Whazzup with Airport V3?

[badderjet 181]

Hey gang,just wanted to know if someone knows how the progress on Airport version 3 is going...?? :-hmmm Haven't heard anything from it for ages now.Thanks,Etienne :-wave

[Shaka 2]

I noticed that they have provided a couple updates to v2.6, but none to v2.9 (beta). I thought that the whole point was to move away from SCASM to BGLC, but the v2.9 doesn't support this yet anyway. As a matter of fact, having used both versions, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot different between them. So, the fact that they are updating v2.6 tells me that they might not bother with v2.9 anymore, or maybe that there's so much work going on with with trying to get v3.0 out that they are not updating it until they can get BGLC compatibility, and then continue to move forward from there.Well, I'm sure it's a lot of work, and they aren't getting paid or anything. I emailed them to find out what was going on with v2.9, but I never got a reply. I hope they weren't PO'd at me for asking. I've used v2.6 for years, and I'm still a big fan. The interface is dated, but it does the job. Lately, I've been using Architect, and I'm satisfied with that. I think that if v3.0 has improved functionality (there's only a couple things I like better about Architect) I will move back to that. Case in point - I just checked, and there was an update on May 31 that has two useful features. I'd even pay for it, probably.- Martin

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi all.With all the scenery of FS2002 useable in FS2004, an upgrade to BGLC might not be worth the effort. Not long ago, there was some worry about the traditional commands not being used for FS2004, and that SCASM might not be upgraded for future editions. That made programs like Airport dependant on the upgrading of SCASM. But SCASM code survives for FS2004.SCASM is just fine for most scenery placement and creation. The newer TDF sceneries would present problems for implementation in Airport... and AutoASM, Coastline maker and especially Ground2K already do a fine job of TDF design.There's nothing wrong with a switch to BGLC, or implementing TDF design. But it would be a lot of work.Dick

[arno 1]

And the latest version of SCASM also supports the making of VTP polygons. So that makes it a lot easier to stay with SCASM. It is a lot easier for the user to tweak a source made in SCASM, because the BGLC code is less easier to read.

[Guest MikeEppright]

The web site now states that since many of the improvements in 2.9 have now been attached to the latest version of 2.6 they are tabling work on 2.9. Sounds reasonable to me.