My experience with Aerosoft:Great planes, never a major problem with F-16, Beaver, Twotter, Catalina, and my favorite Aerosoft plane the Cheyenne (to compliment my Eaglesoft Twin Comanche and the Real Air Duke). And eventually patches fixed most issues to my satisfaction, but then I usually wait a while to get user feedback before making a purchase anyway, (except for Real Air, all of their products have been pretty much bullet proof out of the box). Aerosoft Support has been fine with me. I don't get all whacked out when I click on a door handle expecting an exit door to open and it doesn't. Disappointed? Maybe. Veins bulging in my next and forehead to go along with a blood red complexion, BP 180 over 110, and murderous intentions. NOT! Trash the developer and all their products unless a patch making that door open is issued, and quickly, like yesterday? I think not. That being said, their scenery has been more difficult. I think primarily as I run fairly maxed out sliders on my OC'd QX9650 with UTX, GEX, and FEX I expect (or hope) to run all scenery that way but most Aerosoft scenery addons (and I don't have any other developers scenery addons installed) manuals show clearly that the respective product should be run at lower settings than I set otherwise and as a consequence the system gets swamped. May be it's psychological: "I paid for every building, tree, etc., and I want to see them all, if I turn down the settings I'm not getting what I paid for". I can't drive 55 either but...Compared to Aerosoft's Manhattan X, Venice X, and London X (all of which have caused various issues for me at various times), Tahiti X runs well for me at my usual settings (and I like lots of clouds in layers and water reflections from them to go along with high Autogen) except around Faa'a, too many 3D objects with Autogen maxed I guess. It took me a week to tour all the islands in the package, and I enjoyed it immensely, lots of neat Easter Eggs to see. I've also got no issues with some of their older titles, Lukla and Aspen in particular run fine. But everybodies setup is different and YMCV.There could also be programming bugaboos that cause issues but I wouldn't be able to determine what they might be as I have no knowledge of programing, or anything computer for that matter. I have had many contacts with support at Aerosoft (direct and through their forums) over the years (mainly due to my lack of understanding) and have always gotten timely responses.A lot of different users with different experiences. The product is exactly the same for all, so any differences in performance /use must be as a result of a given individuals hardware and setup, right?

A lot of different users with different experiences. The product is exactly the same for all, so any differences in performance /use must be as a result of a given individuals hardware and setup, right?

Right!!!!! That

Right!!!!! That

My problem with them is their lack of support and how Shaun just totally blew me off. He also lied about nobody else having the fly through buildings issues because other people can and do fly right through the buildings in their scenery. I can forgive bad products if the support is there and if they will stand by their customers and refund the money. Telling their customers to beat it won't fly with me. All good though as their crappy support has cost them hundreds of dollars of addons in the future between me, my dad and my friends that I am telling to stay far far away from aerosoft. I will get the last laugh as I know that Shaun has cost his company hundred and hundreds of dollars of revenue over his lack of support. Enjoy your products from them.

I really created a mess hereI have been happy with my Aerosft Products for FS2004 - I have the older EDDF, EGLL, Gibraltar, many Spanish airports, Lukla and probably many more than I can remember. I know these are mostly older products and created by different developers. It does sound like it depends on who the developer is - something Aerosoft needs to work out. If they let something substandard through their quality control, it hurts their name, not the developer's name. This thread is definitive evidence for that.I can say that Aerosoft has released probably one of the best FS products ever - AES. In FS2004, I almost only fly between AES airports now. I'm sure it will be same once I get a fast enough system for large airports in FSX.That being said, It has been impossible for me to get any support from Aerosoft with AES. I have tried to join their forum but all confirmation emails get lost (not in junk folder). I can't find a support email anywhere on the site.

I can't find a support email anywhere on the site.

Look under "Company" and "contact" in the left column of their main page. Support email is [email protected]

Well, my 2 cents:Ontopic: Aerosoft's Tahiti X runs fine on my system with medium setup:E8200 @ 2,67GHz, 2GB RAM, nVidia 8800GT 512mb, creative Xfire music audio (audio can be a resourcehog, so a great audiocard is a must for me).Anyway, I have a number of Aerosoft packages, both scenery and aircraft. The aircraft are amazing, having behavior, graphics and virtual cockpits NO-ONE has yet rivalled, except PMDG. The Catalina and Bushhawk for instance are shear dreams to fly.The sceneries are very good to, but there is a "but". They tend to run not too well on "shoddy" FSX installs. Mind you that I blame MS more for this than Aerosoft. My old FSX install went way back to v1.00, then the patch, then SP2, then accelerationpack, with all kinds of addons done in between those and after accelerationpack. My sceneries, also those from Aerosoft, had trouble running in the framerate department. I read earlier in this thread that Mathijs Kok of Aerosoft advised a complete reinstall of FSX to better performance of (Aerosoft) sceneries. This is true for my part.My HDD crashed a while back and I had to reinstall everything. Kind of a chore, but after installing FSX + Accelerationpack + all my addons, even taking care of first installing general sceneries, then localized sceneries and finally aircraft, my system performs way better on FSX. I run it fairly medium, especially in the autogen-area, since that's what's a resourcehog in FSX. I limit my FPS to 25 and am usually at that rate. Only on the heavier sceneries does it drop to 20-17 (Manhattan X for example). Not great, but certainly very flyable. Tahiti X ran around 10fps on the airfields like Faaa, but now does a crisp 25 fps all around, limited to that amount.From my experiences: If your install is anything like my old one, a fresh install in correct order of thing will definately improve your gaming experience without wasting cash on a better rig. But I do agree: If you have a lot of addons: reinstalling is a b*tch!

The only problem is in my case, reinstalling my OS and FSX isn't going to make mip maps magically appear in their sceneries that are un mipped to start with. That's why I took issue with the initial reply from Mathijs when I posted shimmering problems with one of their releases. If I was having lingering problems with FSX and addon sceneries in general, doing a complete reinstall of everything from scratch would be an option I would consider. However, when I have a good install and no problems with any addon sceneries or planes, then I install a new airport and problems are localized to that one airport, that leads me to believe something is wrong with that particular addon when nothing else is effected. Then I dig deeper and realize the scenery is not mip mapped, etc., it confirms my suspicion that something is fundamentally wrong with the product that a reinstall wont magically fix.In my case, I am glad I didn't follow Mathijs recommendation for complete reinstalls of everything because the developer later said that he was going to patch the product that I am having problems with. What makes me mad with Aerosoft sometimes is that they jump to conclusions that something must be wrong with the users computer without first digging into the product in question. Granted a lot of times it may be the users computer, but when they are dealing with a customer who has a good understanding of what is going on, they seem to not like to admit fault on thier end.

My problem with manhattan and sanfran is not frame rates. I get 25-30fps with max settings in their scenery WITH ut2 enabled. My problem is with the hitching and the fact that I can fly through the buildings because there are no crash boxes. I can't land on the metlife helo pad either and they say they have no problems. FSX runs like a dream for me with everything else because my pc is very fast. Unmipped buildings are also a HUGE problem with aerosoft scenery. It's lazy and shoddy work to not mip the textures and buildings and is inexcusable. It's the aerosoft QC issues that I have a problem with on my pc, not performance.

My two cents. Scenery products I have from aerosoft:Tahiti XLukla XAspen XI do find that, all else being equal, I do take a performance hit on Tahiti and Aspen. Generally I would estimate in the range of 3-7 fps lower. Lukla is a very small area so that may be why a minimal impact there.On Aerosoft as a company I disagree entirely on the customer service. If you are reasonable and polite they are very timely and helpful. I have never had any issues with them. They have some of the best CS in the business.Given the state of scenery development today with Tongass Fjord X from Holger Sandmann and Bill Womack and anything from FTX/orbx I would agree that Aerosoft has some catching up to do in the scenery department. But previous to these two developers' recent products Aerosoft certainly had some of the better scenery products on the market. Since I mostly do GA flying I am not interested in the bigger airports so I can't really say much about the quality there but with the two most recently published planes, the Catalina and the Discus Glider, Aerosoft is cetainy still very competititve. I just wish they would go back and upgrade the previous bush planes - Twin Otter, Bush Hawk and Beaver.

The original query in the thread was about Tahiti X. My opinion on the product is that it hits the framerates much to hard to be useable

I have not heard any negative comments about PNG Raw grit though

Fully appreciate the comments, Mike. Yep, apart from customized veggies, many are default trees so cannot deny this. It is a compromise I had to make in this and other areas of the scenery just to boost fps based on beta test feedback. I'm currently working on more customized vegetation to improve overall eyecandy in this area. Graham