martin_ktpa
Members-
Content Count
62 -
Donations
$0.00 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Community Reputation
0 NeutralFlight Sim Profile
-
Commercial Member
No
-
Online Flight Organization Membership
none
-
Virtual Airlines
Yes
-
See if you find this file (also from the FS2004 version):FSX\scenery\asia\scenery\HP978240_stripped.bglIf yes, delete it. That should restore the water to normal.martinflytampa
-
From your screenshot it looks like you are running the FS2004 version of the scenery in FSX.To check, go into FSX/Addon Scenery/Addon Scenery/FlyTampa-HongKong/scenery/ and see if you have a file named "hk_photo_fsx_day.bgl"..If you installed the FS2004 version you'll find a file "hk_photo_fs9.bgl" instead. In that case get rid of the whole /FlyTampa-HongKong/ folder and reinstall the FSX version of HK, look at the Installer's filename for FSX or FS9.martinflytampa
-
FlyTampa's Kai-Tek Released. Anyone get it yet?
martin_ktpa replied to Sarge27's topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
>Can this work on sp1? I'm not real keen about having to do>sp2.>>scott s.The more handsome version (with ground polygons) will flicker in SP1. The SDK-Compliant version (generic runway and tarmac) should work, but I doubt you'll enjoy it much.Martin / FlyTampa -
jwenham,We managed to reproduce your massive fps-drop when looking straight down. It has to do with the AA setting. If you use nHancer try Multisampling (4x or 8x) while keeping FSX's own AA checkbox Off. Supersampling & Combined appear to cause the single digit fps.martin / fytampa
-
>He is my Hero for another reason. For making FSX airports>with FS9 like custom runway textures where many have abandoned>the practice.>>:)>>MannyGlad you think so, but to rule out any misconceptions: There is a generic runway in there, I just blended my stuff to match and get a seamless look.We still hope for a completely new ground polygon solution for FS11, because it could be so much better.Martin / Flytampa
-
Be careful!! flytampa St maarten from simmarket
martin_ktpa replied to Paul J's topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
>Question, Martin... this is an open forum, and very widely>read by the members of our "community", and I have a question>which I think is on the minds of a great many of us:>Considering the reputation which Flight1 has in terms of>customer service, and the loyalty which is very plain to see>if one does a search on this and other sim forums... why would>you not have chosen them as your agent? Paul,I have placed my sceneries on Simmarket since 2003 without problems (that I know of). Back then Airport-Addons from established devs like Simflyers served as example and nearly all of them were (and still are) on Simmarket. Basically just a go with the flow decision.The problem that happened with this release was that the St.Maarten Standalone (without Barts and Saba) appeared first on Simmarket's "New Arrivals" page, in effect hiding the Complete package from customers that came surfing over the front-page. This is all fixed now and I'm offering reimbursement for customers who purchased the wrong package accidentally or even paid twice. All they need to do is contact me directly. -
Be careful!! flytampa St maarten from simmarket
martin_ktpa replied to Paul J's topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
>^^ Excellent customer service.>>I was a little confused as well when I went to purchase the>product. I did notice that the version containing all 3>airports was ONLY for FS9.>>Martin ... will Fly/Tampa be distributing the 3-airport>version for the current flight simulator?Sorry I know it was a bit confusing when it first appeared. Now all webpages, both mine and Simmarket's should be corrected and clear.First let me say all content related to the St.Maarten Packages, either St.Maarten by itself or "Complete" with St.Barts & Saba is available for both FS2004 and FSX-SP2. There are 2 packages:1. St.Maarten by itself. Contains the TNCM airport only and is meant for pilots who only fly heavies. It is also priced lower.2. St.Maarten "Complete" that comes with TNCM, TFFJ and SABA.Regardless if 1 or 2 is purchased, the customer is presented with 2 download links, one for the FS2004 Installer, the other for FSX. Both can be downloaded and installed by people who run both Sims.------Everyone who accidentally purchased St.Maarten by itself in the past 2 days but really wanted the Complete version should email me at http://www.flytampa.org/contact.html -
Be careful!! flytampa St maarten from simmarket
martin_ktpa replied to Paul J's topic in MS FSX | FSX-SE Forum
Steve: We'll get this fixed for you somehow. I am in contact with Simmarket to see how they would solve it. If they can't I will fix it for you myself, no worries.Martin / FlyTampa -
>How close is this work to the FS9 airport style tarmacs and>taxiways?It doesn't matter how close it is because it replaces all. The closest analogy is if we got a texture replacement for 747 wings which applies to all default and addon 747s. PMDG & co would love to have their wings replaced by other devs I'm sure.Its a joke along the lines of who will ever need then 640KB.
-
Thanks again Phil. In previous conversations we (and perhaps other devs) often got the idea that you were completely satisfied with the current "airport SDK". That this will be revisited for FS11 is all I needed to hear.
-
> And that is something we will be looking at for FS11.Thats the part I love, thank you Phil. Vacation is better then permanent retirement :)
-
I see what you mean now Phil, thanks for clearing it up :)
-
>"What do you think would happen to the next Windows if they>announced it only runs executables programmed in DotNet4 .">>That is a way overhyped version of what I am suggesting; which>is more along the lines of "quit loading those MS-DOS 16-bit>executables that are causing compat issues".Probably just a matter of semantics :)Isn't the goal of not loading legacy content already achieved when FSXI ships with no backwards-compat beyond the FSXI and perhaps FSX SDKs? I'm not sure I understand why an active or passive certification process needs to be added on top of non-existing backwards-compat.
-
I see your point fsxmissionguy.The question to me is can or should 3PD & their Addons ever rely purely on a SDK as tight as the FSX one (& FS9, FS8).Lets forget about the current state of affairs regarding Addons in FSX for a second, think FS historically. From what I have come to know complex Addons have never been possible without doing a certain amount of digging outside the SDK box. I believe this includes nuggets such as FSUIC, complex Aircraft, Ultimate Terrain, AES & many others. In essence lots of highly popular content may only exist today because smart 3PD went beyond the SDK. "Outside the SDK" does not always mean legacy code & old junk. I agree that right now with FSX Addons it seems to be that way, but I definitely see this as a temporary problem.Before decisions regarding Certification are made, it would be wise to analyze all factors responsible for the current situation. What do you think would happen to the next Windows if they announced it only runs executables programmed in DotNet4 .
-
Lets think long and hard about Certification of any kind, consult with the oldest ACES' team members, long-time 3PD etc.I can see how this idea fits perfectly into the the current situation, but by the time such a system is implemented & in the long-run, it may be completely unnecessary, even counter-productive.IMO the only reason we have this situation now is because FSX was made with the good intention to be more backwards-compat then it turned out to be. Result = undocumented partial-backwards-compat confusing 3PD and users alike.If the plan is to cut pre FSX-SDK compatibility out of FSXI by design, the problem solves itself, no certification needed.Martin