Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bucifan

Owners of BluePrint's KMEM, please check....

Recommended Posts

If you own this scenery please check this for me. I got this the 2nd day of release, and immediately found errors in the gate numbering (ground vs terminal), and also errors in the AFCAD. I emailed them with the problems, and supposedly corrected it. They released an update which replaced the terminal, jetways bgl, as well as the afcad. But the update is still not correct.After I applied the update (I did it correctly), there were still errors. Further emails (with screenshots) were sent both ways. Their screenshots were correct, but mine were still showing the mistakes. I deleted KMEM with COntrol Panel, removed the KMEM folder after, and did a fresh install with the same results. Called BMT MIcro (their distributor), got my password reset, and did a new d/l today, of the supposedly correct installer. Guess what.....same results!!What I would like to confirm is if anyone else is seeing what I'm seeing. Go to gate A20 and see if the number on the terminal building matches what is on the ground. Also, if you have the bad files, there will be 2 A12's on the ground. There are also mistakes in the B Concourse and the C as well.This is for FS9 by the way.Once the numbering issue is resolved, I will be releasing a modified AFCAD with correct gate sizing and correct parking codes.Thanks for your help!Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Just downloaded the installer and the fix. My installer is already updated with the fix files, but unfortunately, there are duplicate A12 ground markings and no A20 ground marking.Do you want me to mail them as well? Or maybe you should refer to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked and I have the same problems as well. Thought my problems were with the AFCAD only and have messed with it for the last three days with no luck. Has Ignacio at Blueprint confirmed the problem? Thanks,Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last we emailed each other was 3 days ago. He said they were confused by what I am seeing, as all of their setups show everything is fixed! Perhaps he is just "ducking" my emails thinking I am "some kind of nut" or something. I think now is the time for everyone who has the problem to contact Blueprint to show them that the problem is NOT fixed.Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a copy of the Ignacio's reply to me this morning. Looks like I will not be doing business with them any more if this is how they respond to problems!Rick"Rick, I do not appreciate this kind of requests. The files have been corrected for more than a week now. You must download the patch from our web site. I even sent you pictures of what the scenery looks like and I have proof that I sent you the files as soon as they were corrected. I have a receipt indicating that the e-mail was received. If you are tired of waiting, I am tired of replying to your e-mails about a problem that was resolved the same day the scenery was released. That is the best we can do. If you are unable to download the patch, that is not our responsibility. If you are not satisfied with the product, please request a refund from BMT. I will be extremely happy to authorize the refund. Otherwise, please communicate with me only with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BluePrint should examine the patch file to be sure the modified files were included in the patch. It's possible the new version and old version were crossed when the update was issued and the patch still installs the former files. I can't think of any other way customers would see one thing and the developer, referencing their own files, would see another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is just not related to the patch file. On their site, ot says if you d/l'd the product before 5pm on March 12th, again an error, as it was released in April, then apply th e patch. Which should mean that the full installer is now correct. As I stated, I was able to redownload the full installer yesterday, and it has the same errors!!Needless to say, I took him up on his offer for a refund! Let's see if I get it!He has some way of trying to grow his business, when he flat out tells you he doesn't want you to purchase any more of his products. Needless to say, you don't have to hit me over the head twice. There is is pretty good freeware out there anyway. Also if you look at his AFCAD, the gate radii are HUGE. Concourse A & C are only for Northwest Airlink, not NW. A simple change to NWAX instead of NWA in the parking code brings all the rj's back. AirTran's gate is mislabeled, as weel as Delta not having enough gates. FedEx's parking has wingtips from plane going almost through the fuselage of the plane next to it.As I said I have un updated AFCAD done which corrects most of this. I was waiting on the fixed version, so I could make sure that the gate numbers in the scenery matched the gate numbers of the AFCAD. Since technically I no longer have the product (at least until after my refund clears) I probably won't be able to finish it. If when it is fixed, if someone will just define the gate numbers in the scenery for me, I will finish and release the Afcad. No reason to punish all the good people here!!Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks they just changed their downloads section, and it now says that THIS FIX is for all versions. All that seems that was done was take the Terminals.bgl, Jetways.bgl, and another AFCAD and switch between a zip file and changed it to a exe. Since I have not got my refund yet,I d/l'd it and installed. You won't believe this, it's still the same......all the same errors, nothings changed. Oh I was wrong about nothings changed. Ignacio removed the credit he gave me for finding the problems in the first place. Oh well, I had my 15 minutes of fame.Could someone else test out this latest update and see what you get!Thanks!Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick,Post the AFCAD...I would sincerely like to see it. I have been playing with the AFCAD for the last week and can not get it right. I would love to see what you did with it.I, like you, have been waiting for a payware KMEM for FS2004. I would love to get it running right. It looks good, except for the few errors...Too bad your email exchange exchange became "agitated." Cheers, (-:Scott PS...I just dowloaded the latest installer and all the misnumbered gates seem to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Rick,>>Post the AFCAD...I would sincerely like to see it. I have>been playing with the AFCAD for the last week and can not get>it right. I would love to see what you did with it.>>I, like you, have been waiting for a payware KMEM for FS2004. >I would love to get it running right. It looks good, except>for the few errors...Too bad your email exchange exchange>became "agitated." >>Cheers, (-:>Scott >>PS...I just dowloaded the latest installer and all the>misnumbered gates seem to be corrected.Scott, did you do the whole installer or just the fix?Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just redownloaded the complete installer again, which I tried yesterday also. It showed the same errors. Then I applied the new fix, which they just put up today, and as Scott reported above, it appears to have fixed the errors.Unfortunetely, I will technically have to delete this now once my refund goes through. I could repurchase it, but after the way Ignacio acted and treated me, I will NEVER give him another dime of my money.This would probably never have hapeened if they still had their forum. Customers would have a place to discuss this, and with more than one having the same problem, the company would know there is a problem. But when you have to send an email in, and they choose not to reply, after you spent money on their product, and your time showing them where the mistakes where, you feel taken!! I have my own business, in a CNC service industry, and would never think of talking to my customers that way, especially telling you not to purchase any more of their products.I would also like to see if Ignacio is man enough to apolgize, as there obviously was a problem. From my dealing with him, I won't hold my breath!!!SCOTT check your pmRick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I'll send a mail, let's see what we can accomplish.I got a very polite reply back. What Bruce pointed out, about the patch containing incorrect files, I concluded as well and I had already mentioned it in my email. I also included a capture of KMEM's scenery folder, showing all the file details, so they could compare everything. And that's how they have finally managed to pinpoint the problem, I think. It was not an issue with the three changed files, the scenery folder simply contained too many files, some leftovers from the development stage. Among others, duplicate marking files...So that's why it's no longer a zip file, the installer is there to delete stuff too. And it does fix this particular problem!About the Afcad, every one of their Afcads needs serious tweaking, this one as well. Personally, I like doing that, so it's not a big problem. But Rick, hope you still release yours.;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the Library, but feel free to try it. Make sure your AI fleet is properly coded, I use the X variant for all regional traffic. And make sure your model radii conform to the PAI recommended radius spec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all, I have only just seen this thread, I had just started to resize the parking radius for the scenery afcad in question - the original was a complete mess.anyway, thankyou for replacement AFCAD, looks great.reason for the post, I know it is a long after this thread was concluding, but it should be known that these scenery developers are still feeding customers BS concerning the AFCAD - I purchased mine only several weeks ago and reply suggested the AFCAD cannot cater for an infinite number of different traffic scenarios.next time I'll stick with freeware - this scenery is nothing special and worthless without the amazing work of people involved with WOAI and their FEDEX package.will think long and hard now about who I will be getting my JFK scenery from.regardsJlm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> will think long and hard now about who I will be getting my JFK scenery from.Can't say I follow your logic if any. Are you new to addon scenery and AI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hellomy point is that this AFCAD issue should have been addressed soon after availability of KMEM. That the seller was still trying to tell me there was no problem with the AFCAD 4 month later when clearly there was is not acceptable.then my remark re: WOAI, to elaborate further, the blueprint scenery is not the most detailed and complex add-on scenery I have - what makes KMEM special is that it is a FEDEX hub, so a hundred odd aircraft on the ramp in fedex livery is what brings this place to life, not the detail and work gone into the scenery and certainly not the attention paid to getting the AFCAD right - which was sloppy.I paid for the scenery - spent days wondering about the afcad (an integral part of scenery) and got fed rubbish.I didn't pay for the fedex fleet and I didn't pay for the afcad fix.so to return your question, where is the logic in that ?so next time I buy elsewhere or use freeware, it's thats simple.do you follow?jlm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.What fundamental errors, that you spend days wondering about, are in the Afcad that make FS9 not work?I have only one airport that comes with custom (military) traffic, that is ImagineSim's TJSJ scenery. All the rest doesn't include AI, so that a scenery needs some AI to liven up the place can be said about pretty much all addon scenery.Finally, I'll agree with you that none of BluePrint's offerings are the most detailed or complex addon sceneries. But then again, BP isn't claiming anything to that extent either. And... it's not pricing its products accordingly either.Around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.I never said fs9 didn't work. and I don't expect any AI traffic to come with the scenery. but I expect the scenery to work with ai traffic. what ai you use is irrelevant if the parking spaces overlap. why couldn't blueprint have provided the afcad you provided ?when I bought the scenery I noticed that all my AI aircraft were literally on top of each other. don't try to convince me this is either normal or acceptable. This was only several weeks ago.Now having read this thread I saw there was indeed a problem with the AFCAD. but blueprint insisted there was no problem.At the top of this thread other users had already encountered the same problem.I am grateful that your modified afcad works fine, thankyou again for that. But I don't see why the user should have to correct an erroneous afcad - I expect it to function correctly.There are cases where multiple runways in use require decisions to be made (madrid etc.) but the seller should provide a workable afcad all the same. soooooo, my point was:that if I pay for the scenery I expect a functioning afcad.now if that's not what we are supposed to expect in the fs scenery world I find that very strange indeed.jlm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> when I bought the scenery I noticed that all my AI aircraft were > literally on top of each other. don't try to convince me this is > either normal or acceptable.I'd love to see a screen shot where all AI are parked on top of each other. There was an issue where some parking spots were simply too large, resulting in aircraft touching wings, but that's all. Especially at an airport such KMEM, that's gonna happen, due to the limited space available, too much traffic (simulator limitations), and scaling issues (everything not having the same scale).The crux of the matter is that Afcad design is an art of its own, very time-consuming and thus costly. Scenery designers aren't necessarily good Afcad designers. There's not one addon scenery Afcad that I didn't edit because it was 'finished'. With different Afcad editors available, some very talented Afcad people and a file library itching to host user tweaked Afcads, I feel that scenery designers don't put the quality of the Afcad high up on their list of priorities. You have somewhat of a point, but this is the way it is and not unique to BP or payware scenery for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> literally on top of each other. ok I shouldn't have used the word literally so literally (lol)? lets say outboard wings overlapping.but I know what your saying - I appreciate it's a tricky business.I suppose I should look at it this way - I have actually learned alot about afcad design and parking by having to fiddle about with a few things.Luckily for all there are guys who enjoy afcad design. It's one of those addictive aspects of flight sim - the other is ai which I nearly got sucked into - I managed to get out just in time (although that could be the denial process).cheersjlm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> when I bought the scenery I noticed that all my AI aircraft>were >> literally on top of each other. don't try to convince me>this is >> either normal or acceptable.>>I'd love to see a screen shot where all AI are parked on top>of each other. There was an issue where some parking spots>were simply too large, resulting in aircraft touching wings,>but that's all. Especially at an airport such KMEM, that's>gonna happen, due to the limited space available, too much>traffic (simulator limitations), and scaling issues>(everything not having the same scale).>Its actually a very common AFCAD problem.All it takes is one missing node at a runway or taxiway intersectionand the planes will end up on top of each other.But such an issue would clearly be in the very minor category, it can in no way be viewed as a 'fundamental' problem. I do have this Blueprint MEM scenery, but I can't say I've experienced this problem yet though.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a different issue Ernie. What you're describing is caused by a missing hold short node at a runway exit. That may result in two (or more) aircraft occupying the same parking spot. And not necessarily limited to one parking spot. But you'll only notice this when AI starts arriving, not at start-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites