5 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

I know that haven't and won't buy airport sceneries from the marketplace for the sole reason that scenery files are encrypted and you can't edit them. There are quite a few airports that have statics that can only be removed by manually editing the scenery files. It's not nearly as easy as it was with P3d using ADE.

So non-Market sellers don't have a mechanism yet, themselves, to allow users to decide how many static aircraft are going to populate, yet, so it's the encrypted part is the real issue making it more difficult to change?   Fortunately my hardware can't tolerate very dense static and dynamic aircraft anyway so I have them dialed well down in FSLTL and it's fine for me fortunately.  

I learned the hard way buying airports from the marketplace.  Had a title that I couldn't disable the statics from.  

4 hours ago, Noel said:

so it's the encrypted part is the real issue making it more difficult to change? 

 Being encrypted, you can't edit the files at all even if was as easy as it was in p3d. The problem is that it is much more difficult to do now, what used to take a few minutes in P3d takes quite a few hours of trial and error if at all.

 I personally now avoid buying any scenery that has statics included without the ability to disable them and I also contact the scenery developer to let them know as such. 

I won't buy any airports that require manual editing of any kind can't be bothered with that!  Perhaps over time there will be built-in controls to config them as desired.

I think there are a growing number of us that now avoid non-removable static sceneries. 

Dave

Flightbeam (iBlueyonder) just updated to 1.4 per my contrails app but I don't see a changelog for 1.4?

Just curious as I also use that no-static mod as well.  Why don't they place a changelog. Frustrating a little. At least it was updated.

2 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

Flightbeam (iBlueyonder) just updated to 1.4 per my contrails app but I don't see a changelog for 1.4?

Just curious as I also use that no-static mod as well.  Why don't they place a changelog. Frustrating a little. At least it was updated.

I asked on their Discord server. Will post if I hear anything back.

2 hours ago, B777ER said:

I asked on their Discord server. Will post if I hear anything back.

Thanks for checking.

Could it be...? That my addon is no longer needed??

After installing version 1.4, I've noticed this option [finally]

this is a great rendition... from 3 years ago.  Next year the airport wont look anything like this.

https://www.pdxnext.com/Stories/Details/main-terminal-2023-virtual-tour

https://portlandgear.com/blogs/news/about-the-pdx-airport

I wish they would have at least modeled the E gates extension if nothing else.  But FB Denver is in an even worse state, it's state reflects around 6 years ago.  No A extension, No B or C extensions, the commuter terminal config is completely wrong. 

Flightbeam has been slow this year.  How long ago did they show us those shots of SFO.. and still no release date.?  Same with Denver but they are working on it at least.  I have a feeling Portland will be done half assed by a less than stellar developer with in the next few months. 

On 7/1/2023 at 5:00 PM, aniiran said:

I wish they would have at least modeled the E gates extension if nothing else.  But FB Denver is in an even worse state, it's state reflects around 6 years ago.  No A extension, No B or C extensions, the commuter terminal config is completely wrong. 

Flightbeam has been slow this year.  How long ago did they show us those shots of SFO.. and still no release date.?  Same with Denver but they are working on it at least.  I have a feeling Portland will be done half assed by a less than stellar developer with in the next few months. 

Hello aniiran, thanks for your feedback. However there is some serious misleading statements in your post.

KDEN - Denver received a massive update just a few months ago, did you not see this? https://www.flightbeam.net/post/kden-v1-1-0-msfs-is-now-live

I'm curious to where you're getting your news from? KDEN is getting a staggered update due to the complexity of the new construction. I've not only updated Concourse B, but also completely revamped and updated the modeling and texturing of most of the terminals. All of this, for free. Next up is the massive extension to Concourse A and C, which takes quite a long time to develop, but will be done of course, for free.KSFO is currently in full production, with high priority. Sorry, but  I will never rush my products. I have a large number of very loyal and demanding customers who appreciate both quality and performance, and this takes time.

As far as KPDX, unfortunately that is a third party developer (iBlueYonder) and not a Flightbeam creation, so it's up to that developer to update the airport. For Flightbeam airports, I've removed static models for almost all airports per customer feedback.

The Denver update was great and we appreciate that! Not sure why the other person didn't realize the changes about it.... 

 

As far as KPDX

From the iBlueYonder developer directly via email:

"I was out of town when the update was published, so I missed adding a change log. It's really only two changes this time around; I've separated the static aircraft so they can be switched off, and I increased the brightness of the terminal lighting at night.

 

thanks,

Bill Womack"

 

 

Edited July 3, 20232 yr by Sonosusto

On 7/3/2023 at 9:51 AM, Mir // Flightbeam said:

Hello aniiran, thanks for your feedback. However there is some serious misleading statements in your post.

KDEN - Denver received a massive update just a few months ago, did you not see this? https://www.flightbeam.net/post/kden-v1-1-0-msfs-is-now-live

I'm curious to where you're getting your news from? KDEN is getting a staggered update due to the complexity of the new construction. I've not only updated Concourse B, but also completely revamped and updated the modeling and texturing of most of the terminals. All of this, for free. Next up is the massive extension to Concourse A and C, which takes quite a long time to develop, but will be done of course, for free.KSFO is currently in full production, with high priority. Sorry, but  I will never rush my products. I have a large number of very loyal and demanding customers who appreciate both quality and performance, and this takes time.

As far as KPDX, unfortunately that is a third party developer (iBlueYonder) and not a Flightbeam creation, so it's up to that developer to update the airport. For Flightbeam airports, I've removed static models for almost all airports per customer feedback.

Hi Mir, 

Nothing misleading about my statements.  I am at DIA every single week.  As the scenery currently sits it is very far behind current configuration, and for me unusable. There are no new Concourse B commuter extensions in their current configuration.  The B60-72 terminal extension is not there and now the north side of the south arm is disused. United is heavily using the concourse A extension now.  Southwest is heavily using the Concourse C extension.  With out those there I don't really use the scenery.  Same with Portland, it's far behind enough I dont fly there in the sim anymore. And yes, I did get that update.

If you read my statement I am aware you are working on it. I saw all the development shots.  Here is what I said. "Flightbeam has been slow this year.  How long ago did they show us those shots of SFO.. and still no release date.?  Same with Denver but they are working on it at least. "

I have bought all of your sceneries since the begining.  That's fine that you don't rush, but those screenshots of Denver were months ago,  I like the developers who don't say anything until release is iminent because as a community we see these completed shots and then don't understand why 3 to 6 months later and no release.  Personally, I don't think you should offer it for free given that this is essentially a new scenery.  I got the port over on day one for only 9.99.   I also think that developers spend too much time on interiors now and it has doubled development time since the FSX days.  I like the approach that was used with Auckland and Wellington.  It looks good from the airplane, but it is not fully modeled.

These are my thoughts and opinions.  

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, aniiran said:

  As the scenery currently sits it is very far behind current configuration, and for me unusable.

Well this is currently the problem, customers want endless updates to all airports, all at the same time, for free. The Concourse B expansion update took about 4 months to create, and released for free. What you are demanding would require paid updates from customers, and this would cause an uproar, so unfortunately that is not possible. Free update is the only option.. and that requires funding from sales. This takes time.

As far as SFO, many customers have been asking for screenshots as regular updates. So don't post anymore screenshots, keep customers in the dark and just release the scenery as a surprise?

Like I mentioned, appreciate your feedback as a customer but there is a certain way I do things. They will not change because they are the reason Flightbeam has survived for so long and has accumulated 40,000 customers.