fsx-ms Aerosoft Nassau X... the Aerosoft folks seem to be stumped

[dgraham1284 92]

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.

[Boeing or not going 578]

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.

[dgraham1284 92]

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. 

 

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

[sgreen91 182]

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.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

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

[duckbilled 310]

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

[dgraham1284 92]

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?

 

[Boeing or not going 578]

 

 

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?

 

 

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!

[dgraham1284 92]

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"?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

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.

[jdwgraf 52]

Doesn't the blame lie partly with the customer themselves ? People are always asking developers for more detail in sceneries ( and aircraft ) but surely this comes at a cost . Not everyone has a super computer on loan from NASA and we are stuck with the 4GB limit anyway . I fail to understand the latest trend of including the interior of the terminal buildings as this has nothing to do with flying a plane and it is not as if you are going to look inside the building every time you go flying , same with everyone's favourite , " wingflex " do you spend the entire flight hanging on to the outside of the aircraft just so you can look in awe . Has very little to do with " as real as it gets " , seeing that the pilot can't do it in real life either ( plus of course that he has other things to do ) . All of these extra " features " cost frames and frames per second are more important than flapping wings or being able to look at the check-in desk at your local airport .

 

John

[Boeing or not going 578]

Doesn't the blame lie partly with the customer themselves ? People are always asking developers for more detail in sceneries ( and aircraft ) but surely this comes at a cost . Not everyone has a super computer on loan from NASA and we are stuck with the 4GB limit anyway . I fail to understand the latest trend of including the interior of the terminal buildings as this has nothing to do with flying a plane and it is not as if you are going to look inside the building every time you go flying , same with everyone's favourite , " wingflex " do you spend the entire flight hanging on to the outside of the aircraft just so you can look in awe . Has very little to do with " as real as it gets " , seeing that the pilot can't do it in real life either ( plus of course that he has other things to do ) . All of these extra " features " cost frames and frames per second are more important than flapping wings or being able to look at the check-in desk at your local airport .

 

John

No I blame the developers, if they cannot put all the bells and whistles while maintaining low vas and high fps, then don't include them, or go educate yourself on how to develop scenery that is advanced but light on frames. Most other developers have learned how to do it, and someone under the Aerosoft banner has no excuse. Especially since this airport is on a small island with little scenery around, it's not like a New York airport with such heavy fps even with default scenery.

 

I've seen scenery developers like the one that made KSEA put in unnecessary bells and whistles into an airport that already has very bad performance because of the city, they decided to create all the inside of the main terminals, and for what? for more vas hit and lower fps. Not even giving us an option of flying without the inside terminals to save vas and be able to fly heavy jets with Orbx scenery enabled.

 

It's time developers get with the program, Aerosoft have dumped developers before and not released a product if it didn't live up to their expectations before, this should have been delayed or dumped if these problems are true, I cannot verify I do not have this scenery. Scenery costs 20-30 dollars and they should give good performance and minimal vas hit. Until they are developing for a 64bit engine we need all the vas and low fps hit we can get.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Doesn't the blame lie partly with the customer themselves

No, it doesn't. I base my purchases on the retailer and Aerosoft airports are generally of a high quality and don't have problems with VAS or FPS.

 

Any responsible developer knows if they start adding features that kill performance they won't last 5 minutes.

 

I've just loaded a Concorde flight at MYNN and flown a circuit. VAS remaining when lined up on 14 was 978Mb. I flew a circuit and landed without any of the problems experienced earlier. Although VAS was lower on landing there was enough to taxi to the terminal.

 

Now this isn't replicating my flight earlier so until I try a long distance flight into MYNN my views stand. I knew for a fact I had upwards of 1500Mb when starting my descent so something ate it up very quickly on approach.

 

I've done a series of tests checking VAS slewing at 80kts and simulating an approach and landing. the VAS never dropped below 900Mb at 1 mile out. But Concorde's engines weren't running and that will make a difference.

 

Maybe my bad experience is a one-off but nevertheless the lack of a response from the author when they are actively promoting their new products on Facebook makes me reluctant to consider any more of their airports. You can find them as I.D.S.

[jdwgraf 52]

In my post I wrote " Doesn't the blame lie partly with the customer themselves ? "

 

So if a developer is nagged by customers to add features to a scenery / aircraft that end up costing frame rates ( and VAS usage ) , it's the developers fault for giving in to demands ? That certainly sounds right ( NOT ) . As you used Aerosoft as an example , consider their AirbusX series . Just compare the original AirbusX ( released in 2010 ) with the AirbusX Extended ( released in 2012 ) and the latest A320/321 ( released in 2014 ) . So much has changed since the original that they have become 3 separate products with added " features " in each version . The minus side is of course that with each feature the frame rates have become more critical , not forgetting that you need a minimum of 18 fps otherwise the FBW system is " broken " . All of these extra features have been asked for / begged for / demanded by the "  customer " ( and are still being made ) , so should Aerosoft have just ignored all " requests " . That wouldn't win them any friends either .

As for scenery , as I mentioned earlier , modelling the interior of the terminal , followed by vast areas surrounding the airport , car parks full of cars ( the list goes on ) are all " features "  that everybody seems to want these days , some developers have made this possible , others are obviously not as proficient .

With the scenery in question it is not even an Aerosoft product , they are just the distributor , so can hardly be held accountable . There are so many factors that affect frame rates , even with similar PC's , what runs at acceptable frames for one , could be a slide show for another . Why else are sites such as AVSIM full of topics on this very subject ?

 

John

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

In my post I wrote " Doesn't the blame lie partly with the customer themselves ? "

It's a judgement call by the customer. When I bought my first T2G airport it was a leap in the dark as I'd never bought from them before. But performance was fine. MYNN was the umpteenth airport I have bought with the Aerosoft name on the 'box' and as all my previous Aerosoft airports were fine I expected MYNN to be as well. Not an unreasonable assumption.

 

So if a developer is nagged by customers to add features to a scenery / aircraft that end up costing frame rates ( and VAS usage ) , it's the developers fault for giving in to demands ? That certainly sounds right ( NOT ) .

More fool the developer I would say. You don't knowingly add features that you know will hit performance to an unacceptable degree. Who are these people making these demands anyway? Not the majority that's for certain. There has to be a balance between complexity and performance and the big 3 or 4 developers get it right. IDS is new on the block. Maybe they have something to learn?

 

As you used Aerosoft as an example , consider their AirbusX series . Just compare the original AirbusX ( released in 2010 ) with the AirbusX Extended ( released in 2012 ) and the latest A320/321 ( released in 2014 ) . So much has changed since the original that they have become 3 separate products with added " features " in each version . The minus side is of course that with each feature the frame rates have become more critical , not forgetting that you need a minimum of 18 fps otherwise the FBW system is " broken " . All of these extra features have been asked for / begged for / demanded by the "  customer " ( and are still being made ) , so should Aerosoft have just ignored all " requests " . That wouldn't win them any friends either .

I have no knowledge of the Airbus series so can't comment. But every developer knows if they make their product too fps or VAS hungry people simply won't buy it.

 

As for scenery , as I mentioned earlier , modelling the interior of the terminal , followed by vast areas surrounding the airport , car parks full of cars ( the list goes on ) are all " features "  that everybody seems to want these days , some developers have made this possible , others are obviously not as proficient .

You keep talking about people making demands. I haven't seen these demands but it's the responsibility of the developer to get the balance right for their level of skill. IDS clearly are not very skilled at design otherwise MYNN would not be so VAS hungry which it clearly is.

 

With the scenery in question it is not even an Aerosoft product , they are just the distributor , so can hardly be held accountable . There are so many factors that affect frame rates , even with similar PC's , what runs at acceptable frames for one , could be a slide show for another . Why else are sites such as AVSIM full of topics on this very subject ?

Of course Aerosoft have a degree of responsibility. They're the seller. They should be checking the quality of a product before they market it ensuring the fps and VAS usage are proportional for the size of the airport. I have the same scenery complexity settings for all the airports I fly into so that can't be used as an excuse. This is a tiny airport smaller than Manchester but the VAS consumption is considerably higher? Why? Because the designer is either inexperienced or has used the wrong package for the design.

 

I stand by my criticism.