Aerosoft Nice - I'm confused

[duckbilled]

Hasn't this been available for quite a while? I recall people complaining about FPS at this airport. Is this a revamped version, completely new version or the same version re-released?I always wanted to buy the original version but the comments about it steered me away.

[cmpbellsjc]

Hasn't this been available for quite a while? I recall people complaining about FPS at this airport. Is this a revamped version, completely new version or the same version re-released?I always wanted to buy the original version but the comments about it steered me away.

Yeah, it's a revamped version that added AES-lite and according to them it was improved from the original version. I think they said some other improvements were made but wihtout looking at the thread I dont remember what they were. Having said that, I bought the original version when it first came out and it was probably one of the worst performing sceneries that I have ever bought, especially considering the size of the airport. I started a thread on the subject back then http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/28853-nice-x-request-patch-suggestion-or-refund/page__p__180038__hl__%2Bnice+%2Brefund__fromsearch__1#entry180038 which morphed into 11 pages of nothing.That was the scenery that ended up really putting me off of Aerosoft sceneries, although I have purchased a few since then, but now I make sure that none of them have been made by Peter Werlitz as it seems his work usually doens't perform all that well (Nice, Orly, etc).I did end up getting the original version to work well after days of trying different texture and mipmap combinations. I ended up converting the majority of the textures to DXT1 with mipmaps and now I get a solid 30 to 35 FPS, but the original version before my mods only yielded about 20 FPS on my rig in the same situation.I have since downloaded the newer package since it was a free for those who already owned the first version, but I haven't installed it, and in all honesty I am not sure if I will even give it a shot since I finally got the last one working well. I did however install it to a dummy FSX folder on my internet computer to check out the files and texture structures. It appeared that the textures were much the same of the orignal so I have held off putting it on my FSX rig.Dont mean to sound like a Debbie Downer, but that was the experience I had with the orignal. The new version might be better however if your wiling to give it a shot wihtout the possibilty of a refund.

[CoolP]

I only got the new version (didn't have the older one before) and the performance is great here. I think I have some FranceVFR around there (which is ported FS9 stuff) and I'm happy so far.Didn't come to fly much from and to so far, but my Trike and Ant's Drifter checks with 100% UT2 looked promising. I only did one flight with the E-Jets V2 and it was fine on the fps too.There was a review of the new Nice, maybe it helps more than my vague descriptions. http://simflight.com...for-fsx-review/And I agree, some trial mode would make that Aerosoft Launcher much more attractive. I like that update feature but the rest is pure protection stuff running there. I'm able to find the manuals to my products most of the time, including that Season Tool. Not a rant, not some 'they scan our computers' paranoia, but some suggestion to make use of that protection and allow some trials then.

[Fenric]

Agreed - while I like a lot of the Aerosoft airports, I've ran into a lot of idontbelivethat* so that without the option for a trial mode (like I dunno, FSDT and UK2000 and ImagineSim and Flightbeam) I'll wait a good half-year before considering a purchase.That said, Barcelona and Münich were very fine efforts, Orly and Amsterdam not so much. I'll guess I'll wait and see if Stuttgart makes it into a German Airports package.After reading cmpbellsjc's trials on the initial version and thus considering him to be the consumer expert on Nice, I await his judgement on the new version. :( * - Missing textures, missing objects, seas of shim-shim-shimmers, yawning chasms in the middle of CDG (fixed by a user!), yawning chasms that eat FPS counters and burp out stutters, etc.

[altstiff]

Aerosoft has many developers doing different scenery's.For example the German Airports Team did many of the German Airports (DUH!). Orly and Nice were done in house (and thus why they are not some of the better sceney's). Mind you, Nice V2 is much better all round now.EBBR, EHAM and ESSA were done by Cornel Grigoriu. Sim WIngs did many of the Spanish Scenery's, LFPG and the older 2007 version of EGLL. Thorsten Reichert did Larnaca, Dutch Harbour and a couple others (can't recall off the top of my head).Look into who did the scenery before purchase :( Some developers have a better reputation than others.

[KeithyGeorge]

Agreed - while I like a lot of the Aerosoft airports, I've ran into a lot of idontbelivethat* so that without the option for a trial mode (like I dunno, FSDT and UK2000 and ImagineSim and Flightbeam) I'll wait a good half-year before considering a purchase.That said, Barcelona and Münich were very fine efforts, Orly and Amsterdam not so much. I'll guess I'll wait and see if Stuttgart makes it into a German Airports package.After reading cmpbellsjc's trials on the initial version and thus considering him to be the consumer expert on Nice, I await his judgement on the new version. :( * - Missing textures, missing objects, seas of shim-shim-shimmers, yawning chasms in the middle of CDG (fixed by a user!), yawning chasms that eat FPS counters and burp out stutters, etc.

Hi Fenric.I have Aersoft Mega Airport Paris Charles De Gaulle. Comapred to all the other airports I have in my sig it is truly awful for FPS.THis put me off buying Barcelona Mega Airport. But you say Barcelona are very fine efforts. Do they perform well then?ThanksKeithy

[Fenric]

Aerosoft has many developers doing different scenery's.For example the German Airports Team did many of the German Airports (DUH!). Orly and Nice were done in house (and thus why they are not some of the better sceney's). Mind you, Nice V2 is much better all round now.EBBR, EHAM and ESSA were done by Cornel Grigoriu. Sim WIngs did many of the Spanish Scenery's, LFPG and the older 2007 version of EGLL. Thorsten Reichert did Larnaca, Dutch Harbour and a couple others (can't recall off the top of my head).Look into who did the scenery before purchase Some developers have a better reputation than others.

I'm aware of SimWings and generally think well of them. I wasn't up on the others though, thanks for pointing out the individuals.

Hi Fenric.I have Aersoft Mega Airport Paris Charles De Gaulle. Comapred to all the other airports I have in my sig it is truly awful for FPS.THis put me off buying Barcelona Mega Airport. But you say Barcelona are very fine efforts. Do they perform well then?ThanksKeithy

Keithy,In my mind Barcelona was faster than CDG, but that's never a safe bet to take, so I thought to make an actual test.I ran FSX and loaded the white trike, parked it at LFPG B11 and through sampling the four cardinal directions in spot mode at 80% zoom I got an average of 21 FPS.At LEBL Park 11 I got an average of 29 FPS - decidedly better than Paris. (Plus LEBL has the newer Aerosoft Mega touches like the "faux active taxi stop bars" as does EDDM.) In comparison at smaller airports that we share -- EDDP Gate 111 gave me 31 FPS, and at (the newest) EGGD Gate 11 I scored an even 40 FPS.These measurements were with no AI, no add-ons (except AES, which means I have "Oscar the marshaller" standing by me everywhere. :( ) and clear skies at mid-day, with the horizon set so only 10% of my screen is sky.Now I think I'll take some time and enjoy skimming the approach lights on the hill down from Bristol runway 09.