Aerosoft Manchester X issues

[06R 2]

I am going to guess a few of you might have this patch?  I bought it over the weekend and have some issues.

Firstly, FPS.  Its dropped from 35 min average of 40 ish to more like 10 min average of 20.

Is there anything I can do about that? 

Second problem is crashing / freezing.  P3D has never crashed on me since I owned it.  I have a bespoke rig for flight sim and VR and there is nothing else installed.  It runs perfect.  P3D hung on me 3 or 4 times over the weekend, always when I was visual with Manchester.  Away from Manchester its fine.

Just after any advice if someone knows what the problem is!

Thanks!

 

[Chock 17,769]

If the posts on Avsim are anything to go by, then Aerosoft's Manchester scenery is known to be heavy on frames; lots of people have commented on that. There was a big thread discussion about it a couple of weeks back here on Avsim,.

I recall someone posted that when they examined how the scenery was made, a lot of the foliage objects in the scenery were quite high on polygons, placed in large numbers, and were individual placed objects, this rather than using something like an array or reduced poly symbol in the modelling program to achieve the affect of multiple objects for less overhead on the GPU; a more efficient way of 3D modelling. Dunno if that is true about it not being modelled in an efficient manner, since I don't own the Aerosoft scenery, although using those methods to create more efficient 3D modelling certainly is true and would result in something which ran better, that I do know since I teach 3D modelling amongst other things. If that is the reason for it struggling to run in the sim, then clearly the solution would be to drop the complexity settings in order to prevent the sim from having to load in a large amount of stuff.

I think that's why a lot of people go with UK2000's Manchester instead, which might not be quite as pretty as the Aerosoft rendition, but does seem to run well. Personally, I always go with UK2000's airport sceneries, since they get good fps and are generally very accurate, but also striking a nice balance between looks and optimisation, and with the developer being a Brit who has done a lot of UK scenery, I suspect that helps too. Pretty scenery is nice of course, but it needs to run efficiently and with places like Manchester, Birmingham and Heathrow being the busy airport they are, anyone contemplating modelling them is wise to consider that some compromises may be necessary to ensure good performance in a sim noted for not being exactly noted for exhibiting awesome FPS, even in the tweaked P3D and FSX-SE versions.

But, if the Aerosoft one is the one you've got, then telling you the UK2000 one runs better isn't much help to you of course, so I'd be inclined to drop the scenery complexity sliders if the Aerosoft one is choking your system.

[GSalden 4,655]

There were even people asking for a refund...

[Pease_W 6]

5 hours ago, Chock said:

I recall someone posted that when they examined how the scenery was made, ... then clearly the solution would be to drop the complexity settings in order to prevent the sim from having to load in a large amount of stuff.

...so I'd be inclined to drop the scenery complexity sliders if the Aerosoft one is choking your system.

Shorten a bit, hope you don't mind? The IDS Sacramento scenery was the analysis area, so I cannot attest to Manchester and how it was put together, but I would wager a guess that there is no fundamental differences.

With respect to using the scenery sliders to offset any impact, that would work if all the objects weren't coded to display at VERYSPARSE or whatever the minimum display setting for scenery objects is. What that means is objects (buildings/vegetation) will always show unless the slider is set to OFF.

The thread at Aerosoft about the patch had an update this morning about 'half-baked' solution not being good enough, so to speak. I hope the developer spends some time learning that you cannot just cram a bunch of stuff into FSX/P3D and hope the CPU can work through it. FSX/P3D can work with a bunch of vertices, but they need to be introduced in an efficient manner.

[Nyxx 6,993]

Thankfully I run the UK2000 one, not so pretty but very good all the same.  VAS light and good fps.

Am thinking of droping AS EGLL, it looks great but the runway flicker is bad, really bad, just landed there 5 mins ago and its very off putting, UK2000 really is not as pretty, but.....

[Jimm 437]

6 hours ago, GSalden said:

There were even people asking for a refund...

All I gotta say is that better not happen.  If AS caves to the customers who have issues with EGCC, then there will be a ton of ticked off customers who bought EDDF, with the same issues and never got any resolution (or refund) because it was implied by AS that EDDF performed well and there were no issues detected prior to release.  The AS forum is chock full of heated arguments about that (with my own contribution to boot about EDDF's performance).

[Johnny19 343]

I asked for a refund, got no feedback, so i guess it was a no go. This was a last time i bought anything from them.

[Jimm 437]

It is extremely rare for anyone to be granted a refund on an add-on, and it usually requires extensive troubleshooting from both sides.  I feel for ya, as I'd fell for bait in the past, but no more for me.  I'd have to say it's a lesson learned and if you come across anything you may want to get, do a lot of research before you commit to the sale.  It's also a very good idea to look through vendor's EULA, especially on the subject of returns and refunds, since everyone is different.

[Rocky_53 1,566]

I stopped buying Aerosoft airports ages ago. As far as I'm concerned, many are unfit for purpose. They are clearly designed by different developers without a clear 'standard' formula to follow. They also seem to be designed with the idea that everyone still flies with default sceneries and aircraft! That's the only conclusion I can think of. As soon as you start to fly anything like the NGX, combined with Orbx Global, with REX, VoXATC etc, the whole thing becomes a slideshow. IMO developers need to get real and start designing sceneries that sit well with other current addons that the majority of people are likely to be using. Anyone can develop an addon airport that performs well with default aircraft and default scenery, but for those who can't I suggest they take some tuition from the guys over at Orbx, oh and our friend Gary over at UK2000 Scenery. Sorry to be so blunt, but I have really got tired of spending hard earned cash on airports that clearly can't be used, it's just a complete nonsense.

[Jimm 437]

15 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

Sorry to be so blunt, but I have really got tired of spending hard earned cash on airports that clearly can't be used, it's just a complete nonsense.

You are not alone.  I've had that mentality for far too long, and when I called the issues I had into question, I was immediately dismissed with statements of "well you are the only person we see with this issue, so you must not have something set right" or "our experience with the beta testers showed no issues that you are pointing out", and of course, that leads back to the first statement.  We all live and learn I guess, but it gets to be an expensive lesson.  I wasn't to happy with the "deceptive" advertising that accompanied some of their products, which said they were P3D compatible, only to find out they were for v1, but not the later versions, later on.  That argument came up in some discussions, people got angry, we got lame excuses.

Like you Howard, I too stopped buying their products, just for the fact that I hated to take the gamble and gotten burned again.  Not all of their products are bad though.  i loved their Airbus X series and PFPX as well, but for airports, I don't think they've done a single one in-house, but contracted outside developers and there in lies the problem, as Howard pointed out.

[06R 2]

Thanks guys.  Well sounds like its pretty much a universal problem then.

I might contact them to ask for my money back.  If they refuse I can always go down the Consumer Rights Act route I guess via Paypal. 

[Nyxx 6,993]

Bet there T&C = once you DL = no refunds.....

[Jimm 437]

It's always best practice to open a support ticket with the seller, and explain what has happened, try to communicate your system specs, sim setup and the situation that caused the issue.  More often than not, the seller (or developer) will come back and state that they cannot duplicate the issue, due to add-ons the user used, then the blame game starts.  Ultimately, if you don't use an add-on within the tolerances or confines of what the developer or seller had tested it, you will most likely be embroiled in a back and forth discussion, to which there won't be a happy ending.

 

It is unfortunate that we as users, are often faced with trial and error situations to which no resolution occurs and we have to eat the funds.  Terms and conditions and an EULA protect the seller from having to issue refunds, but nothing much to protect the buyer.  We have to prove that the product doesn't work as well as prove that your system or sim met the requirements. There was a time, long ago, when you could request a refund for a digital product and it was as simple as receiving your money back and the seller being able to deactivate the license or code, so it begs the question as to why that cannot still happen, unless it is a issue of piracy?  I know some developers, such as A2A, who record a passive authentication fingerprint (or something to that effect), which records the installation's path, and anything else vital, back to the seller, so it can be tracked, just in case.

[Pease_W 6]

This developer has done three (?) products; Nassau, Sacramento and Manchester. IIRC, comments were made about performance at Nassau. There are threads about Sacramento VAS and performance. So why does it not surprise me to see threads about Manchester?

At some point in time, the onus is upon the consumer. Is it not? Or does the saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" no longer apply?

[Jimm 437]

I must be getting really old when I have to Google IIRC, FWIW, AFAIK...anyways...

I don't know if the user should necessarily be at fault for buying the product, unless they didn't read up on it prior to purchasing.  I once bought a toaster from Wal-Mart, looked good, had the features I wanted.  When i got home, I unboxed it, plugged it in, grabbed a couple slices of bread, plopped them in and slid the lever down.  A few minutes later, the toast popped up and I looked at it....barely toasted at all.  I took two more slices, did the same thing, but set the temp higher...same results.  Finally, I put in two more pieces, set the toaster at the highest setting it had (which should burn the toast and set off the smoke alarm), but guess what, same results as before.  I boxed up the toaster, went back to Wal-Mart, told them it didn't toast the bread, I got a refund, and that was that.

Now, if I had gone to the manufacturer about this, I would have been met with several questions, such as, are your outlets at their proper voltage?  What type of bread were you toasting?  What was the ambient air temperature of your home at the time of toasting the bread?  Lots' of questions, that may or may not be relevant, but obviously part of the process to get a refund.  I later find out that the manufacturer stated that wheat bread was not compatible with the toaster and that room temperature needs to be at least 70 degrees.  Since I did not follow those two requirements, I don't get the refund and I'm stuck with a kitchen paperweight.  See, no two toasters are the same, despite them both being toasters.  The assumptions I had ultimately cost me $29.95 and now I have to buy another toaster.