Jump to content

OSJJ1985

Members
  • Content Count

    251
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About OSJJ1985

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah this fighting about what's better is tiresome. On the other hand I do hope (I doubt it'd be any other way) Microsoft will not be influenced by false feedback from the community.
  2. The real pic definitely is overexposed. I still think the MSFS best reflects what I'd expect to see in real life (compared to that other shot). As I said before it's the overall impression and judging by the screenshots MSFS (which btw still ain't finished) wins the overall impression. Not to mention the apparent inclusion of light smog.
  3. I prefer the MSFS "Alpha" shot. Before the comparison shot I didn't even notice the night lit windows were too large. I agree they do appear to be too large on various buildings. But what counts for me is the overall impression. And the overall impression IS fine (understatement) and (at least in my opinion) better than the above screenshot (X-Plane?). Btw it's also hard to tell if it's really too large windows or just a repetitive lights-on pattern throughout several floors.
  4. The last time I've checked San Francisco is a photogrammetry city
  5. I think that intro screenshot was taken from the aircraft selection menu/screen/interface. But I guess we will find out more in the next episode. I am surprised at the amount of relief about the lights on the buildings people are showing, like there was any doubt. I personally find it harder to believe they went through all the trouble bringing out one revolution after another, just to stumble on some (in comparison) rather trivial additions like building lights at night.
  6. Yeah, I mean what use is all the world, weather and all the revolutionary stuff they are creating if the aircraft they will deliver do not live up to the high-fidelity "study-level" standards FSX and P3D have provided with their default aircraft.
  7. Aahhh... That's what it was. Thanks a lot. Then I think I know what went wrong with the parking spaces I wanted to add airline/aircraft parameters that had none. Thanks a lot
  8. UPDATE: Ok it appears when editing existing airline/aircraft entries all is good. When I however want to add aircraft/airline codes to a gate that has none or delete aircraft/airline entries, which I don't want occupied I get the problem. But what I do is just copy the parameters from another gate, so it looks exactly the same. At least I think I am following the intended way of setting the parameters (as seen in the example above).
  9. The only thing I did was take out the values of gate 1 (g1) to use it for myself.... _________________________________________________________________________ <?xml version="1.0"?> <meta> <info name="author" value="ParkPosGenerator" /> <info name="version" value="14.0" /> <info name="date" value="Jan 13, 2020" /> </meta> <parameters> <parameter name="ICAO" value="LGKR" /> <parameter name="IATA" value="CFU" /> <parameter name="latitude" value="39.601944" /> <parameter name="longitude" value="19.912222" /> <parameter name="altitude" value="6" /> <parameter name="airport_name" value="Ioannis Kapodistrias" /> <parameter name="supplier" value="" /> <parameter name="parking_percentage" value="30" /> <parameter name="last_update" value="" /> <parameter name="num_parkpos" value="11" /> <parameter name="num_real_live_parkpos" value="0" /> <parameter name="num_real_live_options" value="0" /> <parameter name="num_defined_hours" value="0" /> </parameters> <parkpositions> <parkpos id="g1" latitude="39.607563" longitude="19.913464" heading="346.8" radius="32.0" cargo="false"> <parkpos id="g10" latitude="39.610428" longitude="19.911652" heading="300.5" radius="34.7" cargo="false"> <aircraft> <option airlines="CFG,DTR,PGT,AUI,AUA,IBE,TOM" types="A321,B752,B753,B763,B738,B788,A319" real="false" /> </aircraft> </parkpos> <parkpos id="g2" latitude="39.607433" longitude="19.912737" heading="166.3" radius="32.0" cargo="false"> <aircraft> <option airlines="PGT,TAP,NAX,ETH,IBE,AUI,SAS" types="B737,A320,B738,A321,B736,B763,A319" real="false" /> </aircraft> </parkpos> <parkpos id="g3" latitude="39.606586" longitude="19.913826" heading="347.3" radius="21.3" cargo="false"> <aircraft> <option airlines="WOW,BEL,SWR,KLC,SBI,NLY,BAW" types="E190,BCS3,A318,A320,A321,BCS1,A319" real="false" /> </aircraft> </parkpos> ................ _________________________________________________________________________
  10. Mon Jan 13 09:56:31 2020 (utc) version 16.18 PSXT (64 bit) for Prepar3D v4.5 ***************************** parameters ***************************** RANDOM=true MAIN_WINDOW_X=1004 MAIN_WINDOW_Y=245 NON_REAL_REMOVAL_THRESHOLD=30 PARK_GROUNDSPEED=20 VERSION_CHECKED_AT=Jan 13, 2020 PROGRAM_VERSION=16.18 INSTALL_PATH=E:\Tools\PSXseeconTraffic ALWAYS_ON_TOP=false SYNC_FPS=true HEAVY_MIDDLE_AIRCRAFT=true LIGHT_AIRCRAFT=false HELICOPTERS=false INCLUDE_NOTYPES=true LOG_MATCHING=false ADD_ORIG_DEST=false AUTO_MODE=false LIVE_IF_USER_AIRBORNE=false COLLISION_USER_GND=true COLLISION_LIVE_PARKED_GND=true UPS=25 LATERAL_RANGE=40 FLOOR_ALTITUDE=-1000 LIVERIES_FOLDER=E:\Tools\AILGenerator\liveries AIRPORTS_FOLDER=airports FLIGHTPLANSFOLDER=C:\Users\Austr\OneDrive\Dokumente\Prepar3D v4 Files BLOCK_CALLSIGN= ********************************************************************** Reading airport's data from "airports" Reading airport's data from "parked_updates" 15 airports found ***************************** Note ***************************** Parked aircraft only mode (no live aircraft!) **************************************************************** Waiting for Flight Simulator ... Lockheed Martin Prepar3D v4 connected Aircraft type information read from "data\types.xml" *** author: PSXseeconTraffic *** version: 12.11 *** date: Dec 1, 2018 Wingspan information read from "data\wingspan.xml" *** author: PSXseeconTraffic *** version: 13.0 *** date: Dec 1, 2018 max possible half wingspan: 35.9 *************************************** liveries summary *************************************** 1855 liveries read from file "E:\Tools\AILGenerator\liveries\AI_liveries.xml" *** author: AILGenerator *** version: 5.1 *** date: Sep 14, 2019 generic Boeing liveries for 25 types: B703 B712 B721 B722 B732 B733 B734 B735 B736 B737 B738 B739 B741 B742 B743 B744 B748 B752 B753 B762 B763 B764 B772 B773 B789 generic Airbus liveries for 16 types: A21N A306 A30B A310 A318 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A345 A346 A359 A388 generic Embraer liveries for 6 types: E120 E135 E145 E170 E190 E75L generic Bombardier liveries for 2 types: GL5T GLEX generic ATR liveries for 5 types: AT43 AT44 AT45 AT72 AT75 generic Private liveries for 25 types: A139 BE10 BE20 C130 C172 C208 C402 C414 C421 C750 DHC6 GLEX GLF2 H25B LJ23 LJ24 LJ25 LJ31 LJ35 P28A PA31 SF34 SH33 SR22 SW4 390 unique airlines 119 unique aircraft types Default livery set for aircraft category Heavy, type B763, # liveries: 59 Default livery set for aircraft category Middle, type A320, # liveries: 311 Default livery set for aircraft category Light, type PC12, # liveries: 6 Default livery set for aircraft category Heli, type A139, # liveries: 7 ************************************************************************************************ User aircraft title: F-22 Raptor - 525th Fighter Squadron User aircraft model: F22 User aircraft half wing span: 6.9 meter User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607571,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607571,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607572,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607572,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607572,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607572,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm User on the ground, lat/lon 39.607573,19.913462, standing still, no airport (in your airports) within 5 nm Exiting: USER CLOSED SIM 09:58:30 User closed PSXseeconTraffic MAIN_WINDOW_X=1004 MAIN_WINDOW_Y=245 Mon Jan 13 09:58:31 2020
  11. Hey there, First of all a huge thanks for offering a non-live version as that's what I actually use and you are the only one I know that offers this. A did come across a few problems, which I am unable to find the cause. PSX seems to only accept airport files that come straight out of PPG. As soon as I alter the smallest detail I always get an error message "no airport found within 5 nm". I only edited gates (e.g. remove/add airlines, remove all airline/aircraft parameters to use it for myself, etc...). It's very strange, because it accepts anything from PPG (even if I change parameters prior to generating the file), but when I change them by myself I always get the error message. The only thing left I can think of is that upon saving the file it saves it in some *.xml format that isn't recognizable. Other than that I am out of ideas. Thanks and best regards,
  12. I believe he went somewhere else with that post. No-one suggested that MS keep things modest to accommodate for 3rd party developers. Rather let MS do a homerun on a limited number of features than have them just go half-way on everything. Even with their resources they can't get every single square-inch on earth right. Not every single airport to depict the correct check-in agents and not every single airliner configured correctly by registration. THAT is where add-on devs come in. The whole point of 3rd party devs is (in this case and any other case) is not for MS to get lazy, but rather open up the software for a wider range of people with (better) expertise to go even further.
  13. Why should I require a specific addon to be functional for the new Sim when the Sim itself can do a better job on its own? For example there really is no need for FTX Global products to be compatible with the new Sim.
  14. Honestly?? I couldn't care less if Azure can't 100% recreate the correct dimensions of several buildings. I thought the main concern was that Azure would transfer satellite imagery one-to-one from Bing, which will clearly NOT be the case. Otherwise you're going to have clouds on the ground in Dallas, TX and being a major US city that'd be a HUGE no-go. And if they are able to straight out Azure right to give a visually appealing representation of Dallas (this is just speculation of course) then why shouldn't the very same technique be able to get an equally visual appealing representation of Pyongyang?? If you're really that nuts about a 10-story building being represented as a 5-story building then you very well may be disappointed. I don't really give a ..... as long as it doesn't produce skyscrapers in suburbs or mansions within the CBD. Azure doesn't know the difference between North Korea or the US. a hay-field in the US will be the same as a hay-field in Mozambique. So it will obviously create the same detail for both of them.
×
×
  • Create New...