Schiphol

[virtualstuff 76]

.

[jo3y 1]

Wow, finally a screenshot! Would love to see more ofcourse, it's looking very promising ! Eagerly awaiting the FSX version in +april 2010 !

[Er!k 572]

Looking good! Cannot wait to see more

[Bruce Hamilton 97]

Amazing to see that the FS9 version will be first instead of the FSX version ;-)

FS9 version has less detail. You get your watered down version, then they add the good stuff for the rest of us.

[Thralni 24]

I'd rather have a watered down version then no version at all...

[romeocharlie 36]

Ah, but water is fluid, like my framerates in FS9 compared with FSX. So that's fine by me.

RC

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I'd rather have a watered down version then no version at all...

As the development is based on FS2004 I think there will not be a huge difference between the FS2004 and the FSX version. And I am rather sure it will be as fast on my system in FSX and FS2004. One core versus four cores you see.

[virtualstuff 76]

.

[OPabst 2091]

Mathijs will it be native FSX or just a port over from the FS9 version the same he did with Brussel?

Because in that case FPS can hurt

Cheers,

André F

Do you want to fly in and out of a big airport, or do you want to pick flowers in the surrounding?

For a big airport the nativ FSX could has no benefit, only that it is slower and serveral needed features are not supported, as docking systems, controlled nightlights for runways and taxiway. Here is a good selected mix between both codetyes more effectiv.

[Koebrood 6]

As promised;

[virtualstuff 76]

.

[OPabst 2091]

Pardon me?

But in the case of Brussels you can pick flowers lol?

I'm just curious here...

André F

Correct, but we all hope that the time has give some know-how here.

But as you can see at Mallorca X, Heathrow or Paris, it is possible to handle it. We do our best to give all needed input, if it will be used in EHAM, we will see, but I am optimitic, the FS9 Version is ok in frames so far.

I made Aeslite with 1500 cars at and around the airport last week, the FS9 is able to handle that, if the FSX could do it, we will see.

[virtualstuff 76]

.

[Thralni 24]

As the development is based on FS2004 I think there will not be a huge difference between the FS2004 and the FSX version. And I am rather sure it will be as fast on my system in FSX and FS2004. One core versus four cores you see.

In case you were talking about about my system, I have 2 cores, not 1, you see. Not that it matters much, though. FSX still runs excruciatingly bad. Heck, even FS2004 doesn't run as well as I'd want it to. 1,5 year old laptop, you see.

As for FS9 detail: been going around Mega Airport Madrid just a few minutes ago. WOW is all I can say. I'm not sure what you FSX guys could add to that scenery to make it even better, because the way it's in FS9 already boggles the mind!

[Arnaud 5]

I dont think the deal between fs9 and FSx is about details, it's all about the size of the textures: FSX allow much bigger texture load, hence better looking ground. And the difference from what I understood is mainly that FSX's "earth" is rightly round, while fs9 "earth" is a pure flat world, like a sheet of paper. Whats causing more work in designing FSX sceneries is the mapping of ground textures. Not the scenery details nor the amount of 3d objects.

[HarryB 2]

I have 2 cores, which I think is 2 cores too less for FSX (with moderate IVAO traffic)

But hey I don't mind (for now). I'm still with FS9 (I have tried FSX) and I am happy , especially now there's a scenery for Schiphol coming!

Dispite I am a die-hard FS9 user, I can only say WOW to the great great sceneries that have been (and are) created for FSX. I don't mind that less and less sceneries are created for both FSX and FS9, I mean, of course they are. Why invest a lot of money on an old platform?. The time will come, I'm sure, that I too will step over to FSX, but for me FS9 has not yet lost it's breath.

But one reason that keeps me onto FS9 is the upcoming Schiphol scenery. This is my home base for my virtual flights. I only have the default FS9 scenery with a custom Afcad . I know there is Cloud9, but for me that just won't do. It is terribly outdated and too expensive for what you get.

So you can understand that I nearly got a heart-attack of joy when I first heard (or read) that you were planning Mega Airport Amsterdam .

[Thralni 24]

By all means enjoy FS9 I did to in the past but now I have great fun in FSX for different personal reasons

and sorry to say but I have great performance on four cores (despite the shouting people telling you otherwise lol)

I'm not interested in a contest FS9 vs FSX for me it's a dead horse

(I just love aviation independent from software, that is flying in the virtual and real world ;-))

Just have fun in whatever Simulator and what gives you're own enjoyment that is per simmer different ;-)

Be happy we have EHAM on both platforms despite I think the cloud 9 one is a nice one and already many

years available in FS9, in FSX for me personal I have the default scenery EHAM ouch lol

Personal I actually looking far more forward too Rotterdam X and Eindhoven X airports (Dutch airports) with Lelystad X gives for the first time

in flight simulator history a whole other dimension to my country.

To combine it with the FSX version of NL2000 V4.0

Hence I did my takeoffs from Rotterdam airport in real life :-)

Cheers,

André F

Oh, you shouldn't take what I said the wrong way... I didn't mean to start a FS9 vs FSX debate. I only meant to say that if the FS9 Mega Airport Madrid is so great-looking, than I'm not sure what could be added to the FSX version to make it look even better. For all I can see, the scenery already looks very good. I'm quite sure this will also be the case with EHAM.

But for the love of god, don't come to me with stuff like "one core versus four cores, you see", as if my computer is a pile of junk.

[virtualstuff 76]

.

[Thralni 24]

You didn't Andre, others did. Not gonna name them since I don't want to start any sort of unnecessary debate here.

Yeah, brussels was (is) rather bad on the FPS side... I always wondered why. What's in there that causes frames to drop? Although, to be honest, also in FS9 it's one of my least well performing sceneries.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I done Schiphol for FS5.1 Way back when I was still pretty and young.

It really is one of the most demanding airports for FS for many reasons. For one it is very big, not many airports have that many runways and almost none have that many taxiways. And certainly none have the wide concrete gutters on both sides. It can triple the polygon for any taxiway. Did I mention that Schiphol has many of those? An airport like Frankfurt has the same traffic but is not even close to the size and complexity. As Oliver said, and as I have said at least a hundred times, if you like big aircraft and big airport FS2004 is the way to go.

Big airports are not much better in FSX compared to FS2004 and certainly more demanding. It's different for aircraft, unfortunately, as most serious development is on FSX there. Just see the comments just not from PMDG that only 20% of there customers use (or rather BUY) FS2004 addons. They can not afford FS2004 projects. We are lucky, as spinning off two versions (FS2004 and FSX) of the same big airport is not a major problem. For the more advanced scenery development (advanced in the sense of detail, see for example Rotterdam X) we stick to FSX as there is no way we can get objects with 20.000 polygons working in FS2004. Does Schiphol need buildings that complex if you land in a 747, of course not. It's only nice if you land in a Carenado Cessna or something like that. When you are in a pure visual environment.

But gentlemen, let's close the FSX/FS2004 topic here and continue it here. It has all been said over and over and the sales data for sure does not lead us to believe anything will change. I'll take the liberty of moving topics that are pure FSX/FS2004 there. Here we talk about Schiphol, okay?

[virtualstuff 76]

.

[mimichael 26]

Hello Mathijs !

Is Paris Orly the next mega airport after Amsterdam?

Beautiful work for all sceneries!

[padcontrol 0]

All still beta.... but do comment.

Matthijs, this is the latest picture of the "Icetower" at the J-apron. This is used for controlling the area when de-icing is in use. The Icetower is between P12 and P14. Hope this is also in this version.

Regards,

[Evertie 1]

That's a good comment padcontrol. Another question from my side. Will AES be able to do de-icing procedures on the J-apron? Because at Schiphol they don't do de-icing at the gate but only on the J-apron and sometimes on the P-holding when its busy. So this means when you taxi on a parking position on the J-apron that AES recognizes you are standing on the J-apron and you wan't to do the de-icing procedure and not really park the plane.

Evert

[Erik Brouwer 8]

That's a good comment padcontrol. Another question from my side. Will AES be able to do de-icing procedures on the J-apron? Because at Schiphol they don't do de-icing at the gate but only on the J-apron and sometimes on the P-holding when its busy. So this means when you taxi on a parking position on the J-apron that AES recognizes you are standing on the J-apron and you wan't to do the de-icing procedure and not really park the plane.

Evert

Hi Evert,

Although I´d certainly like it when it is possible to de/ice at the J/apron, your statement is incorrect. I have been on flights this winter from AMS, of which ALL were de/iced at the gate.