I decided to take the plunge and purchase it.The frames are great, but as usual AI kills so must be turned down.I like the moving airbridges and the fact you dont have to do any nav tuning before reaching the gate.I plan to do a QANTAS long haul from australia once i find out all the terminals.So far, the scenery is very impressive.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/148621.jpg

>There was no demand to fix the ILS/approach/whatever you want>to call it? Never said "no demand". I said it was requested by very few users, and a couple of people is still not a whole lot.>Cloud9 products are not bad, far from it, but your>customer service leaves a lot to beCloud9 is definetely one of the most appreciated around for user support, and this is a very well know fact. We got an user having strange problems with the dll crashing with no apparent reason, and I was in contact with him, on a Sunday night, sending him special debug versions that were compiled at the moment just for him, and we finally got it sorted out, I don't need to stress how impressed he was at the end...>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.Remember that for this issue, most of the replies were posted by Harpsi, and he's an users just like you are, it's just very enthousiastic about afcad and and things related, and he's usually tries to reply ( he's trying to HELP people ) even before we got the chance to fully analyze the problem.>And don't get me started on the EHAM Afcad's, manually>activating an Afcad depending on wind condititions or time of>day???? I think I've said quite clearly I wasn't happy with the multiple afcad solution, too complex and tiresome. I'd rather do it simpler but, as I've said, I'm not part of Cloud9, I didn't develop EHAM, I only did the Addon Manager .dll they are using for all products, so I can only offer suggestions to them (fortunately, they usually listen...)>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).These are sensible suggestions, and I keep stating you should post in Cloud9's forum, because otherwise they could get lost. Fortunately, you HAD a Trial to check in the first place, didn't you ?>Anyway, true to real life?It's quite funny that, the more true to life (=photorealistic) a texture is at the source, the *less* true to life it appears once used in FS2004...I always been against the use of photoreal textures, and in fact KLAX use them only as a reference, because they are heavily retouched, and with several layers of hand made detail textures on top. On some places, like some roofs and a couple of places at the center of the airport, the photoreal part is too prominent comparing to the rest of the airport, and yes, it's a reasonable fix for the first patch.Nothing that prevents the correct use of the airport in the meantime, though, because, as you said, "An airport, no matter how pretty it looks, is still a bunch of runways and aircraft taking off and landing"But please, post your suggestion on C9's forum, for EHAM we had a long thread with many people complaining about some textures being too purple, and it WAS fixed in one of the patches!

>The frames are great, but as usual AI kills so must be turned>down.What AI models are you using ? I finally took the plunge and I'm slowing replacing all the models with Aiaardvark and EvolveAI ones and the results are very impressive: at KLAX, on my machine, I've got an increase of about 6-7 fps, now I can fly at 100% (with UT schedule) with a very reasonable 20 fps on average.It's very tiresome work, but it's worth it.

>>>The frames are great, but as usual AI kills so must be>turned>>down.>>What AI models are you using ? I finally took the plunge and>I'm slowing replacing all the models with Aiaardvark and>EvolveAI ones and the results are very impressive: at KLAX, on>my machine, I've got an increase of about 6-7 fps, now I can>fly at 100% (with UT schedule) with a very reasonable 20 fps>on average.>>It's very tiresome work, but it's worth it.>HII am using the default ones that come with ultimate traffic.You are correct in saying aiaardvark are much better. I am going to switch one day (when i can get time)

>I am using the default ones that come with ultimate traffic.Same as I, I like all the UT features, but the models that came with it are really killing the fps.>You are correct in saying aiaardvark are much better. I am>going to switch one day (when i can get time)You won't regret it, apart for the fact you'll probably stop doing anything else for a couple of weeks other than downloading files and editing aircraft.cfgs...

Reggie is sawin' away: :-violin

I ask the initial question because I was familiar with the issue in EHAM. I'm also well aware of the underlying, but relatively easily solved, runway numbering change problem - as a POTENTIAL source of the EHAM issue.Though I could have broken and decompiled the files from the EHAM product to find out exactly if there was another cause/ issue - why bother - I want to fly. That's why I bought the danged software in the first place.You might not have noticed that Jim and I are working with a gentlemen on another thread where a different scenery company has broken approaches on an airport with no runway number changes.There is more than one way to break approaches besides changing the runway numbers - that's just the easiest.That was my concern - Cloud9 released a product with major flaws in my opinion. I know KLAX does not have the same underlying basic issue of new runways and changed numbers - I want to see someone has tested the approach system.I've had to go to extreme lengths with computer snapshot software on more than one occasion to remove a test version of software and repair damage to default files caused by those installs.I just don't have a computer I can reimage and reinstall FS handy right now - and I will not install any software on my main FS computer until it has PROVEN itself safe to use.And frankly I'm a bit sick and tired of people posting glowing recommendations of software who don't even test the limits of the product.I commend you for being willing to research and explain - something very few commercial developers will do - tending to have a take it or leave it attitude.I suspect you know the same thing I do in my real world job, that for every customer request or complaint - there are many more with the same issue / opinion who never post or complain. "Relatively few" is a poor excuse - but I also know you are not the decision maker.As far as Cloud9's customer service reputation - on the forums I visit, including this one, it's not great - certainly not as bad as one airplane designer - but not near the top either - at least the way I read the posts.Finally, as far as customer expectations of software - here are mine, which I believe are in line with the majority of flight simmers:1. Do no harm - do not overwrite, break or remove any functionality from the default FS setup without telling me first and allowing me to choose.2. Provide what you advertise3. Provide an easy secure way to purchase (I prefer CD's/ DVD's over downloads - but that appears to be a minority preference) and an easy secure way to reinstall when I have to rebuild my FS setup for that new computer we all hope to buyI'm sorry, I totally disagree with any comments about how the average user flies or uses FlightSim. I've learned this lesson the hard way. Everything I produce has to work with the default FS - or the support questions are massive in proportional numbers.Unless you are selling a total replacement utility like Radar Contact or Active Sky - the product must work with the default out of the box FS setup.With any luck, a good number of your purchasers are going to be buying your scenery as their first FS addon.A good business plan certainly does not limit their clientle to only the exisiting customer base.

Unlike a lot of my fellow vocal hardcore AI addicts - I like and use UT for my personal flying.http://www.projectai.com/discuss/index.php?topic=51571.15I also have My Traffic 2004 & 2006 and Traffic 2005. I use all including UT in their out of the box configuration to test AFCAD files and changes to the AI approach system - individually of course.One very good group of airlines packages with the AI-Aardvark and EvolveAI models is World-of-AI - you might find them valuable and a good start on getting more of those models installed and flying.http://www.world-of-ai.com/As stated above - you won't regret updating the models and repaints.You can do it in a big batch, or you can work piecemeal - just get started soon !!!Everything added to the FS world cost you performance. This scenery adds many more polygons than the default. I'm certain it's many times better than older sceneries which were originally designed for FS2002.You add many more polygons with AI aircraft. It's a balancing act - and lowering the number of polygons in AI aircraft and increasing the number of LOD used in the AI aircraft is a good fast way to get some of that performance back.

> Never said "no demand". I said it was requested by very few users, and a couple of people is still not a whole lot.That's what I call no demand. But let's stay away from semantics. ;-)> I don't need to stress how impressed he was at the end...Just like you're (or Cloud9) not impressed with only a handful of customers asking for a fix, I'm not impressed with one impressed guy out of an undoubtedly impressive customer base. What I read here, on the Cloud9 boards, and elsewhere, makes me come to my conclusion. But I'm sure we don't see it all.> as I've said, I'm not part of Cloud9, I didn't develop EHAMYes, I know. I'm sorry, most of what I posted is aimed at the actual Cloud9 people. Not the guys who contribute in a minor (no offense) way. I know, why post it here, instead of over there. Well, I already know what they're gonna say, so why bother.> Fortunately, you HAD a Trial to check in the first place, didn't you ?Yes, and it works great. Of course, for some products you don't need a trial, you just know it's good. I saw some links to threads on the FlyTampa boards about Cloud9 vs. FlyTampa. That's why I think Cloud9 is not quite there yet. Or I would've purchased KLAX immediately. ;-) A trial doesn't make for a good product.> Nothing that prevents the correct use of the airport in the meantime, though, because, as you said, "An airport, no matter how pretty it looks, is still a bunch of runways and aircraft taking off and landing"LOL! Nice try. :(> But please, post your suggestion on C9's forum, for EHAM we had a long thread with many people complaining about some textures being too purple, and it WAS fixed in one of the patches!Before I started typing this post, I registered and added my suggestion to the list. I already got a response as well, so here's to hoping it'll happen. I'll post about the pink/purple stuff later.:)

I actually tried the demo a few times and had a few CTD when changing planes.I was not totally impressed with the scenery so I reverted back to the SIMFLYER KLAX.I had some stutters at various areas and I do not like having that addon manager being integrated into my FS.I am by no means a Simflyer endorser but I did not see anything here that was worth the extra $$$.I am a true FlyTampa/FlightScenery customer.This product IMHO is not even close to their respective offerings.BTW u can remove the addon manager from your module folder if u are not going to purchase it.Just my 2 centsAndy

Hi Andy,Sorry to read that you didn't like the scenery but that's why the trial demo is for, right? :-)As part of the beta testers team I can only tell you that we checked KLAX for more than a month and none of us had CTDs.Maybe should you check if you have several KLAX afcad files.regards,David

>Hi Andy,>Sorry to read that you didn't like the scenery but that's why >the trial demo is for, right? :-)>As part of the beta testers team I can only tell you that we>checked KLAX for more than a month and none of us had CTDs.>Maybe should you check if you have several KLAX afcad files.>regards,>DavidDavid I checked and rechecked all of my pertinent files.I even recreated my fs.cfg and renumbered my scenery.cfg file.I am just voicing one mans opinion.I wish payware companies would focus on sceneries that have not been fully established, instead of doing remakes with more eye candy.There are plenty of US major airports that have not been addressed by payware companies.I just purchased the KMKE scenery by Dream Scenery and it is still not on par with the above mentioned vendors,but I wanted a midwest airport that has not been addressed by any payware vendor.I would plunk money down on a viable KPIT,KSTL,KSLC,KBDL,KBNA,KALB,KLGA and so on ......There are some good to great freeware, but I know some of you guys can do a better job and there are plenty of users who have the wallets to support your time and efforts.Andy

Here is an example of customer support from Cloud 9's forum. http://forum.fscloud9.it/viewtopic.php?t=1999ricardo

They can be from where-ever. But it is quite obvious they did not know the area or they didnt take the time to investigate. Flight scenery did such a great job with PVD and the PDX screenshots even show the fedex feeder aircraft in their correct places. I think the LAX scenery looks fantastic, but a completely wrong GA and cargo placement (I dont like to fly pax or use the gates) just ruins the experience for me.

Hi Manny,How do you utilize WideView? Do you have multiple PC's that are networked, and how do you use them for FS9?Thanks- Bruce.