MatthiasKNU
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by MatthiasKNU
-
-
Dear Thorsten,
Thank you for your message, I hope that my many points will help you to improve Munich!
Am 3.10.2023 um 08:34 schrieb MatthiasKNU:I myself would - if it would help a little - hang for days on the fence and photograph every angle that can be seen from the outside.
Oh well, this offer is still valid of course!
-
Dear @Aerosoft Team,
Now that almost half a year has passed and things are getting more and more concrete with Frankfurt:
Is there finally a commitment to a better MUC?
-
1
-
2
-
-
Mine for this month:
Leaving Munich
-
1
-
-
Hello all.
Yesterday I was briefly at MUC, and I noticed sooo many errors again... sorry.
I have now again photographed the most serious and put together here:The south front of T2 - here you can see very nicely what doesn't fit here:
The antennas on the T2 are also completely missing.
South Hill: What is that, please?
This is what it should look like:
This was already done better in the ancient version of the German Airports Team for FS9!
The water reservoir in the north is not flat - otherwise the water would run out.
In the south, along the road, a wall was heaped up quite a long time ago:
The part between the two parking garages is not only glass:
The fact that the advertising is not correct, the contrast between glass surfaces and ceiling elements at the MAC, traffic signs are missing I will overlook now.
In the northeast, some taxisigns are missing from the turnpad:
Very serious: trees! How could I have overlooked that until now!
The whole airport is green, no desert like in the SimWings variant!
Hundreds and thousands of trees are standing around at MUC, here only a small section:
On the approach to 08R, there is a rather prominent farm directly in front of the airport area - this was even included in the P3D variant. In the MSFS version it is even missing completely.
Dear @Aerosoft Team, dear SimWings-Team (@autopiloth) - By now this thread has more than 4500 views - more than almost any other post in this forum. This shows that there is really interest in a good MUC.
Please, please, please - Improve MUC.
Or maybe @Jo Erlend- one of the best developers there is - might take on MUC sometime in the future (after FRA...)? It would definitely be worth the wait.... I myself would - if it would help a little - hang for days on the fence and photograph every angle that can be seen from the outside.-
5
-
2
-
2
-
-
Then here is mine for this month:
Just arrived with a Lufthansa A320 in Munich
-
2
-
-
Meanwhile more than 2 months have passed - are there any news from @Aerosoft Team or SimWings?
-
1
-
-
vor 20 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:
Of course, that is possible, but that easily triples the amount of polygons and resource use. For a smallish object like this, not a problem, but that just leaves the next object that could use a few more polygons open to discussion.
A good modeler (and this project is done by one!) will decrease the level of detail the further you get from a normal viewpoint. The image you show is a view that is simply not where an aircraft crew would ever see it. When I look at it from a closeby stand, it is not something that stands out in my opinion. If I would be the modeler, I would not add more polygons to this object. If I had some to spare, I would always use them to make a very close more detailed object.
You are absolutely right, a good scenery is also characterised by saving polygons in unimportant areas and also using LODs.
The Lufthansa logos are also directly on the stands - i.e. really in the viewing area from the cockpit, and even there you can see the corners very clearly. Therefore - yes, it really stands out.
However, I have to agree with Timm here:
A few more polygons definitely wouldn't have hurt - but it's simply due to the fact that the models were originally created for XP, then some polygons were (probably) removed and the whole thing was adapted to P3D.
As we all know, MSFS can handle many, many, many more polygons as P3D. Since the scenery was only transferred to MSFS, unfortunately no more adjustments were made to these models here, although MSFS would have had many more possibilities.-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Dear SimWings team,
first of all I would like to say thank you - thank you for not losing sight of MUC, and for this update - even free of charge! That is not a matter of course, so thank you for that!
I had already noted some inconsistencies in the P3D version, which I have now found again in the "new" version, and a few more points. I would like to share these with you in the hope that the MUC will be improved again.
Many who don't know the MUC in real life might say that you can't see these little things. But that is not the case. If little things are missing on the land side, then you can overlook them.
But in some places - especially on the airside, which you see any time you're flying in and out of MUC - there are big mistakes.I already have a whole list, so I would now like to try to list everything in a more structured way:
Starting in the East, Terminal 2 and also Terminal 2 Satellite:
1. Unfortunately, the colour of the glass surfaces at Terminal 2 is still not right. The glass surfaces are very characteristically greenish. It depends on the incidence of light, but they ALWAYS have a greenish shimmer.
With the P3D, I was tempted to say that the P3D couldn't display it properly at all. But the MSFS should be able to do that.Here's how it looks like:
... and what it should look like in different light conditions:
2. The O2-Advertisments on the Jetways are gone since a few months:
3. Even if it's not quite trivial: the jetways also have the stand number on them, which is completely missing!
vs. Real:
4. North of stand 213 the exhaust air stacks are completely missing!
5. The sunshades are shown as a white grid in the scenery, but in reality they are grey and not a simple grid.
6. Terminal 2 itself lacks many, many details such as doors, windows, rolling doors, entrances, etc.
7. Many small details such as canopies are completely missing.
8. With the many "M" on the facade, the "/" stroke slowly but steadily changes colour.
In the scenery it is simply shown in white, which doesn't really fit at all. Either coloured, or the colour changes through.
9. In my opinion, the biggest mistake in the scenery: The south and north sides of Terminal 2 have NOTHING to do with reality.
10. The connectors between jetway and terminal should be made of glass
11. There are no pillars on the jetways, which are mounted on Terminal 2 without a connector.
That's the big things about T2 for now.
Let's Continue...
Terminal 1 (i.e. the "old" part) is also missing several details, as can be seen here:
The jetways that are "built into" the scenery at Terminal 1 have unfortunately not existed for many years. At least the O2-Advertisments are ok, but the front part of the jetway is much more angular and a "M" with the stand number is on it.
The glass surfaces at Terminal 1 also have a slight green sheen, but this is nowhere near as prominent as at Terminal 2:
Inside the Airport:
The Advertisment in the Munich Airport Center (The one with the A380...) is already since 5 years replaced with a different one (To be honest, I was in the MAC just last week, but I can't tell off the top of my head which advertisements are on it at the moment).In general: Even if it is not that important to me personally, it has become standard for sceneries in this price range that the interior is modelled properly. MUC is such a beautiful airport - also from the inside - it would be a pity if there were no improvements.
To stay in the MAC:
The MAC as a whole seems very, very loveless. On the west side, the buildings are also much, much, much too far apart. In real life, they are much closer together:
Coming to the Tower:
The tower is also missing many details, especially the ladders in the north:
Also, what doesn't fit at the Tower either: At night, only "individual windows" are illuminated - not entire "rings".
Unfortunately, the main fire station also lacks a lot of detail, even though you always taxi past it with the plane.
Hangar area:
The Audi driving training area is clearly separated from the apron by barriers with AUDI advertising and fences. These are completely missing.
Even though it's nice to have some cargo standing around at the cargo terminal - there could be a lot more, and not so neatly lined up. It looks very sterile.
Well, unfortunately there is a lot missing at the fuel depot.
Ladders at the tanks, distribution system, station, overhead lines, in real life there is ALWAYS a tanker train on the tracks, in the background there is a large truck car park... Everything is simply missing here.
Around both runways you will find trees and large bushes everywhere that don't belong there!
This has become a real no-go.
In the last picture you can also see how one measuring station is completely missing!While we're at it: The lamp posts on the Turnpads are orange and white striped!
In general, it would be nice if de-icing vehicles were also parked at the pads in winter!
The topic of taxiways:
The taxiway edge lights only pop up in the dark when rolling onto a taxiway bridge. This should be corrected.In places the taxiways are not displayed correctly:
In general about the runway/taxiway/apron textures:
The textures don't look quite right. Both colour and structure just don't seem right.
Unfortunately, it's just very difficult to describe, it's just the impression when you know the airport and see the scenery in comparison. It just doesn't seem right.
To the grassy areas: The "grass colours" look very, very dry and desaturated. This may be appropriate in September - but most of the year the grass looks completely different.
Either more yellow/brownish in winter, or really rich green in spring/summer. Even if it's not quite easy, would it be possible to implement 2/3 seasons here?
The last item on my list for now: Could the parking codes in AFCAD be adapted? It makes your toenails curl when Emirates, Condor or Air France park at Terminal 2 and Lufthansa planes at Terminal 1.
So much for now - but there may be more to come.
As I said at the beginning - it is not my intention to make the scenery look bad, but to constructively help to make the scenery look better, so that it looks more like MUC, and not like a European airport thrown together.
I know that the scenery is based on MisterX's models for the XPlane, then converted for P3D and now brought into the MSFS, so it is quite limited.
But at the same time it has to be said that for a scenery in this price range (24,95 €) you can expect the best quality in MSFS. Unfortunately, this does not quite fit together yet.
I myself have been a plane spotter at MUC for many years and have many thousands of photos on my PC (well, of the planes of course, but you can also see something of MUC in the background...).
If you need pictures, please contact me! If necessary, I can also go to the airport to take pictures.
I wish you all another beautiful Sunday!
-
1
-
2
-
17
-
Sorry if I bring out this old thread again.
I have also had this problem for almost 3 years...
But now I think I have found the cause:
Apparently the Predictive Windshear function has a problem with the Enhanced Atmospherics.
As long as I don't switch on PRED W/S, the A330 runs without problems even with Enhanced Atmospherics active, and long-haul flights are possible again!
Maybe it will help someone else....
-
1
-
-
vor 23 Minuten schrieb Mathijs Kok:
Dear Mathijs,
I have a question, since you show such a wonderful picture here:
Both in pictures and my personal impression from visits to Airbus cockpits was that the letters look a little "finer" overall on the displays, but the Bloom makes them look a little larger and softer, blurrier again.
In the airbusses for the P3D, the letters look rather hard and somehow too bold (I know, that's just an impression that's not true at all!).
Is it somehow possible to add this " blurry " to the MSFS version?
(Of course, I know that some people will then come forward again and say that the displays are blurred. I also realise that all the pictures so far are WIP).
I think that would be a real step forward in the direction of immersion, it would be really great if you could implement something like that somehow.
-
1
-
-
vor 14 Stunden schrieb andre760li:
if I read it correcly, the total fuel capacity will be 76,5t right? (so 11.000km, as my previous post said, is not reachable...maybe only ferry, but not in normal ops)
Most of the preview pictures of the A330 here shows us the Lufthansa A330-343X D-AIKO. All Lufthansa´s D-AIK´s have a max fuel capacity of 78,0t. So will there be any option to add or update the feature of that fuel capacity?
DLH, ACA, SWR, SVA, THY, ETD, VIR, CPA and the most of the current A330-300 operators are flying the A330-343. This is the unofficially called A330-300E or A330-300X.
The A330-343 has an additional center fuel tank installed, giving it a total of 109185 kg of fuel.
As far as I know - please correct me, if I'm wrong - Aerosoft creates the "normal" A330-300 without the center fuel tank.
By the way - As far as I know (but what do I know?!), Aerosoft uses the RR Trent 772B-60 or Trent 772C-60 for the A330. By the way, these would be the engines for the A330-343 variant.
-
2
-
-
vor 24 Minuten schrieb Pavel1971:
My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model.
Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel.
In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside
The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.?
Yes, it is true that the "normal" A330-300s do not have a fuel dump capability by default.
This is because the A330-300 has the smallest tank (97,000 liters) and can therefore land *relatively* safely even with a full tank.
However, it can of course be added at the request of the airline, but was done very rarely.
The situation is quite different for the A330-200, the A340s and also for aircraft unofficially designated as A330-300X or A330-300E (which actually almost all airlines have in operation, which come as livery with the AS A330).
These all have larger fuel tanks, with the center fuel tank added on the A330-300X/E. For this reason (more fuel), the fuel dump system is standard here.
Aerosoft creates - as far as I can tell - the A330-300X/E (as I said, this is the unofficial designation for the variants that have the higher takeoff weight and thus the additional fuel tank).
At least in the P3D this version was implemented, but without taking into account the peculiarities of the -300X/E version.
Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, Brussels Airlines, Swiss Air, Air China, Air Canada, Cathay, Turkish - all are operating the -300X/E.
-
3
-
-
vor 8 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:
Was doing tests on the lighting and decided to share a few last images before the festive weekend. Do note I did find some things that need to be corrected, so as always, work in progress and no need to point out things! Solid 60 fps on my system btw.
[...]
[...]
Do I understand correctly that a cabin is now modelled after all?
I think it's great, especially after the statements made some time ago that the windows were only painted...
-
vor 10 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:
We have no major plans for functional updates.
That in itself is a great pity and (for me at least) also surprising.
Are there any plans at all for the future of NDP, or will it simply die within the next few years, similar to PFPX?
-
Hello everyone!
First of all, yes, this post may be influenced by the release of Navigraph Charts version 8.
I am just a little surprised that there have been no updates to the NDP charts for a long time.
Yet the NDP charts have a really outstanding unique selling point: the LiDo charts.
I myself don't want to leave LiDo for anything in the world, I simply can't deal with the Jeppesen charts. And I'm sure there are many who see it the same way.
But I also have to say that Navigraph is becoming more and more attractive simply because of the many, many pleasant functions "around it" and also because of the significantly more functions provided by the software.
Now the NDP charts are of course not only interesting for FSX or P3D users, but also for MSFS users.
That's why I'm simply asking the question here: In what form will the software for the NDP charts be further developed, and if not, why not?-
2
-
-
My picture for this month, a new one:
Unloading in Munich:
-
2
-
-
More than 5 years ago, back in the P3Dv3 times, a fanstastic aircraft has been released, the Do228:
-
1
-
-
Great theme this month, and don't worry, real life always comes first!
Climbing out of my all time favorite airport Munich!
-
2
-
-
A rather old picture from my side....
Approaching Graz Thalerhof on a Eurowings rotation from and to Düsseldorf.
-
2
-
-
gerade, mopperle sagte:
No, as long as Flightsimsoft is willing to give/sell the sourcecode to somebody else. And this is extremly unlikely.
That's what I thought, yes.
-
That's such a shame to hear - I've been using PFPX for many years at least, and it's just so much better than all the other alternatives put together.
Unfortunately, there is no chance that other developers will continue this project?
In any way - thanks for the information!
-
3
-
-
This really looks fantastic!
Just because I read that after Brussels it's Munich...
Does the plan still look like this?
I'm already looking forward to Munich, even if it will still take a while...
-
1
-
-
vor 35 Minuten, Secondator sagte:
Quick question to people experiencing issues with the fuel predictions on the FMGS: Are you uploading the enroute winds for the flight in the FMGS?
Thank you for looking into this.
Yes, i do upload the winds in the FMGS, I am using ASP4. The arrival time prediction is pretty accurate, so there seems to be nothing wrong.
-
Just departed in Tenerife, and I have taken a few pictures of the problem:
Moments after takeoff - everything looks ok:
Then retracted the flaps, and looked again on the MCDU - the FOB was wrong:
SimWings EDDM v2 - A lot of improvements
in Airports
Posted
Dear Thorsten,
Thank you very much!
Of course I realise that many of the improvements are not quite so simple!
I also don't see a highly detailed interior, for example, as being that important, but in the end the performance has to be right as well!
Nevertheless, there are of course some important aspects, especially concerning the colors or many details on the airside, e.g. the many doors/roller doors/details on the "ground" of the terminals, trees, or the south side of Terminal 2.
I have already sent you some pictures by PM, I hope they help!
Here, so that others can also see the pictures, but the ones mentioned:
The Audi banners (unfortunately I have few pictures, but many where airplanes are in front of them...):
The T2-Jetways, now without O2 Ads again:
And the gray sun shades on Terminal 2: