Sign in to follow this  
Blue Baron

Aerosoft Nassau X... the Aerosoft folks seem to be stumped

Recommended Posts

I purchased Nassau X from Aerosoft recently . . . and now I find myself facing a host of issues. I've not experienced any serious issues with previous Aerosoft scenery purchases. I have been trying to troubleshoot the cause of a bothersome extensive shadow on and around the Nassau X scenery. I have uninstalled and reinstalled the software. I have even un-ticked other add-on scenery in the Scenery Library area. Still, nothing has changed. I am now unable to access the Nassau X Configuration Tool (I can click on the icon bar, but nothing happens). The Aerosoft forum was not able to offer any useful advice. I have decided to seek assistance here. Does anyone know what may be going on here?

Share this post


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

This is a bad airport with FPS..its a dog. ITs  a tiny airport and robs fps... 

 

Its a waste of money.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


This is a bad airport with FPS..its a dog. ITs a tiny airport and robs fps...

Its a waste of money..

 

That's bad news.  I was hoping for a good airport there.  It's a nice flight over from Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little disappointed with the scenery FPS-wise. I just uncovered the shadow problem. I had to uncheck the ground scenery shadows box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerosoft has some of the worst Scenery I've ever come across. The AG exclude, low res textures, lack of Ctrl-J jetways etc, I really have had it with their products. I stick to ORBX FB, FSDT and FlyTampa and I'm never disappointed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't access the configuration tool to change my options!  :mad:  I really wished FlyTampa or LatinVFR had considered the Nassau Intl. addon scenery. They would have designed a far more superior product!  :smile: 

 

In fact, I would have even considered ImagineSim if they had bothered to update their Nassau Intl. scenery product!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice the when taxiing on the apron it takes a load of throttle and it thinks its dirt? Well, that's because ADE shows it as having NO apron at all. I contacted IDS and they said their "techs" couldn't replicate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They told me that my shadows issue couldn't be replicated as well. I discovered the "fix" after spending a lot of time fiddling around with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had an issue with it,but because its Aerosoft talk to Mathis. He'll get onto IDS. Also guys video your issue upload it to youtube and email it to support I found that works the best. If your atleast a 600 series Nvida user shadowplay works great and its free

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I haven't had an issue with it,but because its Aerosoft talk to Mathis. He'll get onto IDS. Also guys video your issue upload it to youtube and email it to support I found that works the best.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to obtain a refund from Aerosoft for NassauX myself.

 

Could no open the config manager which I was told was not compatible with Windows 10.

 

I also had no windows in the terminal which they reproduced and processed my refund.  Good service by Aerosoft.

 

I will not buy another scenery by IDS though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to obtain a refund from Aerosoft for NassauX myself.

 

Could no open the config manager which I was told was not compatible with Windows 10.

 

I also had no windows in the terminal which they reproduced and processed my refund.  Good service by Aerosoft.

 

I will not buy another scenery by IDS though.

The scenery is very old, and I don't think the stated requirements say it's compatible with 10 so not really their fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


not really their fault

 

Yes that was my fault for not reading the requirements  (I learned my lesson to ALWAYS read the requirements).  The reason for the refund was I have no glass in the Terminal which in my correspondence with support said they could reproduce so they offered my a refund or a credit for another addon.

 

I must say the support was top notch.  I really liked the scenery just too many little bugs in it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scenery is very old, and I don't think the stated requirements say it's compatible with 10 so not really their fault.

If by really old you mean around 3 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by really old you mean around 3 months.

I got mixed up and thought this scenery is the old Bermuda. Oops.

 

still not surprising windows 10 is not supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got mixed up and thought this scenery is the old Bermuda. Oops.

 

still not surprising windows 10 is not supported.

 

 

It works fine. I suspect his issues were permissions related. 

 

25953978165_c9c0b51d11_b.jpg

Anyway. Doesn't fix the other issues. No more money from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works fine.

 

Great you got it working.  Tried all sorts of ways but was never able to get it working.  It did work on my networked W7 Machine but never my simming W10 computer.

 

We say permissions but I'm not sure what other permissions I was able to give it.  Administrator on a separate drive from Windows etc.  Sometimes 10 can be a real pita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


We say permissions but I'm not sure what other permissions I was able to give it. Administrator on a separate drive from Windows etc. Sometimes 10 can be a real pita.

 

Did you try running with Windows 7 compatibility?  Right click the app, click Properties->Compatibility tab.  Worth a shot if you haven't yet.

 

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to working fine for me. I flew out of there over the weekend and did not notice any issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to working fine for me. I flew out of there over the weekend and did not notice any issues.

 

 

You did not notice it took more throttle than normal to taxi in the apron? Once getting out to the taxiway it was normal again?

 

25973550185_c9285b90e5_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You did not notice it took more throttle than normal to taxi in the apron? Once getting out to the taxiway it was normal again?

 

25973550185_c9285b90e5_b.jpg

 

I never understand some developers. They work so hard making beautiful scenery and then spend 5 seconds on an afcad file with so many problems. This happens with almost everyone except the top couple developers. Don't get it!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand some developers. They work so hard making beautiful scenery and then spend 5 seconds on an afcad file with so many problems. This happens with almost everyone except the top couple developers. Don't get it!

 

Agreed

That's ok. I'll just fix it. Just like I made it work with SODE 1.3.1. I could wait, but why should I "suffer"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised there isn't more discussion on the appalling fps on approach to this airport.

 

Having flown FSLabs ConcordeX into JFK, LAX, EGLL and many other quality 3rd party airports with plenty of VAS in reserve I was horrified when the VAS warning sounded in FSUIPC4. Soon after the fps dropped to 2fps and graphic spikes started appearing meaning the end was in sight. Having flown 3700nm from Manchester I wasn't exactly impressed with this problem.

 

Somehow I landed but soon after turning off the runway FSX crashed for the first time with the v1.3 update from FS Labs. This is the first airport to fail the VAS test with Concorde. Given its small size I can only guess the author is not very skilled at design.

 

He has failed to respond to posts last December on Aerosoft which suggests he doesn't know how to fix the problem which seems only to occur with FSX.P3D is fine apparently.

 

Unless a reply is forthcoming in 7 days I will ask my retailer (PC Aviator) for a refund as the airport consumes 700Mb more than DreamTeam's JFK v2. Given their respective size that is completely unacceptable. Aerosoft should also be culpable for not checking these things before agreeing to sell the product.

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