Bought it, looks great, performs great.

Cheers, Pete

Anyone been able to get the gsx working with the ini supplied 

On 10/2/2020 at 1:33 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

Not yet, I'll take a look ... I thought Aerosoft announced the death of P3D?

Cheers, Rob.

I guess, the cumulative 'we' havened, by the 'Bay of Fundy' User tide flowing back into this forum....and so...it has lifted their boat to floating once more....(smile).

On 10/5/2020 at 1:27 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

Indeed ... just check out Aerosoft web site and found some good news:

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/156150-sim-wings-pro-hamburg-p3d-v4v5-releases/

And they used PBR materials ... gosh, I hope it doesn't look too good in P3D, might ruin their MSFS sales ... haha

Cheers, Rob.

This airport does indeed look excellent. I passed through Hamburg once in my life and its northwestern location in Germany is good. Definitely would like to replace the JustSim version I have of this airport. But, I'll wait and see what P3Dv5.1 brings us first before I spend the money on any new sceneries... If 5.1 is good though, I can see myself getting not just EDDH but also EDDM and LLBG!

On 10/4/2020 at 7:43 AM, Matty2123 said:

Anyone been able to get the gsx working with the ini supplied 

The AFCAD filename isn't in the ini

The xml for sode wasnt correct

The addon. Xml text was wrong 

The config program didn't load 

The scripts folders wasn't named properly 

Another example of aerosoft rushing it out the door to release on the end of September Friday payday without properly testing it. 

Same old story.   

This is the reason I bang on and on about developers not testing things properly.  They are in such a rush to release to get sales they end up cocking up the testing. All of those issues above I noticed in less than 5 minutes,  yet these fools at aerosoft didn't.   

It's not rocket science is it. 

Edited October 8, 20205 yr by fluffyflops

 

27 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Same old story.   

This is the reason I bang on and on about developers not testing things properly.  They are in such a rush to release to get sales they end up cocking up the testing. All of those issues above I noticed in less than 5 minutes,  yet these fools at aerosoft didn't.   

It's not rocket science is it. 

Completely agree!

A certain well known distributor has a habit cocking up installers and I am sure they dont test them: I wont mention any names but the Livery Manager for the Airbus A320 is a mess. I believe Geneva is also riddled with SODE install issues.

And then the typical response is: "well we dont have any installation issues!".😑

Its also another example of rushing off to the MSFS bandwagon and leaving their existing customers on other sim platforms high and dry. Seems to be an emerging epidemic amongst some sim developers these days....🙄

1 hour ago, aldridgem said:

 

Completely agree!

A certain well known distributor has a habit cocking up installers and I am sure they dont test them: I wont mention any names but the Livery Manager for the Airbus A320 is a mess. I believe Geneva is also riddled with SODE install issues.

And then the typical response is: "well we dont have any installation issues!".😑

Its also another example of rushing off to the MSFS bandwagon and leaving their existing customers on other sim platforms high and dry. Seems to be an emerging epidemic amongst some sim developers these days....🙄

my last 5 purchases from aerosoft..

 

a319.320 -- ah we forget the fonts in the installer

a330 -- still in beta, shared cockpit doesnt work, if you install to mydocs or in the sim it buggers your scenery,cfg

Geneva, ctds on arrival and the sode is knackered.

Heathrow -  Stands markings are still completely wrong in the v5 version

Tel avia-  Still had the above issues.

 

The issue is and always has been,  most people on this forumn just take it as a given to accept half baked beta products.   

as consumers we are idiots , we really are.  

 

all of the above issues I mentioned (bar maybe geneva ) are issues that can be found and fixed in 10 minutes.

 

 

 

When i saw the preview pictures i thought i was looking at an fs2004 scenery, props to the guy making it but still, i dont think this is worth its price

2 hours ago, sem said:

 

When i saw the preview pictures i thought i was looking at an fs2004 scenery, props to the guy making it but still, i dont think this is worth its price

Looks like absolute garbage.

just my opinion.

Mike

Garbage? My eyes must be going. I have every Flightbeam, Flytampa, LVFR, FSDT, and most of the rest of them too. I have the new LLBG and in my opinion this is in no way “garbage.” I think it looks pretty good and performs well on top of that. To be honest, I think some folks just hate Aerosoft and rip everything they push out. I know they are not perfect, but let’s be fair. Again, just my opinion.
 

Cheers, Pete

I am also impressed and positive about LLBG. Much details and nice textures and PR surroundings. 

Marcus

27 minutes ago, PilotPete99 said:

Garbage? My eyes must be going. I have every Flightbeam, Flytampa, LVFR, FSDT, and most of the rest of them too. I have the new LLBG and in my opinion this is in no way “garbage.” I think it looks pretty good and performs well on top of that. To be honest, I think some folks just hate Aerosoft and rip everything they push out. I know they are not perfect, but let’s be fair. Again, just my opinion.
 

Cheers, Pete

When they start releasing products that are finished and bug free then I'll stop giving them a hard time. 

We all work hard, we all spend alot of money the least they can do is make a product that on release day is of a decent standard.  

It would be like my airline constantly selling tickets on a plane which is constantly missing a wheel. 

The airport looks not bad so far and has good performance but i feel there is plenty room for improvement, especially vegetation and surrounding buildings.

I never played around with ADE myself, but is it very complicated to place trees and generic buildings that can be seen on the underlaying texture? 

Edited October 9, 20205 yr by JoeFackel

On 10/8/2020 at 7:56 PM, PilotPete99 said:

Garbage? My eyes must be going. I have every Flightbeam, Flytampa, LVFR, FSDT, and most of the rest of them too. I have the new LLBG and in my opinion this is in no way “garbage.” I think it looks pretty good and performs well on top of that. To be honest, I think some folks just hate Aerosoft and rip everything they push out. I know they are not perfect, but let’s be fair. Again, just my opinion.
 

Cheers, Pete

im getting half the preformance at LBGG compared to KIAD, i dont hate on aerosoft, but you have to admit they overmarket their products with 'professional' ''mega airport'' ''extended'', or all the release and go approaches: let a company make a scenery, only update in 2 years with pbr, still a lot of bugs, profit. the preformance is something that a lot of people have noticed, and instead of aerosoft helping him by improving the airport with quality of life fixes, they picked it up, put their name on it, gave it a fancy font on the front and sold it.

Edited October 11, 20205 yr by sem

1 hour ago, sem said:

im getting half the preformance at LBGG compared to KIAD, i dont hate on aerosoft, but you have to admit they overmarket their products with 'professional' ''mega airport'' ''extended'', or all the release and go approaches: let a company make a scenery, only update in 2 years with pbr, still a lot of bugs, profit. the preformance is something that a lot of people have noticed, and instead of aerosoft helping him by improving the airport with quality of life fixes, they picked it up, put their name on it, gave it a fancy font on the front and sold it.

because they want to put it in a box and get it on amazon as quickly as possible.  If people stopped buying unfinished junk they would stop releasing unfinished junk