concider it (I haven't forgot that last Huphrey Bogart suggestion you included in Casablanca)... Bill your stuff is always top notch. :wink:
New Afcad File For Lppt
in Aerosoft Scenery
Posted
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...