I've just seen a bit of old-ish news (from Saturday) on the Aerosoft website about Amsterdam X now being available for FSX via download, including a wealth of screenshots. Link to the screenshots below.http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte/_php_...rportamsterdamxApologies if this has been posted elsewhere on here but thought some of you guys might not have seen this, I know I hadn't and nearly keeled over when I saw the screenies! I'm going to have to part with some cash when I get home later today!I often fly in and out of EHAM and have to say it looks brilliant (doesn't it always in official screenshots) and will really enhance flying in and around Amsterdam Schiphol. To say I was fed up with the blandness of the default airport is an understatement, roll on home time! :( Adam.

Adam, Thanks for the heads up. If you previously purchased the FS9 version, the FSX download is free. Can't beat that with a stick!

Is this another 2004 version patched for FSX? How are the frames?

Tomaz, I don't know if it's a port over or not. My first thought is that it's not only because the FS9 version was released back in March. I won't get a chance to really test it until I get home from work tonight, but just firing it up, I got FPS in the mid to lower 20's with the Level-D767. At night though it's unusable, FPS in the 1-2 range. If you go to the Aerosoft forums there are a number of threads devoted to this release.UPDATEI was looking at the Aerosoft support forums and apparently there are some real issues with this scenery, especially, if you have an Acceleration install. They are working on fixing these problems, but you may want to hold off until they get them straightened out.

Tomaz, I don't know if it's a port over or not. My first thought is that it's not only because the FS9 version was released back in March. I won't get a chance to really test it until I get home from work tonight, but just firing it up, I got FPS in the mid to lower 20's with the Level-D767. At night though it's unusable, FPS in the 1-2 range. If you go to the Aerosoft forums there are a number of threads devoted to this release.UPDATEI was looking at the Aerosoft support forums and apparently there are some real issues with this scenery, especially, if you have an Acceleration install. They are working on fixing these problems, but you may want to hold off until they get them straightened out.

HI I dont own it yet but after reading the aerosoft forums, Theres allot of problems with the fsx version. I would wait a little bit till it gets all sorted out. one major problem, was some runway light issue that brings down fps too single digits. imaginesim also had this problem as well as some other scenery developers. I believe that issue was solved but I dont if there are others left.

I have the same issues with Brussels X from Aerosoft and never really received much help in fixing crashing with fsx + acceleration. Too bad because I love flying around EHAM and EBBR

Unfortunately I bought Amsterdam X prior to reading the replies here.The frame rates are very sporadic; the lowest I recorded was 6.3 and the highest just touching 19. They seem to hover more around the 12-15 mark which is what I had before tweaking, getting 20-25 after tweaking so I'm disappointed about the loss. It's still useable at times (i.e when I'm not moving) and a tad jittery at times, especially when panning around the PMDG MD-11 cockpit, with UT2 traffic enabled. I turned off the highway traffic but this didn't do much to eleviate the drop. I didn't even dare to try night time testing.I'll be keeping a track on the Aerosoft forum to see if any fixes are eventually issued.Adam

Didn't they test the product? I mean.. one digit frame rates at night.. I think this should be quite obvious prior to release.. or not? They genuinely didn't notice these bugs or did they release the buggy product intentionally? This is the 3rd Aerosoft product I almost bought but than I saw the customers feedback... other two were Duch Harbor and Santorini.

Amsterdam is my fourth Aerosoft scenery acquisition and probably the most troublesome. Innsbruck is the only one I've had that is trouble free. Nice Cote D'Azur caused slight performance issues but otherwise looks great, even at night. Vaernes Trondheim had a few problems, especially with parts of the scenery mapping along the taxiway that goes over the railway line. I was taxiing the default 737 for testing and as I went over the small bridge, there was a gap or something and the 737 just fell into the cut-out where the railway line goes. The gap wasn't noticeable from the cockpit however when I reloaded and tried again, I looked from the outside and it was like some optical illusion over that particular area. It's now been sorted but was most annoying at the time. The visual elements to all the sceneries are excellent, likewise for Amsterdam but it's just unplayable with such poor frame rates.I've been checking the Aerosoft forum and it'd seem the runway lights are the cause of some problems. An AES developer (Oliver Pabst) has issued a BGL file that some users seem to have had luck with when installing. Going by Oliver's post, he saw no issues until he tried it on his PC with Acceleration installed. If this is the case, are Aerosoft testers testing sceneries without the Acceleration pack installed?? This links to page 2 of that particular thread where the links to the downloadable files are http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...36293&st=20 Scroll down to find the file posted by Oliver. I've not tried it yet but will do so when I get home from work and see how it goes.Those with Amsterdam X, I'd suggest bookmarking this particular thread and keep a close eye on it for further developments.Adam

I might get Amsterdam X if they put out a patch.

Sounds like they didn't test it with Acceleration or maybe they didn't test it with Acceleration at night. Either way, that is very sloppy. The runway lights issue sounds like the same problem Imaginesim had with their scenery - problems that were discovered over a year ago.When are developers going to accept that SP2 and Acceleration SP2 are not the same thing? If something works with Acceleration it will work with SP2. If something works with SP2 it may work with Acceleration but it is not guaranteed.They must test with Acceleration and if they don't, they should point it out on the product page - "This product not compatible with Acceleration". Funny, their page at Simmarket says it requires SP2 or Acceleration. Sloppy, lazy and perhaps dishonest.

Sloppy, lazy and perhaps dishonest.

I'll agree with the sloppy and lazy part. I don't think it was necessarily dishonest. I haven't had any problems with any other Aerosoft scenery I've purchased, so I'm curious as to how quickly they address this problem.

Amsterdam is my fourth Aerosoft scenery acquisition and probably the most troublesome. Innsbruck is the only one I've had that is trouble free. Nice Cote D'Azur caused slight performance issues but otherwise looks great, even at night. Adam

Adam, I'm in the same boat as you. Out of all the Aerosoft sceneries I own, NiceX was the biggest disappointments in terms of performance. Sure NiceX looks nice, but for such a small airport I have some performance issues with it. So far the only sceneries by Aerosoft that I haven't had much issue with were MadeiraX and a few of the GAP 2 airports.Frankly, I am not sure if I will ever buy anymore sceneries that they develope and since they dont offer a money back guarantee that makes me even more hesitant to purchase. As of late I have been considering EDDF from them, but I am really afraid I will be disappoint in the performance.Truth be told, the only scenery manufactures I really have faith in producing good looking sceneries that perform well are FlyTampa, FSDT, LatinVFR and Tropical Sim. Also the one thing I like about the 4 developers that I mentioned is that if there is an issue they are quick to help, diagnose, and fix the problem. With Aerosoft my experience so far has been that if you have an issue with a scenery, Shaun comes on and says he will talk to the developer, then comes back later sometimes with a fix and sometimes not. The thing that I dont like is that you rarely ever can talk to the developer directly. The conversation almost always goes thru Shaun. Personally I like to be able to interact with the fellow who made the scenery, rather than pass questions through a 3rd person.In a way I guess I am lucky that they stick mostly with Euro sceneries and since I fly mostly in North/Central/South American, and the Caribbean, all of which are areas that they don't develope, I dont need to rely on them to produce products for me to use. A few years ago I posted on their forum that I wished they produced sceneries for the US, but in hind sight, I am glad they dont and FlyTampa and FSDT seem to have taken more ownership of that region.

I can concur as far as support w/t FlyTampa and FSDreamteam,I've had very minor issues in the past w/t both and they were resolved within hrs with direct support from the developers themselves,can't beat these guy's for quality and support.

I'll agree with the sloppy and lazy part. I don't think it was necessarily dishonest. I haven't had any problems with any other Aerosoft scenery I've purchased, so I'm curious as to how quickly they address this problem.

I hope I am wrong - that's why I said "perhaps" dishonest. It just seems like there there is a lot of confusion between SP2 and Acceleration in the community. The problem is multiplied by the closing of Aces so no one out there really knows the difference between the version of SP2 in Acceleration and the standalone SP2. In a post over at FS.com a while back, Reggie Fields confirmed that there is a difference between the two but he didn't know exactly what the difference was. Reggie has been around for a while so I trust that he is right. http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthrea...ht=accelerationThe other problem is that there are no standards in the FS community for testing and advertising compatibility. This product says that it is compatible with Acceleration on it's product page at Simmarket so one would assume that it was fully tested with Acceleration. If the problem is the runway lights, there is no way that it could have been fully tested with Acceleration. As I mentioned, the runway lights issue has been know for a year. It was the same issue that Imaginesim experienced with LGA and IAD.And Aerosoft cannot claim ignorance about the issue. Here is a discussion about the problem in their own forums about EDDF: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...rt+accelerationThere have been a few threads about this issue here at AVSIM. Here is one about Imaginesim. The argument made in the threads prior to Imaginesim releasing patches for their products was, " If Aerosoft can fix the problem, why can Imaginesim?"http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...p;hl=imaginesimOf course, it could be an entirely different issue but when high end systems are getting sporadic single digit FPS, it sounds like the runway lights issue. I was getting 1-2 FPS with the lights on at LGA before the patch, now it works fine.