We have at this moment problems with e-mails coming to us via Microsoft servers (Outlook, Hotmail, Live, etc). We are in contact with Microsoft to solve this issue.

Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mathijs Kok

Release: Aerosoft AspenX

Recommended Posts

Aspen-Pitkin County (Sardy Field) airport is one of the most complex and dangerous airports in the US to approach. The base altitude of nearly 8000 feet, combined with the even higher mountains on all sides makes any landing one you got to prepare for. How many airports do you have a back course localizer specially for the missed approach procedure, or only one available runway direction? And when the layout is not a problem weather might be. During the summer high Density Altitude will try to kill you and when the Density Altitude is not a problem the cruel winter weather will do the same. An extreme airport in many ways. Are you pilot enough to handle AspenX?

Product Page: http://www.aerosoft-shop2.com/products/aspenx/aspenx.html

Download price: 12.56 Euro (plus VAT for EEC customers)

Shots by Nick as always.

005.jpg

006.jpg

007.jpg

008.jpg

009.jpg

010.jpg

011.jpg

012.jpg

013.jpg

014.jpg

015.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs?

How large is the photo textures around the airport?

And If its not large (beyond just the immediate viscnity of the airport), could we have an APS scenery for the mountain ranges there?

Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX only... :cry:

Just looking at the screenshots again today brings tears to the eyes... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would buy it... but I wont.

Who in the world can run FSX smoothly?

I have a preety powerful computer and I am not even using in maximum setting and yet I get blurry textures and the like.

I dont know what computer you guys are using but it must be a monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi marick626,

don't know what powerful computer you have, but SP1 will help a lot!

not even using in maximum setting

MS have overdone it here; iirc even sparse in FSX gives you more houses, trees etc than extremely dense in FS9!

PS It's Cheyenne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some more shots... we are getting closer to a release now.

Any update on the release of AspenX?? As a resident of Colorado I am anxiously awaiting this product.

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will there be any missions released with this scenery? Like Monoco?

No I decided not to have them done and lower the sales price. For previous projects we had little or no response on the missions so that seemed to be the best way to go now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shame it's for FSX only :cry:

In a way, at this moment, yes. But we hope to sell copies of this product for the next two years and believe me, the market for FS2004 add-ons will be as dead somewhere next year as the market is for FS2002 add-ons is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FSX only... :cry:

Just looking at the screenshots again today brings tears to the eyes... :wink:

Yes, and part is because only FSX could show you those screenshots due to it much better rendering engine (not even thinking about the DX10 update we are expecting). The same scenery loaded in FS2004 will give a much 'flatter' looking picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would buy it... but I wont.

Who in the world can run FSX smoothly?

I have a preety powerful computer and I am not even using in maximum setting and yet I get blurry textures and the like.

I dont know what computer you guys are using but it must be a monster.

I run AspenX at a pretty solid 20 fps, with enough autogen to make it look very pretty. And I got a rather standard duo2core machine with a rather outdated graphic card. When we tested the scenery in FS2004 (just to see if it would run, not for a release), I got about the same number of objects in vision and about the same framerate as FSX. And it looked a lot less exiting of course.

20fps1.jpg

Look, I (we) got no problems with people deciding to stay on FS2004 for a while longer. It has been exactly the same for every update of FS. Some people decide to stay on the old version for several reasons. We still sell a lot of FS2004 compatible software online. But the main stores will not order FS2004 software, so there is no boxed market for FS2004 software remaining. And next year even the download market for FS2004 products will be as it is for FS2002 products now. So please enjoy FS2004 as we do, but it makes no sense to write for every FSX releases that you intend to stay on FS2004 right now. We do realise there is still a FS2004 market and we do release for that as well, but all NEW developments are intended for FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who in the world can run FSX smoothly?

I have a preety powerful computer and I am not even using in maximum setting and yet I get blurry textures and the like.

I dont know what computer you guys are using but it must be a monster.

Can you tell me/us your system specs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would buy it... but I wont.

Who in the world can run FSX smoothly?

I have a preety powerful computer and I am not even using in maximum setting and yet I get blurry textures and the like.

I dont know what computer you guys are using but it must be a monster.

A Lot of people can run FSX smoothly now.

After SP1 I can even run FSX on my old AMD X3200 single core/Radeon X800 256 MB VRAM and get FS9 level of visuals at up to 20 FPS average using a lot of the available tweaks. No one EVER said X was going to be easy at first. And now? The local supermarket vista PC for around 900 USD is already FSX capable. My "new dual core" PC manages 25 FPS locked and about 3/4 full performance of X

Whatever you do, don't expect to run X smoothly at max everything for a year or so yet. No one promised you that. No one is promising that today either. MS did accept a blunder and pushed SP1 out at us. There will be more improvements to come.

I fly X most of the time now because I like the new visuals. They are addictively better and I am a low level junkie. SP1 has made my AMD FX62 based system run X quite nicely now thank you very much.

Someone very recently pooh poohed an FSX screenshot of mine, saying: "if it wasn't for the road traffic, I'd be looking at FS9 here."

This was a typical FSX shot they were referring to

helipatrol2.jpg

Oh ye of little faith - FS9 never looked that good, low level, 120 knots and blurry free with such detail on the road... nor did FS9 ever have that level of tree densit and buildings density...

(Mathijs, excuse the cross link to our friends at Simflight...)

Marick and co, pay a visit to the link below and compare X and 9 and realise why a lot of us are indeed migrating.

100% direct comparison X to 9. Default heli, same software addons appropriate to X or 9 same flight location.

http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=62884

FS 9 and X

Vancouver+ 9 and X (OK, Beta in X, so final can be better still!)

Active Sky 6 and X

Active Graphics / X Graphics

FSGenesis full meshes

OH, FS9 had UT Canada as well - that is not yet available for X

DEFAULT helicopter

Frames locked 25

FS9 everything maxed to the limit

FSX idling at mid-range settings

Now, go away and compare and then enjoy - you will, believe me, you will

FSX has grown up very fast. I was an X Basher six months ago still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Lot of people can run FSX smoothly now.

Oh ye of little faith - FS9 never looked that good, low level, 120 knots and blurry free with such detail on the road... nor did FS9 ever have that level of tree densit and buildings density...

(Mathijs, excuse the cross link to our friends at Simflight...)

http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?t=62884

I'll be the last too complain. The link you add is one of the best examples I seen. Personally I am a bit tired of the bad press FSX gets. FSX sucked, I am the first to agree, FSX plus SP1 beats FS2004 on nearly all accounts if you got the hardware.

I have written it before... This is the fourth time I have been commercially involved with a FS update. This one is rough as MS dropped the ball a bit with the initial release, but apart from that is a repeat of what we seen time and time again. Some people are reluctant to update and they got good (personal) reasons for that. For these people we are doing products like GAP2 and AES and thousands of customers buy them. They are great products and we support and promote them with all our resources.

I have written it before... If the people who now try to push to release FSX products for FS2004 would be so kind to tell me how many FS2004 add-ons they intend to buy for the Christmas 200 season (cause AspenX will still sell that time) we might reconsider. We still get people who like FS2002 add-ons and some of them are upset Mega Airport Frankfurt is not available for FS2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Lot of people can run FSX smoothly now.

After SP1 I can even run FSX on my old AMD X3200 single core/Radeon X800 256 MB VRAM and get FS9 level of visuals at up to 20 FPS average using a lot of the available tweaks. No one EVER said X was going to be easy at first. And now? The local supermarket vista PC for around 900 USD is already FSX capable. My "new dual core" PC manages 25 FPS locked and about 3/4 full performance of X

Well stated Chris! :P

I'm still using both sims, but it's getting harder and harder for me to fire up FS9. I suppose it's due to the fact that I hate to part with my tons and tons of payware that I purchased for it.

FSX is miles ahead of FS9 and I'm slowly adding more and more payware to it. Once I get enough payware then I'll probably pull the plug on FS9 since it simply can't touch FSX in any area.

I was mostly waiting for some kick-butt heavies and now I have 2 of them in the past 3 days. I also have some really awesome Aerosoft scenery and the Beaver. I don't fly it (the Beaver) an awful lot, nothing wrong with it, in fact it's really a blast to fly, it's just that my first love are the heavies. (That might change though considering all of the awesome scenery apps that Aerosoft is producing.)

What I'm really waiting for is Aerosoft's military planes and their helicopters. Once I have them, I'll say a fond farewell to FS9.

Puppy

Why was I here? :oops: Oh yeah, Aspen looks really awesome and I'm probably going to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was mostly waiting for some kick-butt heavies and now I have 2 of them in the past 3 days. I also have some really awesome Aerosoft scenery and the Beaver. I don't fly it (the Beaver) an awful lot, nothing wrong with it, in fact it's really a blast to fly, it's just that my first love are the heavies.

And that is why we are lighting the fires under PMDG etc. There 747 is in beta in FSX and by golly it will be a killer (Leftaris will probably attack me for saying it but I am right).

I agree, the VFR side of FSX is getting okay now, the IFR side needs to catch up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a really good thread. A lot of great responses from friends that I respect.

I haven't fired up FS9 in over a month. Although I suffer many ills such as the blurries(4) and low frame rates (12-17) with FSX it looks so much better even at lower settings than FS9 as I remember it. I just have to refresh my scenery every once in a while.

I'm hoping that MS will address the problems that I feel FSX has... even after SP1. In the meantime, I've gathered up the nads to but a new PC which will be here next week. I know it may not fix everything because people are having trouble even with some high-end PC's, but it still should be better than my 5 year old system.

I'm seriously considering AspenX because the screenshots look fantastic, but I'll probably wait until I see how the new machine runs first. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, at this moment, yes. But we hope to sell copies of this product for the next two years and believe me, the market for FS2004 add-ons will be as dead somewhere next year as the market is for FS2002 add-ons is now.

I highly doubt that statement. I, for one, will be using FS9 exclusively for a long time. The need for a new machine, the fact that I have to use ugly VC to render my 2D views (I don't use VC) and the fact that MS decided to "gamify" FS with more eye-candy and "missions"...instead of concentrating on performance...are all reasons I have no interest. I notice everyone here talking about how great the terrain, graphics, etc. look in FSX...like I said...eye candy. I don't really care about that, I am happy with FS9 with my addons (GE, FE, UT, etc.) and it ALWAYS flies above 27 FPS on my system. No way that would happen with FSX and all the added candy. At some point it's supposed to be a "simulator"...not a game. To be a true simulation the performance of the software, and the smoothness of it, are more important than all the "pretties". Landing an A320 at Aspen is NOT something I want to do at 12 FPS...although the airport will look very pretty as I rip off the left wing due to ground contact! LOL!

Granted, one person (me) does not mean that your statement, above, is misguided. I am not alone, however...there are MANY simmers I know who have finally decided enough is enough and are staying with FS9 indefinitely. The people who continue to make products for FS9 (like AirlinerXP and their upcoming A320) will be the ones getting our money.

Hey...I know that, as a business, you have to look in the crystal ball and foretell the future. I just think your ball has failed you on this one.

Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. P.

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=67635#67635

those with "older rigs" should read. FSX works a lot better with SP1 than you may think. Also, there are enough tweaks around (incidentally, the screenshot in that link is not on a tweaked FSX. Merely SP1.

And even when it slows to 15, FSX is smooth.

Written by one who, six months ago, would never have believed that himself. I was one of the loud voices in the Wilderness slagging off FSX as a bad dream. Now I am folding FS9 despite thousands of Euros worth of investment. (quite a few hundred of those in the Aerosoft shop too)

I know you guys are disappointed by your PCs performance. But don't make such a big thing of it. If your PC really is too old, you'll soon find enough "top end single cores" on the market for free. 3200, 3400 Mhz processors and AGP radeon X1600s are already dirt cheap new.

And when you do finally get a new 16 core system (J for Joke) you might finally run FSX un-tweaked with full sliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey...I know that, as a business, you have to look in the crystal ball and foretell the future. I just think your ball has failed you on this one.

quote from developer:

"And your comment that FSX is ony used by a small section of the users is just not confirmed by our sales and by the customers that we meet. Demand for FSX products is far far greater then for FS2004."

And that was some 2 months ago, even before the release of SP1 which increased performance immensly ...

And about eye candy vs simulator : There is a "pure simulator" product: "X-Plane" ... but how many copies does it sell compared with MS FS? The vast majority of customers just wants pretty stuff ... you don't sell a boxed version of accurate air dynamics ... pretty landscape, clouds ... shining planes ... realistic looking airports ...

And most of all, EVERYTHING you said could have been written when FS9 came out ... and FS2002 sort of died off soon afterwards ...

Two months after the release of FSX all the internet forums were full of people complaining and claiming "never to run FSX" ... today we're down to a handful ... I agree with the others who say, that the FS9 market will be quite dead very soon ...

Shelftime is the word ... you might still sell a few copies of FS9 addons today, sure, but not in year or perhaps not even Christmas.

//EDITED quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a new compie for FSX, still can't run it smoothly with bloom on but I can live without that for a flightsim. From now on I will only be buying FSX stuff. I still fly FS9 a lot simply because it runs great and looks great thanks to the many interesting and high quality addons. But FSX is visually more appealing, especially for someone who likes to skin the treetops. Slowly but surely VFR flying needs less and less imagination. Can't be sad about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... and believe me, the market for FS2004 add-ons will be as dead somewhere next year as the market is for FS2002 add-ons is now.

Well, I wouldn't bet my house on that....

I for one will not update to FSX, regardless of how smooth and nice it runs on my system.

I simply have invested too much money in FS2004 ($1500+) to make a transition to FSX feasable. I don't want to spend this money all over again.

FS2004 is the first FS version with really good panels and scenery, unlike FS2002, so I don't think you can compare those.

But then again, this is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...