Jump to content

OSJJ1985

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    251
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OSJJ1985

  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.
  15. I don't think satellite data for Africa or any other "exotic" destination will be any less than Papua New Guinea (they showed us a brief clip of PNG... and it wasn't even Port Moresby). The best way to get an idea is check Bing Maps and check the places of lowest definition. I guess a good bet would be North Korea. Who ever said satellite imagery was the only technique of producing VFR-capable terrain? Azure is capable of reading 2d rooftops and creating 3d buildings.... so why shouldn't it be capable of reading a river, road, etc... and then telling the sim "hey we need a river here and a road there following this path" ... "this field should be placed here with these dimensions". So my guess is for places with very little or poor photographic data it might have some new form of landclass technique (in P3D it was ... city here, sand here, grass there and each landclass had it's textures with all the features on it). In this case it wouldn't be large areas and than have all the features on the texture. It would be all the features dictated by what the AI reads and THEN add the texture and definition to each and every single detail. I'd like to remind that this is all speculation. In the end I am sure that the visual quality as in definition will be the same thought the world. You will still get high resolution pavements, buildings, trees, road textures, etc.... in North Korea. Runway textures and buildings textures and detail will be the same for ZKPY as it's for KSFO. What really falls short is the accuracy. You might get a runway with incorrect number of piano keys or roads with false markings or a house without a pool where there should be one.... or a specific field my have another green tone than what it would be in real life. Or a building may be 30 m taller or whatever. Just my thoughts
  16. At this stage AI trees are better looking (or let's say actually look like trees) than the photogrammetry trees (sometimes very blocky). I am sure they are doing all the best in trying to improve the overall experience. At high altitudes it may not be a big thingy or flying fast. But when taxiing down the taxiway/apron I do want to see "real" trees. Trees are among those things that greatly enhance the immersion, especially if you see the correct trees at your location (which even that wasn't always a given with P3D). Anyways I was thinking when it comes to dense forests, where I actually prefer this "blocky" presentation, because you're usually unable to see anything but the tree tops, this mesh style might greatly enhance performance without the cost of immersion (right now you need millions of trees to correctly represent a dense forest). I hope I haven't lost you at this point. My idea is to have dense forests (and other smaller areas where a larger number of trees are very close to each other) be depicted in this mesh style of rendering and have it surrounded by AI trees (produced by the AI engine according to whatever is fitting). This way it will just produce a small number of AI trees (a single row of around the forests perimeter) but still give an "illusion" of depth when close up on ground (or near to ground) level and preserve that dense appearance when flying over it AND keep performance high. I hope I haven't lost you there and you get the idea 😉
  17. ...of needing to upgrade my CPU+RAM+MB combo. I was hoping I could wait until the release of MSFS, but P3D is showing the limits of my 4790k + 1070ti + 16GB DDR3. It's not just MSFS..... RDR2 is also giving my system a hard time it seems, getting occasional freezes (not stutters real freezes)... I was really hoping to blame Rockstar Games for that, but it does seem it's time for a CPU upgrade. Anyway will keep the 1070ti for the time being as I see it still as good enough to keep the price tag a good bit lower. Here is what I have come up with so far: i7-9700k ASUS PRIME Z390-A G.SKILL RipJaws V DIMM Kit 16 GB, DDR4-3200 NOCTUA NH-D15 CPU-Cooler That sums up to about €774, I would like to keep it under 1000 if possible. My question of course are, is the cooler going to do it and does it fit within my midi desktop case?! What's the best power unit for this setup, consider I do intend to upgrade to an xx80 GPU in the future. Or maybe you have other ideas, but generally the CPU decision is final.
  18. D*** you Microsoft. I was just about to fire up P3D and you've just ruined it for me with that trailer.
  19. Well I still have one of the older versions on my system. So I assume the parked aircraft only feature is not available anymore. The version I have is 14.11. Can I still use the current PPG to create airport files even for the older version? Thanks for the reply
  20. Hi, I just installed the latest version (16.10) and the option to disable live traffic to spawn only parked aircraft seems to be missing. My last version was 14.x and it was possible to disable the RealTraffic channel. I know this software was not designed for just parked aircraft, but I don't need it for anything else as I just want to populate the airport with AI aircraft as I let VATSIM produce the "moving" traffic. If the feature was removed is there a possibility to re-download the last version that had this feature?? And would I still be able to use generated xml files from the latest AIL and PPG? Another thing. Everytime I change the liveries folder to the standard folder within PSX main folder it keeps changing back to the AIL output folder. Thanks a alot and best regards, Chris
  21. Whats the difference if the next gen sim is named MSFS or P3Dv5. I don't want another beating at the same dead horse.
  22. Well count me in as one of those that actually bought, because of that credit. I would have been very reluctant otherwise. And am glad I did so as it brought on final life-line to P3D to let it go out with a bang. But without that credit I would probably have passed and waited for the NG3.
  23. No, but if you are planning to get the NG3 then the NGXu is more or less a free product. And considering they want to sell to more than just the NGXu customers, I doubt they will go for $199..... but in a time of $70 expansions who knows.... I am counting on something like 140-150. We'll see.
  24. This is the first time I will defend PMDG. I for myself said I wouldn't buy the NG3 for P3D, because my fear was if the MSFS version gets out they will probably charge full price again. So now they transfered the NG3 to MSFS only and release another 737 base pack named "NGXu". I think the whole naming thing is actually backfiring on PMDG a bit. The thing is if you (like me) are one of those that are sold on MSFS and will most definitely buy the 737 for MSFS when it's out, there is no loss in buying the NGXu for P3D right now. You're gonna have to pay full price for the NG3 for MSFS anyway. Did P3Dv3 owners get an upgrade price for P3Dv4? Did we get upgrade pricing from FS2004 to FSX (2 years time-span)? Do FIFA19 players get upgrade pricing for FIFA20 (1 year time-span)? So why should NGX owners get an upgrade pricing for NG3 (more than 8 years?)? Keeping that in mind and knowing I will be getting MSFS and the NG3 for it, I consider the NGXu to be a free "pre-order" bonus. NG3 = price, NGXu + NG3 = same price. So why not let P3D go out with a bang?
×
×
  • Create New...