>If NL2000 addressed the issue, and Jim has provided many>solutions to many airports, including EHAM, why hasn't Cloud9>implemented the options available? I've just spoke with the actual Eham developer, there's nothing in principle against doing the modifications, the simple reason is that very few users asked for it, most of the requests and suggestions for upcoming updates were related to adding features, adding more active gates, and improving further the fps (something like "eat your cake and having it too" ). I'm not saying nodoby asked for it, but they are in the minority, comparing to other requests.As I've said, I'm not happy either with the current AFCADs, I would rather forfeit the crossed runways but having a simpler AFCAD, and, once it's decided to update the AFCAD, it shouldn't be a problem to make it at least compatibile with the existing updated approaches.But, keep in mind I've only designed the Addon Manager Cloud9 uses, and I'm not part of the company, so whatever decision they'll take, I can only offer them suggestions.

>I found your message, but that is a completely >different issue: I think (if I have understood correctly)>Reggie asked about the missing set of procedures >for the new set of runways, those that are >programmed using XML and they appear on the >default GPS or during the approach under the default ATC control.I am not sure what you read but it had nothing to do with AFCAD issues. My very first post on Cloud9 forum was there to answer a question based on what I saw being said which would help others understand why NL2000 approaches work and yours don't.This is the first part of my first post as followsCloud 9 EHAM scenery is not a IMC weather scenery, VMC only. This is because all the approach data was destroyed when the runways where renamed both in the scenery and the AFCAD's that are associated with it. ATC is not wierd and does what the corrupt files tells it to do. There is no doubt that the scenery is some of the best available but any 3rd party scenery that try's and renames runways corrupts the FS9 database and ATC Engine. We must remember that Approach Data in FS9 (unlike FS2002) to a runway is owned by the Airport Scenery and not the new AFCAD bgl. Because of these changes in FS9 the GPS receiver and the Runway assignment will not work correctly when weather visibility is less then 3 miles. NL2000 addressed this issue and a ILS file was written to delete All Approaches (default database files) based on my Active ILS Series of Airport files. I wrote the XML approach data for EHAM to update the new runway numbers in FS9 (default scenery) after it's release. END>Your question was an entirely different >problem and it's something that needs >to be solved on the AFCAD level, it doesn't >have anything to do with the set of procedures, >but rather to the fact EHAM Afcad uses fake runways >to allow for simultanous approaches in crossed runways.There was no question in my first post. It was all a statement on why your ILS approaches don't work and was using NL2000 scenery as the example.You already know the response I received from the Cloud9 staff, just read the post.I can assure you I know a little if not a whole lot on what a crosswind runway technique is, how AFCAD works when adding a ILS and what it takes to write a ILS/GPS/RNAV/LDA/SDF/VORDME/NDBDME type XML approach. I don't find fault in the way you design scenery and plan on purchasing KLAX. I find fault in scenery design groups that charge a fee for scenery that just looks good but don't work. If you are going to charge me for the EHAM scenery then make sure it is equal to or better then the Default FS9 scenery and it works in all directions to a maximum distance of 108NM's. If you don't understand any of my statements here that is understandable. Once again you have to know what is broke and how you broke it in order to fix it. That requires knowing how certain portions of FS9 airport scenery is also invisible and most designers that make mistakes continue to do so until they start to listen to those that do know how to fix it.

I am downloading the demo as I type, I'll give it a try, if the FPS is good and the performance is ok, I'll buy it. I'm looking forward to see screenshots of VHHH you're also developing, please do more Asian airports, for example...we need WSSS, I'm sure Cloud9's quality will look excellent on it.

I will get it once I get home from work! Somebody needs to do PANC, though. For all us freight dawgs out there!

Thankyou Bruce for concuring on what my first post on cloud9 said.There was no solution resolved because I did not think at the time I was speaking to the right people. Harpsi did ask me privately if I would write all the new XML runway numbers for EHAM and realign the approaches but I did not feel my ILS.bgl file could be placed into the EHAM scenery owned by Cloud9. This would require Cloud9's approval and they could not see or understand the problem KingCat was pointing out to them.Any ILS file that is written for Cloud9 EHAM has to actually nest in their active scenery folder instead of the SceneryGenericscenery folder. I purposly avoided any mention of 3rd party names if someone does add my EHAM fix to Cloud9's Approach problems.The bottom line was, Cloud9 did not ask for any help in fixing the problem, Harpsi did.

What is EHAM scenary and what does that have to do with KLAX?hmmm...Manny

>I am not sure what you read but it had nothing to do with>AFCAD issues. I've searched C9's forum for your messages, and found this one:http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=1542That deals only with AFCAD issues.Now, searching again, I'also found another one here:http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=1575Maybe this was the one you were referring to ? Reading up to the latest post, I've seen the thread ended with Harpsi (I keep reminding you he's just a very active user that was also a tester, he's not part of Cloud9 ) asked for your help at the end.Has ever been any follow up on this ?Is it true or not that the xml approaches for NL2000 could be used with C9 EHAM as well, provided the C9 Afcad would be adapted ? If this is the case, then it IS simply an afcad issue at the end, right ?>I don't find fault in the way you design scenery and plan on>purchasing KLAX. I find fault in scenery design groups that>charge a fee for scenery that just looks good but don't work.A scenery can be many different things to different people. Most people want very good graphic as an absolute first, and performance as second. There are others who fly online only, because they think the FS Atc is boring, and couldn't care less for ifr approaches. A commercial developer, unfortunately, doesn't always have the same luxury as freeware ones of being able do everything without weighting developing time vs. people requesting that feature.As an example: these days I'm having a lot of "fun" manually replacing all my AI models from those coming with Ultimate Traffic, to the fps-friendly Aiaardvark or Evolveai models. They are immensely superior to UT's, because are designed with good multi-LOD techniques. Yet, UT charges for their product and these are free. However, I understand that redoing all the UT models from scratch woulnd't make a sensible business decision for Flight1, certainly not for FS2004, I guess we'll have to live with the fact that sometimes a freeware product could have features missing in the commercial ones.But to assume that, just because EHAM had the unfortunate additional complexity added by the fact the runways numbering has been changed and this wasn't fully addressed, doesn't automatically mean the company phylosophy is, by default, to only provide "good looks and nothing else", because it's not true: just have a look at their F104, for example, that has a really challenging and realistic flight model, complete with lot of failures and hard-core stuff not related to eye-candy.Any company will simply go, in a top-down order, trying to fullfill the most requested features first, and then going down the list, as long as it makes business sense. Don't automatically assume that any missing feature is automatically the result of a developer's limited knowledge, most of the time it's just a business decision about allocating resources, if more than a couple of users ever asked for xml approaches (and, complaining on forums other than the developer's one doesn't count, because they can't obviously monitor all), be assured it would have come, most of the things in EHAM as a product, expecially in the Addon Manager .DLL (for that part, if there's something not working, you can complain with me directly, because that's what I've done), deals with direct access to undocumented FS areas, memory pointers, threads and timers, memory allocation, reentrancy issues, etc, are far more complex that programming xml approaches.

Manny,EHAM is the Cloud9 scenery for Amsterdam's Schipol airport. It doesn't have anything to do with KLAX now that we know the approaches were not modified. Several people were curious if the inherent problems with EHAM were also going to be present in KLAX.Bruce

>What is EHAM scenary and what does that have to do with>KLAX?EHAM it's Amsterdam, also done by Cloud9.It was hinted at first that KLAX, just for the fact it has been made by the same developer, could have non-working IFR approaches like EHAM. The EHAM problem was basically related to the fact that FS2004 default EHAM had a certain set of runways, and the real world EHAM, in the meantime, got a totally new runway, and the rest of the runways changed their numbering as well.Cloud9's EHAM was done based on how EHAM is today, and this created a problem with the default IFR approaches not working anymore, because they were made for the old set of runways, not longer existent in the C9's version of EHAM. We are talking only about the IFR approaches available when using the default ATC control. Of course, it's always possibile to fly ILS procedures with all the navaids in place without problems, but these procedures will not be handled by the ATC, because of the new runway numbering.I've simply explained that, since the feature was requested on C9's forum by a *very* small number of users (I could say 2 users exactly, but just let's say "a very small number"...), the very issue wasn't really seen as a pressing one.It could be that now that the issue has surfaced again, maybe it will be discussed to be added. If Cloud9 has a reputation for, is to try to listen to suggestions, and to patch products even if they have been released many months/years before.But, of course, this doesn't have anything to do on how KLAX works, because the cause of the problem is not there in the first place.

I just bought this. It looks pretty decent but is, in my opinion, not of the same quality as what Fly Tampa is currently doing. Framerates are serviceable but it's still system intensive. In addition, am I just imagining this or do the runway textures look bland? Departed from 6R and the runway looks more like a desert strip than a runway. ricardo

well I havent loaded it up yet but I have just checked out the afcad. no offense, but they really need some beta testers who are from the area! The parking is really bad cargo and GA wise. Singapore Airlines Cargo never parkes horizontal to the runways! The GA areas have zero parking, and the fedex terminal is coded with dhl as well. The skywest terminal has medium gates, the american eagle terminal has GA coded parking... bizzare.Hopefully someone can come out with a better afcad. Disappointing, though! Eham really had some great parking codes becaue they knew the airport, but it looks like here they just didnt even try

oh well, the parking is hardcoded in, at least the painting on the ground. maybe a patch can fix this? singapore cargo parks facing the building just like all the rest. and there are more parking spots for dhl by the old bradley terminal, 2 above and 2 below, all on the opposide side of the fedex terminal.

>well I havent loaded it up yet but I have just checked out>the afcad. no offense, but they really need some beta testers>who are from the area! The parking is really bad cargo and GA>wise. Singapore Airlines Cargo never parkes horizontal to the>runways! The GA areas have zero parking, and the fedex>terminal is coded with dhl as well. The skywest terminal has>medium gates, the american eagle terminal has GA coded>parking... bizzare.>>Hopefully someone can come out with a better afcad.>Disappointing, though! Eham really had some great parking>codes becaue they knew the airport, but it looks like here>they just didnt even tryAlex,How do you know that no beta tester was from LA?How can you say that "they didn't even try" for KLAX when "they knew for EHAM"??It sounds like for you, European companies aren't able to develop "non-european airports" because "they don't know them".Is that your feeling??......bizzare!FYI, Matthew Kramer IS fom the area, he lives in LA and was one of KLAX beta testers :-)You probably heard about FlightScenery (wonderful Providence scenery and pending Portland)? Vauchez, probably one of the most talented guy in the FS field is French. Don't you like his sceneries?..Is Aerosoft's Manhattan scenery wrong "because Andras Kozma isn't native from NY" and "Aerosoft a German company"??...The world today is a village and the only limits to knowledge are in the human-being minds.David

>I just bought this. It looks pretty decent but is, in my>opinion, not of the same quality as what Fly Tampa is>currently doing. http://www.flytampa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1625>In addition, am I just imagining this or do the runway>textures look bland? Departed from 6R and the runway looks>more like a desert strip than a runway. http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=233005&page=

Interesting read this thread. Someone asked what EHAM had to do with KLAX... Nothing? Everything! ;-DThere was no demand to fix the ILS/approach/whatever you want to call it? I think the threads on your forums about 18R ILS (or something similar, you get the idea), with contributions from Mr. Vile were enough of an indication that people wanted to see it fixed. Frankly, you shouldn't have released the product with that serious issue present. it shouldn't have been an issue of "very few people" asked for it. They shouln't have to ask. I shouldn't have to. An airport, no matter how pretty it looks, is still a bunch of runways and aircraft taking off and landing. That part of a scenery should be without faults. It should work, period.So, consider this a request to fix it, if needed, I'll repost it on your forums as well. (But spare me the typical Cloud9 rhetoric. Cloud9 products are not bad, far from it, but your customer service leaves a lot to be desired. Some of the things you guys post on your boards as replies to genuine questions are sometimes wrong and often come across as extremely rude and arrogant.) As an extra incentive, I'm gonna wait for a fix, before I'll purchase KLAX. ;-)And don't get me started on the EHAM Afcad's, manually activating an Afcad depending on wind condititions or time of day? Sounds cool, but it's totally not practical. I was glad to read the guy who made them is "just a beta tester" though. I saw him post on the Flytampa boards as well, about some Afcad issues (EHAM came up as well ;-D), and he has the Cloud9 style down, but he doesn't exactly strike me as a great Afcad designer. The crosswind technique is a great accomplishment, at one point I had them at most of my airports, but being sent to a non-existing runway for the umpteenth time, made me get rid of all of them. And the ATIS thing, I didn't like either. Just my personal preference though and not an issue. Anyway, I've got only three runways active at EHAM, and with at least two of them, there are issues, all three if you count the runway re-numbering... So yeah, it would be great to see it fixed.To not totally drag this thread off topic, I checked out the trial of KLAX and found the roofs of some buildings and some of the ground textures in the middle of the airport to be somewhat pink-ish/purple-ish. You can see that same pink in the top right corner of that well known freeware KCLE scenery (which I'm not using because of that). And you can also see a lot of it in DreamScenery's attempt at KIND (which I'm not using because of so many reasons, ####, do I regret ever buying that one... ;-D). Anyway, true to real life? Is it just me, or not?D a m n is filtered?! ####.;-)