How is Aeorsoft TahitiX on FPS

[Shaka 2]

I own a few Aerosoft addons - I'm pretty happy with most of them. To start with, support is outstanding - a quick visit to their forums shows how active the developers are, and they generally seem interested in receiving customer feedback. My understanding is that Aerosoft does not develop most of the software they sell, but instead act as a publisher. So, to generalize about the quality of the work doesn't make sense, since there are many independent developers involved.As for the Tahiti package - I don't have any problems with framerates. It's not like it's one big mega-airport - it's several small airports spread out over a fairly large area. Even on my old system, it ran fine. As for their other scenery packages, you will probably see a decrease in framerates at some of their "Mega" airports (Heathrow, CDG, etc), but these are some of the worlds biggest and busiest airports. I find the quality of the Tahiti scenery to be better than the Tropicalsim sceneries, and the performance to be about the same.- Martin

[Hypo 1]

Tahiti X is ok on my system, and i Like Aerosoft producs, i have a lot for fs9 and fsx too very good quality, very good support.i only have problem now with 2 products African adventure, is a fps KILLER, and Twotter, somehow in vc the fps is very low, same airport the leveld d or PMDG new BAe performs much better i dont know why, i love to fly with the twotter but its kill me in the vc

[duckbilled 310]

Wow, broad range of experiences here.I have usually had good experiences with Aerosoft products. EGLL was one of my best large airports in FS9 for FPS. I'm not going to install it in to FSX right now because I know it will be a waste of time on my system.Does anyone know why Tahiti is so bad? As mentioned, it is not a major airport and even at Faaa, there is very little traffic compared to a major hub.I have noticed that there is animated wildlife. Can it be removed? I don't need dolphins and birds.

[pavel 0]

I do not want to blame Aerosoft. Jeff asked for opinions about fps and TahitiX and i provided it. I remember that before upgrade i hade similar computer as Jeff (AMD Athlon 64 3800+) and i was getting 8fps on the treshold of FAAA runway. After upgrade i am getting there about 17 fps with default aircraft. So i think some products (like TahitiX, AAA, BushhawkX) are not suitable for Jeff with Athlon 64.Pavel

[Guest j0nx]

Shaun is certainly NOT the man. He refuses to support me at all. Just blames the problems on my pc after 30 seconds of troubleshooting on his end and then washes his hands of the problem and puts you on ignore. It's ridiculous. Buy aerosoft if you dare but be prepared for issues. Lots of their older stuff is very good and I was always happy until recently but the new stuff that they are cranking out on the assembly line is crap. My opinion of course. Buildings have no crash boxes, nothing is mipmapped and performance is sketchy at best on a very high end pc. Don't say you weren't warned.

[Spud128 0]

I like Aerosoft. They seem to have good support based on my experience. I only own the F-16 and Brussels scenery from them. The F-16 is a lot of fun and the Brussels scenery looks great but does have fps issues (for me anyways) and I've got a decent setup. I am looking forward to their Iceland scenery. Has anyone tried their US cities scenery by the way? Once they put out a city that I actually fly in I'll probably buy as the ones I've seen look very nice. Hope they do a San Diego or Minneapolis :( one of these days.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I'll chime in here with my Aerosoft experiences. I have bought the following from them and how my experience has been so far.F-16F-16 Fighting Falcon - Mission PackMadeira XGerman Airports 2 XNice XThe F-16 is pretty good, not to bad on frames unless you are in a very dense area with lots of AI. The easiest thing to do if FPS are suffering is to turn off the two MFDs and you will gain about 5 to 10 FPS back. If I am flying it into a dense airport I usually turn them of to get some frames back because the MFDs aren't really needed on final.The mission pack I bought I have only used a few times. Not bad but not as good as I expected. It was cheap so I don't really care.The three airport sets I have bought have been pretty good, but not the greatest. Like j0nx said they are usually not mip mapped which leaves some work for the user to do unless you don't mind the shimmering. Madeira X was disappointing to a lot of people because the curved lead in lights are not as bright as they could have been and are not very visible at night, plus lack of mipping to the textures.I have to say though that Nice X has been the worst one they have developed so far. The screen shots look nice but on my system, which is not exactly a slouch, it looks really bad because of the lack of mip mapping and very bad shimmering. I have been able to band aid it somewhat by mipping it myself, but it still isn't as good as it could be.I have never had to really post there for customer service until I bought the Nice package, and when I did I was not very happy with the responses I got from the leader Mathijs. In short he basically told me that I needed to start with a fresh install of my operating system and FSX and that would make the scenery work the way it should. His reasoning behind this was that I had a non standard FSX set up on my system and that the developer would probably laugh if he told him about my system and why the scenery wasn't working correctly. I wouldn't say that my FSX is by any means a hack job. I have a mild overclock and lots of addon airports and a few addon aircraft. Now if that qualifies for a non standard system I guess that the majority of FSX users wont be able to use this scenery. I replied back saying that I had no issues with any other airports or aircraft, just Nice X. I also told him that my OS, FSX, and drivers were installed and configured by the pay service that FS-GS does. He told me that he wouldn't trust that service and he still insisted that I need to reinstall everything from scratch and it would magically fix my problem with that airport. To me that was unacceptable, especially when my computer and FSX work fine with no problems. My install of my OS, drivers, and FSX are about as sterile as you can get. I don't even use my FSX computer to browse the internet or use it for anything else beside FSX.After that, I never heard from him again.I would go on about this and what happened but it would take to long.To their credit the developer who made the scenery just replied to my post the other day and said that he is going to work on fixing the texture issues as well as the AFCAD issue. It was also a coincidence that the fellow who made Nice X was also the same guy who did Madeira X, of which people complained of some of the same issues. I have hope that in due time things will be corrected.The link to my 4 pages of posts for a solution: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=28853I must say that after this I am torn on whether I will but more from them in the future. The airports are certainly not the quality of FSDreamteam or FlyTampa, but on the flip side they do come out with a lot of products. I don't believe that they are up to date with scenery design like FSDT and FlyTampa are otherwise the sceneries would at least have mip maps. The Nice X scenery doesn't even have moving jetways.As far as Shaun goes I think he is more of a messanger. Seems like a nice guy but most of his replies are usually to the effect of "I will ask the developer" or "Let me check with Mathijs".One thing that I don't like so much besides what I have mentioned so far is that they seem like they don't like to reveal who does what or who makes the sceneries. I feel like if they got the actaul developer involved with the forum things would get solved much quicker.I don't think that they are bad people or have the intent to rip anyone off, but I think that they are in such a hurry to develope stuff and publish other people work so fast, that quality starts to get compromised in their need for quantity. Regards

[Guest j0nx]

I love their Dillingham X scenery. I have always loved that little airport and was excited when I saw that they were doing it for FSX. It fits in perfectly with the megascenery addon. Their seahawk package and Diamond Katana are also excellent. I have purchased at least 7 things from them over the years that I can think of now and probably a few more that I forgot about and was always delighted with them. It's only after purchasing their more recent scenery addons of Manhattan and San Francisco that really disappointed me. They both run with a nasty hitch. Frame rates on my beast pc are fine but the hitching is terrible. They both shimmer terribly and the buildings are all easily flown through with no crash boxes. The textures are bland and washed out and support is non-existent now too, whereas in the past they were much more friendly and diligent. It's very easy to see when a company turns for the worse. I saw it with MS and Dell many years ago and the signs are very evident now with Aerosoft. Churn and burn is the name of the game for them now and quality and support go to the back burner. My opinion of course. Your mileage may vary.

[mhlarsen 2]

I recommend staying away from aerosoft completely. Terrible support and subpar products as of late. They are a churn and burn shop these days which is sad.

I think we are feeding a troll here...but anyway:Aerosoft is way ahead of any other supplier of FS9/FSX products in regard to superb quality and superior support :( And on top of that they are expanding our hobby with innovative addons as well

[Guest ArtieLange]

I think we are feeding a troll here...but anyway:Aerosoft is way ahead of any other supplier of FS9/FSX products in regard to superb quality and superior support :( And on top of that they are expanding our hobby with innovative addons as well

Hey, not everything they touch turns to gold, since many different devs publish through areosoft there is bound to be some clunkers. You may think he is a troll, and I may think you are brown nosing, but the fact is TahitiX has horrible frame rates, and it's not the only product they've published that has issues.

[FlavioSSA 44]

Hey, not everything they touch turns to gold, since many different devs publish through areosoft there is bound to be some clunkers. You may think he is a troll, and I may think you are brown nosing, but the fact is TahitiX has horrible frame rates, and it's not the only product they've published that has issues.

Only if you consider 25-30FPs a horrible frame rate.

[RudiJG1 172]

Only if you consider 25-30FPs a horrible frame rate.

I have to agree..."horrible frame rate" is utterly dependent on a lot of variables, hardware and software-related. I confess that I spend a lot of time surfing the web for FSX tuning tips and then killing too much time fiddling with my machine and FSX configuration. But in my case, that has meant that TahitiX has perfectly acceptable frame rates on my rig. And it's not always about framerate per se but rather the perception of smoothness. Bottom line: I'm glad I purchased this scenery.Here are my specs:Asus P5QC MBQ9550 Core 2 CPU oc 3.4 GHz4 GB OCZ PC2 6400 DDR2 RAMBFG GeForce 275 GTX (stock speeds)Corsair 850HX PSU1 WD Raptor X 150 GB SATA HDD2 Seagate 320 GB SATA HDDs1 Seagate 1 TB HDDSoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty ProPioneer DVR-111D DVD-RW PATALite-On LH-20A1S DVD-RW SATANEC MultiSync 90GX 19" LCDWin Vista Home Premium (64 bit)Forceware 182.50 video driver

[Guest j0nx]

I think we are feeding a troll here...but anyway:Aerosoft is way ahead of any other supplier of FS9/FSX products in regard to superb quality and superior support :( And on top of that they are expanding our hobby with innovative addons as well

Pardon me? I think you need to rethink your post for flame potential friend. I have better things to do with my time than troll. My opinion of aerosoft and their recent products stands. Just check the front page of avsim. Every other link is aerosoft releases this or aerosoft releases that. Churn and burn at the expense of quality and support. My assessment stands. Take your own chances.

[Arklight1 140]

I recommend staying away from aerosoft completely. Terrible support and subpar products as of late. They are a churn and burn shop these days which is sad.

I haven't had any problems with their support or their products.

[mhlarsen 2]

Pardon me? I think you need to rethink your post for flame potential friend. I have better things to do with my time than troll. My opinion of aerosoft and their recent products stands. Just check the front page of avsim. Every other link is aerosoft releases this or aerosoft releases that. Churn and burn at the expense of quality and support. My assessment stands. Take your own chances.

I did take my chances, as I buy most of the products they release and have not been disappointed yet.That includes Tahiti X as well. Framerates are on par with what I get with London City 15-25.