Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Wilco A2002 - Don't buy it!!!

Recommended Posts

Hi,I just got Wilco's Airport 2002 Vol. 1. I have to say that I am outraged. For all this money they make us pay they give us very little: some planes which are nice, but not better than anything that can be found as freeware on this or other sites, a cockpit which again is nice but nothing better than some freeware panels, a completely over-hyped little gimmick called FSNAT, and: TERRIBLE airports! I was really shocked at how bad they are. I bought the package because there is no other good rendering of Chicago O'Hare and Paris CDG. All the other airports are done already superbly by people like SimFlyers and GermanAirports, so already I thought "if they re-do these, they must think they're better than SimFlyers". But when I looked at the airport, I was really really flabberghasted. When first looking at Paris I went into the scenery library because I thought this was the default scenery. The US airports are a little better, but still complete crap (forgive my frankness). For instance, in Paris, you have some boring looking buildings around the tarmac which have little resemblance to reality, you have terminals with only a few airbridges, incomplete parking, the buildings are much too high compared to reality, all the terminals 2A-2D look the same (in reality they don't!), there are cheap static aircraft in absurd places (Lufthansa at Terminal 2), and so on. Chicago is a little better, but why on earth did they decide to park a whole armada of Air Canada 747s at the gates? This planes does not go to KORD, and I am not even sure AC has so many 747s... On top of that, the AI files that come with it are lousily done: links not connected, a ridiculous small number of gates (like 8 or so for KORD!), so one needs to re-do all of them.All in all, this package is a terrible waste of money. I had really high hopes, as I liked their previous A2000 series a lot and I still use them, but in the times where there are things like SimFlyers and GA and LAGO out in the market, Wilco must really be taking a ##### at the Simmer community to think this would impress anyone. My advice:1) Don't buy it2) If you want to have KLAX, KDFW, KATL, get SimFlyers; for EDDM, get German Airports, for EGLL get London Airports3) Let's all lobby those developers of freeware or shareware or payware that do decent products (like the ones named above) to do those airports that are missing (KORD, LFPG, but also KJFK or why not other important international hubs like Bangkok or Dubai or Sydney), because I am sure there are people like me willing to pay, but not to get ripped off like this.I hope I have some of you some money here. ChrisPS: And, yes, I had the scenery settings set to highest

Share this post


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

Your Wrong.It is easy to say that the product is bad. LFPG is verry different than the FS2002 default. EDDM is much better than the German airport one. KORD is 200 % better and more realistic than thr default one. And by the way learn to count: there is 15 gates available and not 8.The FSNAT technology is a great enhancement for FS2002.Don't forget that all the bulding are in Gmax and not create with using scams or other creative tool. But to appreciate A2002 it is true that you must have a good configuration. The same problem was already there with the former product of wilco. The frame rate have a price.Yes there is freeware of shareware products who are verry good but they don't offer what Wilco do with A2002.Largo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... forgive my limited command of English: "yikes" is good or bad?And as for the previous comment: alright, it is better than default, big deal. However, what I expect from payware these days are things like correct number of gates, correct positioning of parkings, buildings that resemble reality (i.e. some effort by the developer to make different textures for different terminals if in reality they look different), taxiway signs, no meaningless static aircraft at absurd (i.e. nothing to do with reality) positions, a level of detail that gives one the impression of really being there, such as airline panels on the airbridges at KORD. I understand that I need the right settings, but if at LFPG terminal 1 all the satellites have only 3 airbridges although in reality there are up to 6 or 7, are you implying that the number of gates will increase if I change my settings (check it out, they don't)? Will the cranes shrink to realistic dimensions when I change the settings? Does the road that crosses Terminal 2 at LFPG get elevated? Will the very crudely designed Paris airbirdges get more refined? Clearly nothing of that (and by the way I had set all the settings to the max) And as for AFCAD: indeed, I did not count, there are 15 positions at KORD, but hey, KORD is the world's second largest airport by number of passangers - are you implying that I can simulate the hub of two major US airlines and a major national and international gateway with 15 gates?? I accept that all of this has been done with GMAX, but this is like telling me that am ordinary Pizza Hut lunch turns into a three star gastronomic experience only by virtue of the cook using the same type of pan than Paul Bocuse. GMAX is a superb technique, but all I am saying is that the guys at Wilco have not made a great effort here, at best it's varying from "disastrous" to "usable", but never "wow". As you can read between my lines I am just very very disappointed - I was really looking forward to this package, based on previous experience with their Airport 2000 series, but here they have made progress on the tools front (FSNAT, GMAX), but the result in terms of realsitic and detailed sceneries is a scam and certainly not "as real as it gets". Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilco is for a long time ago a company who have increase the detail for Flight Simulator. Remember the Airport 2000 volume 1. It was the first time that somebody uses photorealistic textures to create buildings. Before Wilco, scenery creator use painted texture and FS look more like an arcade game than a simulator. There was also the Tahiti scenery with the reflection of the mountains in the lagoon water. Then the Grand Canyon with a very accurate relief. Then the 767 PIC and the first full detailed and usable cockpit. It is so detailed that it can be use for training.Now wilco is innovating with two new products. The Airport 2002 volume 1 and the A320 PIC. For the first one it is the first time that we use the Gmax technology. The FSNAT is also a new technology. Yes Simflyer have also trucks and vehicles around your craft, but they just appear from nowhere. With FSNAT the trucks are coming from another point of the airport to the aircraft. For the moment that is only for aircraft from scenery, but I'm sure that Wilco is ready to find how use FSnat with the pilot aircraft.But just let go back to the past. When Wilco create the first Airport 2000, people at this time have the same reaction thanyou now. Many virtual pilots say that it is not a good product, that the frame rate is low,.... . Now everybody use the same technique than wilco for the first Airport 2000. I'm sure that in maximum 1 year all the sceneriesll use the Gmax technology and certainly with a better result than Airport 2002. Wilco set the standard for the future. It is the same for the virtual cockpit. Some people find that very bad now. But I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in your posting you refer to "we" I take that you are affiliated to Wilco or maybe part of the production team. Well, I will stop hereas this is not supposed to be a debating contest. I think I have made my disappointment clear in that whatever great technology you may be using, the airports still look terrible when compared to all other payware developers (and I am NOT affiliated to any of them) and to what flightsimmers these days are expecting when buying scenery packages. My various concrete examples of where the scenery dramatically lacks realism will give other users an idea. I thank you for many inventions in the past, I happily use the A2000 series Vol. 2 and Vol. 3. Let me say that my intention was not at all to make your product a commercial failure, but having followed many discussions in this forum in the past, I felt it also a service to this community to tell them what my personal impressions are.Let's see how other users rate the package.Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guy,When I use "We", I speak about the FS community. I'm not working for Wilco and have must pay the Airport 2002 like everybody else.Lets waiting the review on different web sites like avsim.Largo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a no-brainer for me as well. The 737's colours were way out of whack - and compared to Lago's Honolulu, the buildings looked quite weak. This is Wilco. They do some things really well PIC, and some things really poorly (most everything else, like the pathetic 737 in Fly!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I was also slightly (but not entirely) disappointed when viewing the results of Wilco Airport 2002 (2 GHZ WinXP , 512 MB Ram, Geforce 400 MMX 64 MB). The first thing I noticed is that it takes FS2002 considerably longer to render the scenery (i.e. to load). End of the day this may not be so bad, as long as the result is right, but I wonder what the effect of this is once you approach an Airport 2002 airfield (for the first time) in flight... After a first review it seems that the quality of the different airports included in the package varies in terms of eyecandy. E.g. Heathrow looks and feels (I am not much into counting gates and planes) about right, so does Munich. However, I don't know what went wrong with Paris. It looks a bit deserted - a feeling I know too well from the default FS2002 scenery ...Airport 2002 also comes with a first taste of the "new" 3D cockpit environment which is going to be the main feature in the upcoming PIC A320. The idea is right and in principle the Boeing 737-700 3D cockpit seems to work. However, even with a fairly fast computer with a fairly decend graphics card do I seem to notice small hickups when "looking" in certain angles. Moreover, much to my surprise it seems like they have decided not to include a 2D cockpit anymore. So instead, in the "cockpit" view, you get the same view you are used to when looking in "3D cockpit" view without having a 3D cockpit available. Funny enough, they did include the sideviews in 2D !?! Strange, because the PDF documentation of the cockpit seems to show pictures of a 2D panel...Maybe somebody can tell me whether this is actually meant to be or whether this is just my installation !Quite a view buttons on the panel do not seem to work at all. While I do realize that FS2002 simulates only a limited number of aircraft systems I still like the idea that all the buttons function. End of the day we simmers usually have a bit of imagination.... Is this what the A320 is going to be like ? Moreover, trying to activate a button in the 3D environment from an angle can be a bit of a hustle. These are some first thoughts on what I do consider to be an issue because the product is not freeware and - in any event - not above criticsm !Why do I care ? I care because I still consider Wilco to be one of the top FS2002 add-on developers on the scene which means I always have high expectations...FreddyP.S.: Does Wilco have a user forum where one can discuss technical issues ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This is Wilco. They do some things really well PIC, and >some things really poorly (most everything else, like the >pathetic 737 in Fly!). Actually, the reason the PIC767 is so good is because it wasn't made by Wilco. Wilco hired an independent group to create the panel, sounds, and FDE. All Wilco did was create the horrible exterior model (which everybody hates) and publish the software.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Tester-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my New American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I AGREE!!! I just receive this product and it is a piece of JUNK!! It won't even load on my machine...I have 1.5 Ghz and 512 Mb of Ram. FS2002 tells me I don't have enough memory. This occurs when I go the Airport 2002 airports.DON'T BUY IT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of reviews like this, I purchased the SimFlyer's World Airport series last night over the internet. It should be here is a week or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have taken so little to get this WA2002 correct. There are tons of pictures available for each of those airports. I mean if they went though all of that trouble to make the buildings too tall or to misplace scenery details, you would think that they could have spent an extra day or so looking at maps and pictures to get it correct. I suspect they are hoping to sell this product to the masses who simply would pick it up at a mall as a Christmas gift or something. They certainly did not go after the hard core user like they did with 767PIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Then the 767 PIC and the first full detailed and usable >cockpit. It is so detailed that it can be use for training. As somebody noted before, Wilco only distributed 767 PIC and did the exterior of the aircraft... Others did the work that was so innovative and outstanding.>Now wilco is innovating with two new products. The Airport >2002 volume 1 and the A320 PIC. For the first one it is the >first time that we use the Gmax technology.Two comments here....I'm judging by the structure of your sentences that English is not your first language. The way you use "we" in this sentence, it comes across that you were a member of the Wilco team. You may wish to be careful with that in future. It can cause some confusion. I'm not trying to insult or be condescending. I'm just trying to help you avoid trouble that can come from a linguistic issue (In my marriage, whether we're speaking English or Bulgarian, one of us is speaking a language other than our mother tongue. It's amazing how much chaos one misplaced word can cause!)As to this being the cutting edge with Gmax... I don't think so. Lago used Gmax for their PHNL addon. Although I don't own that one (I rarely fly in the Pacific), a good friend of mine does... and from what I can see, it's night and day versus the Wilco product. Reviews of Lago's Honolulu have all been more than complimentary. This may be Wilco's first shot with Gmax, but it was not a good one.>Wilco decided to limit the number of gates for >the big airport such as KORD.Then Wilco, in my opinion, made a mistake with that decision. People who buy add-on airports, particularly larger and busier airports, want the realism. We want the traffic, the gates, the busy feeling of a major airline terminal. I don't know anybody who will sit and say "You know, KATL has too darn much traffic and too many gates in its default. I hope somebody develops an addon that limits that." For those with lower-end computers which cannot handle that much traffic, Microsoft provided the ability to bump the AI slider down a little bit. For Wilco to make the decision to have fifteen gates at one of the world's largest airports to minimize traffic is a disservice to its customers.As always, these are just the opinions of one guy in Philly. Your mileage may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this