Jump to content

hartson

members
  • Content Count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About hartson

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo
  1. I'm running a lower spec PC (e.g. 1060) and the frame rates have been pretty good (25-30) given the complexity However the scenery does take a minute or so to settle when you load it up. Initial frame rates are very low. Again, as is seeming becoming the norm it's a huge download. The documentation I think is poor. In the past sceneries haven't had a huge level of complexity and therefore the documentation hasn't always been critical. In this case between the orthos, the seasons and the configuration tool there are a lot of variables in the set up. Personally I think it could have been made a lot clearer. Generally on performance issues once you have the basic game settings and then add to it performance for the scenery life can get complex. For some the challenge of getting the right balance will be interesting, for others it could be less enthralling. One other issue is the large numbers of marshallers touting for business at ever empty gate (in the cargo area in places it looks like a dance party) which looks anything but realistic. If there's a setting to thin them out I've yet to find it.
  2. I bought Manchester through Steam but I can't see that the recent 1.1 update has been made available there. How long does it take for updates to be made to Steam? Also what's the best way to check the version number on disk and on Steam?

  3. Thanks tried that and it worked without any problems. What remains is 2.30 gb. I've retained copies of what I've deleted although as I purchased from Steam a back up should always be available. If nothing else an integrity check may give me the files back even if unwanted! The Steam description doesn't show the disk space needed which given the size of the complete download might be worth changing. I do understand that for many purchasers the options that the download provides with the seasons is welcome and that there's a move in Flight Simulation for ever bigger data sets for more realism. However I live in Colombia and here leading edge hardware (including storage) is difficult to come by - or very expensive - and the internet speeds for many people are prohibitive on huge downloads. Of course we're a minority but it does present challenges. Manchester has had some mixed reviews online and one in particular is very negative. I've not got enough experience of paid scenery at this time to form a definitive opinion but for the price I paid it seems at least good value, stable and not a bad purchase. However I also bought DFW and given the detail and sheer geographic size of that airport the fact that it needs less than 1 gb and Manchester (with options removed) is twice that makes me question if the EGCC package is as efficient space wise as it could be. No doubt I'm missing something!
  4. I'm pretty new to Xplane but I did (via Steam) buy Manchester yesterday. I've bought some of your other sceneries so I was a little perplexed to see that Manchester is nearly 6 gb when installed on the my drive. I know that the scenery comes with seasonal variations and the Orthos and Options files make up the vast majority of the size. If I'm not interested in anything but the default Xplane season can I safely erase any of the folder contents and save myself some disk space? Much as I love EGCC 5.72 gb is lot of disk space.
  5. I haven't seen it here, but the FSC forum on simflight has it
  6. I've had Arlanda for a few weeks now and I'm not having any issues (FSX/W7). Sorry to hear about your problem. If you like Arlanda (despite the ILS issues) you'll love the new Oslo
  7. I think a package (as with Holiday airports) of smaller regional airports across the state would be interesting. Reno, Palm Springs and Monterrey . Each is surrounded by interesting scenery and given their size hopefully wouldn't be too hard on the frame rates?
  8. Much as I admire FSDTs work they release a lot fewer packages than Aerosoft do. I too am waiting for the FSX version but I'd rather wait for it to be ready, and in a fit state to be released. Sometimes I think that the reason we get less than optimal products (EHAM might be an example) is that there's so muc pressure from the forums to get the package out. Perhaps what is an interesting topic is why FS9 gets released ahead of FSX. Is it because it's an easier development process, a starting point for the FSX work or just the likelyhood of more immediate sales. In some cases there are already FS9 packages available (dated I grant) but no FSX which makes the decision odder. However I believe there must be some logic as to why FS9 is being staged ahead of FSX.
  9. I have all three working just fine with W7/64.
  10. Much as I like PMDG products, given the timeframe for developing the new 737 by the time the 777 sees the light of day it may be under a 'Classic Airliners' designation. The 737 for FS9 was a classic, but timeframe for developing the NG FSX product I think just goes to show how difficult and lengthy producing modern airline sims is. Which is a another reason that if a good 787 sim was produced it probably is a ways out..
  11. If, as I understand it trying to program a meaningfully complex 777 more than stretch FSX technology I'd imagine the 787 is one step further on. Personally I'm with Snave. I am also very cautious about people who release sims around the time the real aircraft hits the tarmac - the A380 being case in point. I think there's a grave danger of just buying a 'skin'.
  12. I can't see them doing KLAS again. They only did it recently didn't they?
  13. If you look at Fsdreamteam's forum it seems that they may do LIRF next, and one of the comments on there (as people want a US airport instead) is that Aerosoft have Europe covered! Wasn't Italy Lago terrority in the past?
  14. Living in the US I understand your points of view, but there are some place in Europe that are not so camera friendly either. London a year or two back went through a whole clampdown on people using cameras taking photographs of 'security targets' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7351252.stm I personally was asked a few questions by two wandering police officers as I took photos of the London Eye and the Houses of Parliament. Now, it's not as if there aren't already a few photos of those points of interest already (and about a zillion postcards). Having said that I didn't have any trouble on a recent trip back to London taking shots from the same spot! One issue that is coming up, and has been mentioned is that a SLR camera seems to provoke all sorts of interest whereas camera phones don't. That frankly is a little strange. I've heard you even get the same issue when going into soccer grounds in the UK. A SLR will get you the threat of being ejected, whereas a blind eye is turned to camera phones. Talking of secenry products for the US I've always thought it a shame that the smaller airports in the US don't get more attention. Although we're still short a few Mega-Airports a set of (say) California airports would make an interesting project; Monterey, Palm Springs, Burbank, Oakland, and Tahoe just as an example. And it would give you Europeans somewhere to fly in nice 'real' weather in the winter.... Getting back to the security issues at least my local airport (White Plains/KHPN) still has an observation deck. How I miss from my childhood the Queens Building at Heathrow Airport and the weekend trips there! Thought, is White Plains an interesting subject? Close enough to NYC but far enough away to be frame rate friendly, airline traffic jet and prop, more business jets than you can throw a large size stick at together with a local hub of GA?
×
×
  • Create New...