Jump to content

Cheyenne Chief Pilot

Members
  • Content Count

    4454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Cheyenne Chief Pilot last won the day on February 19 2018

Cheyenne Chief Pilot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

829 Excellent

2 Followers

About Cheyenne Chief Pilot

  • Rank
    DA/AS CRJ - nope

Recent Profile Visitors

20015 profile views
  1. Fly into a massive wind shear in normal law and your Airbus *WILL* stall. The tricky thing is, the moment you enter that huge wind shear, your airspeed information becomes invalid, the Airbus therefore switches into alternate law, so your crash won't be in normal law anymore.
  2. Plain customers or also customers who coincidentally happen to be beta testers for Aerosoft, for example? I faintly remember dialogues via a certain skype group ...
  3. Point taken and you may want to edit those clarifying examples into your opening post - otherwise it might be slightly misleading for other customers as well who are seeking support for "normal" CRJ issues. I can perfectly relate to your experience: I had the AS buses working in FSX-MS until, some day, they refused to function. Installed the Steam edition of FSX next to my disk version and found that the buses work normally there. Have added a huge number of addons to that Steam addition since, but the buses continue to work. A likely explanation for the buses not working in my disk version anymore is some unidentified addon which might have broken something or created an incompatibility there. But how should AS support ever identify it?!?
  4. In Mathijs' own words (accentuation is mine): "Let me write some word on the pending release. Nobody on our side would call this project 'finished' at this moment. But it is 'good enough for release' in our eyes and we feel that the progress towards the 'final' version (if there is ever such a thing) will be faster and more customer orientated with the code on the customer's machines. This is not the same as releasing and using the customers as testers, we very well know what area still need work, but in discussion with the customers it will become more clear what the priorities should be. Now that sounds a bit 'fuzzy', I agree. What it boils down to is simple however, if you buy now you will get a steady stream of tweaks, fixes and new features over the cause of several weeks. Some people like that a lot, as they see their input being used, others find it highly annoying. The latter group we simply advise to wait a bit and buy the CRJ in two weeks. As always we'll be open and honest in discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of this release. As you know it was most certainly not one of our more simple developments and we seriously underestimated the complexity. As time progressed we had to keep up with the steady increase of complexity of add-ons and we were not aiming for a steady target but one that was moving forward all the time. It's like flying a complex aircraft, if you get 'behind the aircraft' it is damned hard to catch up." In all seriousness, this doesn't sound like a problem that only affects "0.1% of customers" ... I venture into saying that this release was at least two months too early, and that it affects customers much more broadly. Don't get me wrong, though: The concept of this title is very convincing. It's "medium-depth with a plus" - as reflected already in the price of the product. Many systems and details already support this aspiration. But some bugs and omissions are glaring, and a few systems are not yet up to the level other systems already are. I am sure, though, that in about two months this software will look even more convincing to even more people. And, frankly speaking, that's when it should be/should have been released. Just my 0.02., obviously ...
  5. How did the bugs get round testing?

  6. ... you may want to check those dll's too: Bryan York (himself!) tested the VAS impact of his FS2Crew NGX edition (no external exe; it's dll-based): It's some 170 MB in VAS. http://forum.avsim.net/topic/420220-so-how-much-virtual-memory-does-fs2crew-use-anyway/
  7. Someone mentioned the lighting in FTX-G as a possible, VAS-increasing factor? I'm puzzled 'cause I was trying to back up Otto's flight - but I have more VAS left with LGTS default than Otto has with LGTS lite II. Simply put, Thessaloniki X is (just ) for me ...
  8. AXE at LGTS in its factory state (no lite), all options enabled in the LGTS manager, real wx according to ASN gives me a max. of 3.2 GB VAS. I have not disabled any scenery layers (so even 0.4 GB more to spare), I do not use "global" addons - no FTX-G, no such night lighting etc. Instead I run Heli Traffic which injects extra helicopter traffic, on top of MT2010 (both sliders at 20%).
  9. Have you checked your VAS at the other airports (where you had departed from) and have you checked what happened to your VAS once you settled in cruise? I did two separate flights (FSX shut down and restarted in between), one from EGLL (ORBX and UK2000), the other one from LGTS: During both departures my VAS was "tight" (some 4.0 GB - I wanted it that way for testing purposes). Settling in cruise after departing EGLL my VAS usage reduced to 3.5 GB, after departure from LGTS it was "only" 3.2 GB. So my EGLL departure gave me an additional "VAS burden" of 0.3 GB which I probably would have carried with me into LGTS on arrival. (In other words: Thessaloniki X seems to "unload" VAS in a more efficient way than some other sceneries.) The LGTS efficiency has been mentioned before in this thread, but maybe less efficient departure sceneries contribute to your VAS findings here, when arriving LGTS? Have you checked your "VAS burden" you were carrying with you from your TOD, for example?)
  10. Thanks for retesting, Otto. Even though Bojote's tweaks are a bit outdated (geared at older graphics cards) they yield far better results as far as VAS usage is concerned? That's really odd ...
  11. What SCE does, it "almost" sets your scenery.cfg back to a vanilla FSX installation state: Hardly any more entries active than those from the "FSX base pack". And that's what Mathijs and Emilios have been referring to a couple of times: LGTS works just fine in its factory state with just "plain" FSX, realistic weather and a nice (or even a "heavy") addon aircraft active. And that's exactly what's so outstanding about this freeware SCE: Despite my nearly 600 scenery layers, I can still run the full-blown LGTS as if my FSX were in its "virgin" state - what it obviously isn't.
  12. Sorry, Otto, I cannot confirm your findings. Your setup (vs. mine): setting "Lite" (setting "default"!!!) default C172 (dto.) from rwy 16 with 2020 MB VAS left, flew a right hand circle at 1000ft and landed again on rwy 16 (dto.) with 950 MB VAS left. (1.600 MB VAS left) After every 90° turn VAS droped by approx. 200 MB. (400 MB for the complete traffic pattern) nearly vanilla fsx.cfg (see the no. of my scenery layers above. I still have 400 MB of additional free VAS to gain by disabling unnecessary scenery.) FSX settings (see my cfg file linked above) That's your 1.000 - 1.100 MB loss in VAS vs. my 400 MB VAS loss. You lose 1 GB in "lite" configuration, while I lose only 0.4 GB in "heavy"?
  13. How will the configurator be offered to customers of flightsimstore? Can they download from their FSS account? At least there doesn't seem to be an entry for LGTS X yet in the Aerosoft FAQ/Updates database.
  14. Not yet in there - but that should be a matter of ... hours only? Anyhoo, my safety margin (0.4 GB) stems from disabling other scenery areas - no "castratorv3.0" needed!
×
×
  • Create New...