helialpin
-
Posts
322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by helialpin
-
-
An Austrian A321 and the Austrian Retro Bird (A320) are finished, the Lufthansa Retro Bird needs some more work. But next weekend I´m thinking of doing at least one other paint. No idea which one. let´s see.
-
If it should be one of the list, I´d take the A4! But what´s about something french like the Super Entendard, Jaguar or the new Rafale? Or anything from Russia? For me a really good SU-27 / Su-33 would be great!
Or if your programmers need a challenge I´m voting for the famous Harrier!
-
1
-
-
Hi Archhammer!
First post and a way of language which shows me that I can´t take you serious
But: Snave is right on the issue that the DA FSX Katana is just a quick and dirty port over from FS9 and I care a lot about those things because it won´t work under DX10 preview which is an essential issue for me (runs way smoother than DX9) and it´s not frustrating for me buying the "new" Katana from Marcel (rather having paid for the losy port over which can be done for owners of the FS9 version with some tweaking by themselves).
Well calling someone "dumb ass", "bitch" etc. on a public forum - hmmm... should I comment on that? No I don´t want to comment that one! It just shows me the IQ of a poster!
Have a nice evening!
-
2
-
-
I´ve seen some pics of a swiss paint but none of a Edelweiss. Maybe I´ll have a closer look at this paint. Doesn´t seem to be too hard! But I can´t promise anything.
-
Hi guys!
I need your help on the shown project below. I couldn´t find the right font for the "LUFTHANSA" lettering. If anyone could point me to the correct (freeware)font or a high quality foto where I can "draw" the writing (I had a look at airliners.net but couldn´t find a pic where the writing was taken big enough and with 90°) I´d be happy. So here´s just a little teaser. Only the fuselage is made and don´t care about the color change at the wing section of the fuselage. It´s already changed. Take it a s early Alpha with many parts beeing adjusted:
-
1
-
-
Hi Andi,
I don't know why my post got a -1 since I was 100% positive.... I didn't say it was too light, I was just saying it was better than before (all the opposite !!).
And I really like your wing..; GREAT JOB and thank you for taking my previous remarks into consideration !!
Cheers,
Greg
Hi Greg!
Don´t know about the -1 too! I wouldn´t care about such things too much. OK, the "too light" was a misunderstanding by me but for me it seems to be too light and of course, every feedback given to my paints will be checked! I´m glad if you like the paint, especially the wings although the main part was done by Stefan in the latest paint kit. I´ve just adjusted them to what I think it should look like. Maybe Stefan won´t like it.
Concerning the question about the new set from Stefan: I don´t know what others will do but I´m always using the latest version of the paintkit and update my paints to it. So my paints will be adjusted and no additional work should be necessary
-
1
-
-
Very nice but I think the wing grey is too dark compare to reality and the same apply to the engine nacelle (it should be more mat polished light grey).
Just to be perfect !!
Greg
Hi Greg!
Concerning the Austrian A321 you wrote the above and I hope that my new wing color of the A320 will fit your suggestion. The engine nacelle was changed to this very light grey to be able to adjust it to a darker tone easily. So that´s still work in progress (as you can see at the rear door missing the red frame) and I´m working on it but it made me laugh to read your post about the too light color of the nacelle! You made my day! Thanks for the comment!
-
Some more work in progress. There´s still a lot to do (lines matching not 100%, back door isn´t finished, etc.) but I hope you´ll get an idea what it should look like at the end:
-
1
-
-
why do you have this bus already?? beta-tester?? and not yet made an ils approahc?
He´s doing repaints for this Airbus and so he should be able to put his textures somewhere to check. I think that´s the reason.
-
1
-
-
Very nice but I think the wing grey is too dark compare to reality and the same apply to the engine nacelle (it should be more mat polished light grey).
Just to be perfect !!
Greg
I´ll try to make it as perfect as possible so if anyone can provide a good pic where I can identify the color of the wing areas (most of the ones I found were too dark or too bright)I´ll do my best to chang that issue!
-
Try this link:
It´s named as FS2004 scenery but in the description line there you´ll find FSX V1.00. But I´m not 100% sure if that is the new version. Let´s see when the official announcement comes.
-
Maybe you´ll try this for the logo:
Or maybe that one:
Or are they not good enough?
For a pic maybe you can use this one:
Or have a alook here:
Hope this helps
-
Really cool! Great pics! I think I´ll have to do some cross wind trainings there! Good work!
-
Since Mathijs gave a rough list of which liverys they have official so far I keep asking myself why they did make the FlyNiki Livery and not the more important Austrian ones....There are far more Airbus Aircraft operated by Austrian than by FlyNiki....
21 Airbus Aircrafts operated by Austrian,
9 Operated by FlyNiki
(Figures taken of official Homepages of these Airlines)
Just my 0,02€
(and yes, I know that not every livery for every Operator in the world could be done - I am just curious )
don´t worry! Still not finished
-
1
-
-
It´s the same discussion going on in the Airbus thread: hardcore (airliner) simmer vs. the rest. This discussion is absolutely senseless (in my eyes) because there´s no "right way" using FS.
Just my 2cents on this: if your Huey is just an easy to fly Huey (easier or as easy as the default FSX Bell 206) I won´t buy it (but many others will). If you´re going for a high realistic flight model, I´ll buy it for sure (but many others won´t). And if you´re going to make an easy to fly basic model with an additional small fee for more realistic flight dynamics, I´ll buy both parts (and many others a least the simple version).
-
Hi Shaun!
Here´s a statement copied out of the German Version of your product description:
Wenn Sie die vielen Inseln mit einem Wasserflugzeug (oder einem Amphibienflugzeug wie unserer Twin Otter oder Catalina) erkunden, werden Sie sehen,...my English isn´t perfect so here just a try to translate: "if you explore the big number of islands with a float plane (or an amphibium plane, like our Twin Otter or Catalina), you´ll see..."
so I think this part is the reason for the missunderstanding.
@Thorsten: Chris Brisland made already a beautiful repaint for the Aerosoft Twin Otter (TMA) which can be found at flightsim.com: TMA repaint Aerosoft Twin Otter at flightsim.com
-
Well, this is incorrect. The Remos is for sure an ultralight according to European standards. Believe me, I know it, because I fly it
In the US, it is in the LSA segment.This is for sure one of the best ultralights out there on the market and it is leading sales in the LSA class. I already thought about modelling it, because I would like to use it for training, when I am not flying. However, the flight model in FSX was never satisfying for me. Maybe this will change with the new aerosoft sim. If it does, I will most probably go for it, if it is not modelled by Aerosoft directly.
I´ve started to model this bird some time ago because our aeroclub has one too but never finished it. Maybe I´ll have a look where it is right now. But it would be still a lot of work and it was the "old" G3 Version.
Concerning the MTOW of UL´s: the maximum MTOW for UL´s in Europe is 450kg. If there´s a rescue system on bord (parachute system for the whole plane) the MTOW is raised up to 472,5kg. For the Remos: the MTOW of the UL-version is exactly 472,5kg with the rescue system but there´s also a LSA-version available with a MTOW of 650kg. So you have to be carefull which version you choose! And I can tell you that Austria won´t tolerate aircraft with more than 472,5kg as UL.
-
# Single Trainer/ GA. A C182, C172 or PA28 would be fine although I´d LOVE to see a Diamond DA40 or a good DV/DA 20
# Helicopter. The very poular AS 350 B3 would be fine (I can provide pictures if you need - just tell me what you´d like to see). And of course the R-22 as trainer.
# Ultralight. Ever thought about a Gyrocopter? Next to this an Eurostar, CT or Remos would be great. If you need pictures, that wouldn´t be a problem for me
-
first of all I think the concept of the Microsoft FS-series providing a good "operating system" with enough features implemented for the casual users to have fun is the right way! Leave things like hyperrealistic ariports, superspecialfeatureairliners in the hand of third party developers. And my biggest wish of all would be not to be able using old MSFS stuff inside the new sim! A totally new start!
ATC something like the FSX-ATC but using the correct terms and procedures of the part of the world you´re flying and not the US-sysetm all over the world. For the "as real as it gets" users there are VATSIM and IVAO but for all others and offline simmers a basic ATC should be implemented.
A really good weather engine and I don´t mean just textures or simple visuals but thermal lift, turbulances, icing, dew point, CBs, rain, runway condition hooked on the weather, etc.
flightdynamics and aircraft systems different flight models for the specific type of aircraft: jet, turboprop, piston, helicopter (don´t forget multi engine here), glider,... and not just a screwed up Cessna for all. And really good flight dynamics include variable realism setting from beginners to advanced and things like slipping, damage if overstressed, stall behavior, spinning, power loss (piston engine) referring to the density altitude, etc. should be possible in the right way and if it´s too hard for the default aircraft it should be possible to implement easily for 3rd party devs.
good documentation / SDK make it simple and cheap to develop addons. It should be really easy to create small Addons for everyone. And please create a good SDK. And if you´re planning to make something like the air-file make it easy to change settings.
operating system don´t forget OSX or Linux! I´ve been using FSX in an iMAC for a while and it was really great but bootcamp and parallels haven´t been a good solution.
no spezialisation a very important point for me is to keep the sim interesting for EVERYONE. Not just for hardcorefreaks, heavy metal-lovers or UL-hoppers but also for gamers, eyecandy fans and aviation nerds.
graphic engine have a look at the upcoming "rise of flight" simulator. Screenshots look very good (for me) specially concerning the visual change of the environment / ground if you´re getting higher and higher.
I´ve many more ideas but I think it´s enough for the moment. But at all: much luck for this big project and I´m really happy to see that someone like aerosoft is seriously thinking of creating a successor of FSX!
-
interessante Ansichten. Um mal in Peters Argumentationsweise zu bleiben: was soll ich mit dem ganzen Eyecandymist. Ich brauch das nicht also laßt es genz einfach weg. Genau diese Denkweise stört mich doch sehr. Nur weil ICH etwas nicht brauch, heißt das doch noch lange nicht, das es andere nicht wollen oder?
Die VFR-Airfields sind in der Qualität, wie sie Rolf und ich umsetzen, eh auf dem absterbenden Ast. Die Stückzahlen rechtfertigen nicht den Aufwand. Das diskutiere ich mit Rolf schon seit geraumer Zeit. Das Interesse an den kleinen Plätzen ist im Vergleich der Community die die großen Pötte zum Einsatz bringen verschwindend klein.Sicher? Wäre denn nicht genau hier eben doch der "Standardbaukasten" der bessere Weg, da dadurch Aufwnad und Preis in einem besseren Verhältnis stehen?
Eine Lite- und Vollversion macht gar keinen Sinn! Da muß ich Oliver vollkommen recht geben. Der Umsatz bricht zu gunsten der Liteversion ein und bedeutet noch mehr Aufwand.Das versteh ich nicht ganz. Warum bricht der Umsatz zugunsten der lite Version ein, wenn es doch, so wie Du vorher geschrieben hast, keinen Markt dafür gibt? Also gibt´s doch den Markt nur hat man Angst, dann zu wenige Kunden für die "Vollversion" zu haben?
Und das Argument mit dem Mehraufwand - ich komm nicht drauf. Vielleicht kann´s mir ja wer auch für Dummies erklären: wenn ich das AFCAD file und die Gebäude ohnehin erstellen muß, ist die liteversion doch nur ein früheres Stadium des Vollprodukts und keine Stand alone Lösung.
Wie schon geschrieben. Wir Entwickler sind an dem Punkt angekommen, weil der Großteil die Features und Detailtrue haben will.Vielleicht auch mangels Alternative. Stell ich einfach mal so in den Raum
Ich ärgere mich immer noch über sinnlose Bemerkungen weil irgendetwas nicht im FSX DX10 Preview funktioniert.ich ärgere mich als Anhänger von DX10 im FSX (da es meiner Performance hilft) darüber, dass meine Bemerkungen hierzu von jemandem, der mir etwas verkaufen will, als sinnlos vorgehalten werden. Genau diese Einstellung hat mich (und nicht nur mich) im Übrigen vom Kauf der VFR-Airfields abgehalten obwohl ich im FS9 alle Teile gekauft und gerne geflogen bin
Allerdings zeigt die Diskussion für mich auch, dass es seitens mancher Entwickler offenbar auch gar kein Interesse gibt, die hier vorgebrachten Argumente mal zu überprüfen bzw. auszuprobieren, ob eine lite-version was bringen würde.
-
Danke für das update. Die Frage ist, ob es für Aerosoft denkbar wäre, die downloadversion 1.2 für User der Boxversion verfügbar zu machen oder ob das nicht möglich ist.
-
ich find die Diskussion gut und wäre auch für eine gewisse Art Masse statt Klasse. Den Mehraufwand seh ich nicht ganz so, denn eigentlich könnte die lite Version ja schon VOR der Heavy-Version erscheinen, also in einem Entwicklungsstand, der eben noch nicht mehr bietet als z.B. AFCAD files und die Gebäude. Dadurch käme auch der Entwickler schon früher an etwas Kohle und müßte nicht eine so lange Durststrecke durchhalten und auch noch Gefahr laufen, dass ihm wer zuvor kommt. Und wer dann gerne noch die ganzen Gepäckwagerl, Fueltrucks, Autobahnzubringer samt Hinweisschilder, Werbetafeln, etc. haben will, bekommt die als kostenpflichtiges Update nachgeliefert.
Ich persönlich hätte zwar gerne einiger der schon veröffentlichten Airports gekauft, alleine um die falschen default zu ersetzen aber dafür, dass ich sie dann vielleicht nur eine handvoll mal anfliege, ist´s mir einfach zu teuer.
Da ich ohnehin eher kleine Airports und Airfields anfliege, hab ich so gut wie keinen großen Airport mehr gekauft. Oft wirklich nur wegen dem Preis und den vielen Gimmicks, die ich einfach nicht brauche. Vielleicht wär wirklich eine Art Modulsystem ein möglicher Weg. Und das Zerreissen der Szenerien bei bestimmten reviewern findet ohnehin statt. Egal wie man´s macht, ist es falsch.
-
Looks really great! Can´t wait to fly my DODO Bell to Africa!
-
Das ist offenbar aber kein Problem von Aerosoft generell sondern wohl eher ein Problem mancher Entwickler. Die FSX-Katana ist bis heute nicht DX10 fähig, ebenso die DO27, etc. obwohl die Twin Otter u.v.a es schon sind. Bei den Szenerien das Selbe! Und dass die Dokumentation so schlecht sei, ist auch nur eine Ausrede. Bei OrbX in Australien ist ALLES DX10 fähig. Und da weiß ich wovon ich spreche. Ganz richtig kann diese Aussage auch nicht sein, Sascha denn sowohl Tahiti als auch Lord Howe funktionieren gut unter DX10
Aber gut zu wissen, dass manche bei Aerosoft offenbar kein Interesse an meinem Geld haben! Da ich ja nun weiß, dass funktionstüchtuge Addons unter DX10 reiner Zufall sind, werd ich wohl lieber keine Szenerien mehr hier kaufen!
Austrian A320/A321
in Aircraft General
Posted
Done for A321 standard and A320 retro:
project liveries thread
and
project liveries thread