Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Although I am following the contributions on the forums regularly, I do not participate actively very often, but I became very enthuthiastic seeing those pictures of Male X as it matches very well my expactations for what could be a nice addon. But then I read something like, and please don't get too angry, if you think I am phrasing this too harsh ; "if you like Tahiti X this might suit you". And there is my problem. I am owning quite a lot scenery products like German Airfields 1-3, vfr germany 1-3, almost all mega airports for fsx, GAP 2, madeiraX...,all of which are nothing but excellent products. Therefore I am fitted very well with german and european scenery, BUT to be really honest I have only two airport sceneries outside this area I really like. First one is Flytampa St.Martin and second their Hong Kong scenery, both simply stunning and outstanding sceneries and works of art, as aerosoft's New York X is in my opinion. But lets talk about St. Martin a little bit. If you go on youtube and type in "tncm fsx" you get hundreds of results and most of them containing videos of the Flytampa scenery, so this product must have been hugely successful. Type in "Tahiti X" and you will get not too much results, because there seems to be no real hype about this product. I do understand that this product was developed from another perspective(no airport scenery but bigger area) and also recently listened to an interview of Mathijs Kok talking about development costs of an mega airport for fs, so I can understand that it is difficult to decide whether a project is reasonable or not. So my question is. Do we have a lack of "high quality caribbean style airport" sceneries like the St.Martin one? For me I would say yes, as this is my most used scenery product for years; I love it, the location and everything about it, and I think there are lots of people feeling quite similar about this point. I am using it from the pmdg md11 to the dodosim bell. By the way, I saw the "PilotsEYE.tv: LTU A330-200 Düsseldorf - Male" video and my first thought was that this is gonna be the next "St. Martin" for fs. So my question is. Would it be possible to do only the main international airport of Male X(only airport, no sea plane base and other facilities), which can be seen nicely on the pictures on page 2, as a separate product, comparable in quality to an airport like Gap 2 Hannover, which with 75mb of data, doesn't seem to be too complex or if such a suggestion is completely unreasonable, at least include a photorealistic ground texture only for the small airport area. Please don't get me wrong, as i am neither talking about photoreal building textures nor about photoreal taxiway textures, as we have quite nice ones from REX there, but only a photoreal ground texture, that when approaching the airport, one does not have to see the green stock textures from fsx, cause some simmers like me seem to be allergic to stock textures which sometimes can make us feel a little sad, which is undoubtedly to some extend aerosoft's fault, because those addons are looking so good :lol: .

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your feedback, which is definitely appreciated.

To make it short: You won't belive just how well Tahiti X sells and how happy our customers are with it. ;)

Malé X will be even above that as it will include the whole North-Male and South-Male Atolls in a high-detail and density level that is nothing short of what we love about Fly Tampa's St.Maarten.

As you can see on the screenshots there's a lot to except from this addon. I landed in my early Beta-version of Male with an A330, just like in the DVD - and I was just overwhelmed how much it already looks like the DVD. :)

Now, your question about doing the airport only: That would be inacceptable as landing on this airport without all the atolls would just be like landing there using default scenery. The atolls are what make this country so fantastic. I think we found a good compromise for all by doing the North- and South-Male Atolls together with high detailed scenery of the airport. You can expect the usual state of the art Aerosoft style ;) but don't expect GAP quality. For several reasons this is impossible for an airport like Male Intl.

Stay tuned, there will be lots of new preview images soon, so you can judge yourself if this is an addon you're willing to purchase.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am following the contributions on the forums regularly, I do not participate actively very often, but I became very enthuthiastic seeing those pictures of Male X as it matches very well my expactations for what could be a nice addon. But then I read something like, and please don't get too angry, if you think I am phrasing this too harsh ; "if you like Tahiti X this might suit you". And there is my problem. I am owning quite a lot scenery products like German Airfields 1-3, vfr germany 1-3, almost all mega airports for fsx, GAP 2, madeiraX...,all of which are nothing but excellent products. Therefore I am fitted very well with german and european scenery, BUT to be really honest I have only two airport sceneries outside this area I really like. First one is Flytampa St.Martin and second their Hong Kong scenery, both simply stunning and outstanding sceneries and works of art, as aerosoft's New York X is in my opinion. But lets talk about St. Martin a little bit. If you go on youtube and type in "tncm fsx" you get hundreds of results and most of them containing videos of the Flytampa scenery, so this product must have been hugely successful. Type in "Tahiti X" and you will get not too much results, because there seems to be no real hype about this product. I do understand that this product was developed from another perspective(no airport scenery but bigger area) and also recently listened to an interview of Mathijs Kok talking about development costs of an mega airport for fs, so I can understand that it is difficult to decide whether a project is reasonable or not. So my question is. Do we have a lack of "high quality caribbean style airport" sceneries like the St.Martin one? For me I would say yes, as this is my most used scenery product for years; I love it, the location and everything about it, and I think there are lots of people feeling quite similar about this point. I am using it from the pmdg md11 to the dodosim bell. By the way, I saw the "PilotsEYE.tv: LTU A330-200 Düsseldorf - Male" video and my first thought was that this is gonna be the next "St. Martin" for fs. So my question is. Would it be possible to do only the main international airport of Male X(only airport, no sea plane base and other facilities), which can be seen nicely on the pictures on page 2, as a separate product, comparable in quality to an airport like Gap 2 Hannover, which with 75mb of data, doesn't seem to be too complex or if such a suggestion is completely unreasonable, at least include a photorealistic ground texture only for the small airport area. Please don't get me wrong, as i am neither talking about photoreal building textures nor about photoreal taxiway textures, as we have quite nice ones from REX there, but only a photoreal ground texture, that when approaching the airport, one does not have to see the green stock textures from fsx, cause some simmers like me seem to be allergic to stock textures which sometimes can make us feel a little sad, which is undoubtedly to some extend aerosoft's fault, because those addons are looking so good :lol: .

First of all, thanks for your post, it's a pleasure to read something that somebody actually spend time on to write. Well done, appreciated!

Second... there is no doubt that FlyTampa did a great job, most of what they do is superb. I also got no doubt that it sold (sells) well. Perhaps better then Tahiti X. I would not know and in fact nobody will know. We only see our sales and for Tahiti X they are very good. Surprisingly good for a product like this. We found out that it was mainly because piracy is low and that mouth to mouth PR did the trick. It's solid scenery for a good price.

Now it is very hard to compare a scenery covering one very well known airport to one that covers a total region/country. It is sold in fact to a different kind of customer. I am responsible for this product and I would never go for a scenery for Male airport only at this moment in this market. The high end market, selling to customers that want near ultimate realism, the kind of customer that writes on these forums, is limited. We do projects for that, you mention a few, but these only get part of the market. Male will try to get both markets partly. I seen it, I love it as it is just a pleasure to fly a airliner into the scenery and use smaller aircraft to explore it further. There is hours and hours of exploring to do, something one single airport can never offer. It's just different. And for a super high Male scenery for FSX there just is not enough market. 5 years ago there was. Bummer!

When the product launches, write to support@aerosoft.com and we'll get you Male X for free to show you we appreciate your post.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thank you very much!!! Very kind. Now I feel a little bit guilty, but I'll definitely contact the support. I really thought, I might have gone slightly too far yesterday. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,

"Malé X" is what will be compatible with AES credipack?

thank you for your reply good day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everybody,

As all of you known, FSX is immaturity product especially on the performance side. Such as Vista and Office 2007.

My computer was build on Core i7 Extreme 965, 6GB DDR3, and nVIDIA GTX285 SLI. I can switch all details graphics to highest level and got smoothly FPS in the FS9. But same mechine at FSX, the effect and performance was so so. I know FSX can handle more beautiful image, effect and scenery. But someone can tell me which CPU, VGA and other components can run it well? I'm beilve that my computer is "Highend" gaming PC, but still can't run FSX well. So, maybe you can see the beautiful effect on FSX but you can only get 10~15FPS. I don't know how do you think about it. But I can't accept this kind of performance. That's why I'm still stay here with FS9.

I think here isn't everybody can buy the highend PC like me. So, if you can't fly with FSX more smoothly, then all beautiful scenery and effect are nothing for you. Because of this should be a "Flight Simulator" game, not a slide show with poor FPS.

I know all FS 3rd developers will be consider the business before they move forward to FSX. It's they own decision but not me. I think more simmer will also stay with FS9 and jump to FSX2 (maybe) directly. Just like the failure of Vista and Office 2007.

I don't have any plan to move forward to FSX in near future. Who knows when the FSX2 will comes like Windows7?

Windows XP (2001~2007) -> 7years

Windows Vista (2007~2009) --> 2years.....

FS2002 -> FS2004 (2 years)

FS2004 -> FSX (5 years).

So, we can imagine which one just a test product...

Best regards,

Casper

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, with my next 2 products (Malé and Iceland) giving you the best performance you ever had with an FSX addon it's the perfect time to switch to fsx. :)

And now please stop that ostinating "why I hate fsx and will never abandon FS9" talk, this is a preview topic. ;)

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everybody,

As all of you known, FSX is immaturity product especially on the performance side. Such as Vista and Office 2007.

My computer was build on Core i7 Extreme 965, 6GB DDR3, and nVIDIA GTX285 SLI. I can switch all details graphics to highest level and got smoothly FPS in the FS9. But same mechine at FSX, the effect and performance was so so. I know FSX can handle more beautiful image, effect and scenery. But someone can tell me which CPU, VGA and other components can run it well? I'm beilve that my computer is "Highend" gaming PC, but still can't run FSX well. So, maybe you can see the beautiful effect on FSX but you can only get 10~15FPS. I don't know how do you think about it. But I can't accept this kind of performance. That's why I'm still stay here with FS9.

I think here isn't everybody can buy the highend PC like me. So, if you can't fly with FSX more smoothly, then all beautiful scenery and effect are nothing for you. Because of this should be a "Flight Simulator" game, not a slide show with poor FPS.

I know all FS 3rd developers will be consider the business before they move forward to FSX. It's they own decision but not me. I think more simmer will also stay with FS9 and jump to FSX2 (maybe) directly. Just like the failure of Vista and Office 2007.

I don't have any plan to move forward to FSX in near future. Who knows when the FSX2 will comes like Windows7?

Windows XP (2001~2007) -> 7years

Windows Vista (2007~2009) --> 2years.....

FS2002 -> FS2004 (2 years)

FS2004 -> FSX (5 years).

So, we can imagine which one just a test product...

Best regards,

Casper

Hey Casper

fine with me.......

You fly the old stuff and let the MEN develop the BEST!!!

Understand? wacko.gif

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everybody,

As all of you known, FSX is immaturity product especially on the performance side. Such as Vista and Office 2007.

My computer was build on Core i7 Extreme 965, 6GB DDR3, and nVIDIA GTX285 SLI. I can switch all details graphics to highest level and got smoothly FPS in the FS9. But same mechine at FSX, the effect and performance was so so. I know FSX can handle more beautiful image, effect and scenery. But someone can tell me which CPU, VGA and other components can run it well? I'm beilve that my computer is "Highend" gaming PC, but still can't run FSX well. So, maybe you can see the beautiful effect on FSX but you can only get 10~15FPS. I don't know how do you think about it. But I can't accept this kind of performance. That's why I'm still stay here with FS9.

I think here isn't everybody can buy the highend PC like me. So, if you can't fly with FSX more smoothly, then all beautiful scenery and effect are nothing for you. Because of this should be a "Flight Simulator" game, not a slide show with poor FPS.

I know all FS 3rd developers will be consider the business before they move forward to FSX. It's they own decision but not me. I think more simmer will also stay with FS9 and jump to FSX2 (maybe) directly. Just like the failure of Vista and Office 2007.

I don't have any plan to move forward to FSX in near future. Who knows when the FSX2 will comes like Windows7?

Windows XP (2001~2007) -> 7years

Windows Vista (2007~2009) --> 2years.....

FS2002 -> FS2004 (2 years)

FS2004 -> FSX (5 years).

So, we can imagine which one just a test product...

Best regards,

Casper

Casper, I get 50 fps on the Nice scenery we just released. How much more fps do you want? How much more detail you want to see? And that's on a<$750 machine, not some high end monster.

And why do you want to tell everybody you don't like FSX in a preview of an FSX product? I am sorry your system can't handle FSX, but let me assure you we got hundreds of customers that are buying these products because they know they will not have performance problems. I just don't fully understand why people feel the need to talk bad about FSX in a topic about an FSX product. What do they hope to achieve? That we sell less products? Show they got low performance while other do not? It just makes no sense and we are pretty bored about it.

As you are using some rather strong words that more or less call all the thousands of customers of FSX product not very clever (trying to stay polite here) I have suspended your account for 30 days. If you are willing to participate in the discussion without calling FSX users stupid and allowing us to help you enjoy FSX a bit more you are as welcome as everybody else. If you check other topics you will see we actually ENJOY discussing the FSX<>FS2004 issue as long as it is not dragged down to the level you seen to prefer. It all smells a lot like you are just trolling, something I simply do not allow here. If you do not agree write to us at support@aerosoft.com and tell us why you decided to write the posts as you did.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everybody,

As all of you known, FSX is immaturity product especially on the performance side. Such as Vista and Office 2007.

My computer was build on Core i7 Extreme 965, 6GB DDR3, and nVIDIA GTX285 SLI. I can switch all details graphics to highest level and got smoothly FPS in the FS9. But same mechine at FSX, the effect and performance was so so. I know FSX can handle more beautiful image, effect and scenery. But someone can tell me which CPU, VGA and other components can run it well? I'm beilve that my computer is "Highend" gaming PC, but still can't run FSX well. So, maybe you can see the beautiful effect on FSX but you can only get 10~15FPS. I don't know how do you think about it. But I can't accept this kind of performance. That's why I'm still stay here with FS9.

I think here isn't everybody can buy the highend PC like me. So, if you can't fly with FSX more smoothly, then all beautiful scenery and effect are nothing for you. Because of this should be a "Flight Simulator" game, not a slide show with poor FPS.

I know all FS 3rd developers will be consider the business before they move forward to FSX. It's they own decision but not me. I think more simmer will also stay with FS9 and jump to FSX2 (maybe) directly. Just like the failure of Vista and Office 2007.

I don't have any plan to move forward to FSX in near future. Who knows when the FSX2 will comes like Windows7?

Windows XP (2001~2007) -> 7years

Windows Vista (2007~2009) --> 2years.....

FS2002 -> FS2004 (2 years)

FS2004 -> FSX (5 years).

So, we can imagine which one just a test product...

Best regards,

Casper

It's funny you say "I think here isn't everybody can buy the highend PC like me" when I'm sure many have similar priced system and from my sig specs I'd like to give your rig a benchmark for it's money in anything. More funny you brag about it, but can't even run FSX (witch many many do everyday, even FRAPS over top of it!) and your going to be running FS9 or a highend system. When asking for help try not bragging, while specs are important for helping with issues don't go knocking the people your asking help from, then assuming they can't afford/buy your rig when there are far more extravagant systems. Last there are E8400, Q6600, and Q9550 users who run FSX just fine their CPU and system is a 1/4 of yours!

Try cleaning your OS, lowering RAM usage & processes from MSCONFIG and/or Services.msc from the RUN command (if unsure what is needed and unneeded investigate further), prevent and clean Hard Drive clutter, if not on SSD defrag often.

I also consider my system highend and I have no troubles running FSX or any of Aerosoft products (Even the hardest they make like VFR London) at acceptable frames for the level of detail.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if we're done with the FS9/FSX thing we could go back to discussions about the actual product. ;)

Indeed indeed. Any more on the FSX<>FS2004 topic here will be removed without warning. We love to discuss it, but let's do it here. And yes that includes myself, lol.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get your attention back to the actual product, some more images and information:

Progress is very good. Due to the fact that there's nothing but ocean around the Maldives we've got fantastic performance even with all sliders max'ed.

I wasn't surprised that the polycount is now at about 1.000.000 (that is one million polygons) with several ressorts still on the modelling list.

3D models, night fx, water fx, airport, 100% realistic AI traffic, you'll get a lot for your money. :)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow :P I'll have to check how long it will take to fly there from Geneva or Zurich... Your work is stunning ;)

Edit : 4400 NM from Geneva... Quite a journey :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll have to check how long it will take to fly there from Geneva or Zurich...

If you prefer boeings (B763), take the Belair (Air Berlin) flight flight no.1910 from Zurich

If you prefer airbuses (A332), take the Edelweiss (for Swiss) no.8052 from Zurich

They will take around 10 hours and will let you experience both sunset and sunrise. :)

Best regards,

Rafal

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank God for adjustable simulation rate

I have never ever used it in my whole simlife.

What a strange idea to make time go crazy*... :lol:

Best regards,

Rafal

* Making long-haul a... short-haul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do I always get the feeling that the discussion is drifting off?

No, no, not really, Thorsten!

We're talking about flying time to Male, meaning of course your scenery to come as the destination.

For some people FS is not GA flying around but making full flights with heavy airliners.

Anyway: the more interest it gets the more customers desire it, right? :)

Additionally I have an impression it is hard to concentrate purely on discussing aspects of a scenery not yet released.

And look: I'm an FS9er and your FSX-only Male previews caught my attention. LOL

OK, in case it IS going off topic, sorry and 'over' from me.

Best regards,

Rafal

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...