mburkhard
-
Posts
235 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mburkhard
-
-
On 7/2/2023 at 1:43 AM, John Dow said:
I think there are no statics included. This would be FSLTL generated traffic, and there's no way to specify airlines, only the size category of the aircraft.
Yes one can specify airline codes, at least plenty other devs have done it. I'm surprised to read you say it's not possible? Can you elaborate on why this wouldn't work at KSMF?
-
5 hours ago, Sascha Normann said:
Noted!
Actually outside airport perimeters but we agree it looks odd.
Currently discussing if and when we can add it here. There seems to be even another one build right next to it which is not visible on imagery yet.
Thank you Sascha for looking into these.
Yes these warehouses are obviously outside of the airport perimeter, but to me a great airport scenery cannot only look after the airport itself, but also the approach path, to complete the experience of flying into the place.
So thank you for considering this! The building is so big and you pass it low and slow on approach, so having it in 3D will make a nice difference.
As for the neighbouring building, maybe it will be good enough to simply copy the larger one and shrinking it. Looking at current imagery one can see that these warehouses all seem to have the same architecture.
-
Got a small error report for your YMML: The glide slop antennas used are incorrect, those are actually no antennas. Yes there's the vertical support structure, but there are no beam emitters on it. Can't quite work to emit a glide slope beam that way
And while you're at it I have some small improvement suggestions I hope you can consider;
YMML is embedded very nicely into its surroundings with 3D objects all around, making it look authentic and life-like. Except for two areas in direct view on final approach:
- On Final for RWY09 one is greeted by this all flat construction area to the left. Might it be possible to place a few stock objects there, a truck, a container, ANYthing really that makes this a bit more realistic to look at. Doesn't even need every object in 3D, just a select few will do nicely I think.
- And secondly on final for RWY34 there is this gigantic warehouse type building visible on the aerial imagery but it's all flat. It's so big you can't not see it, so I wonder if it would be possible to place a low poly generic warehouse at its position?
I know it's a construction site but the structure is there and just doesn't fit the lovely 3D work next to it. If it wouldn't be that big and not directly on short final it wouldn't be an issue, but like this its just something that is too obvious to ignore I think. As I said, needs nothing fancy, just generic and low poly will do fine, as long as the result is not flat.
I hope you can consider these to perfectly round off your superb work.
All the best,
Markus
-
On 5/28/2023 at 5:18 PM, Jetpilot82 said:
@Orbx
Im quite disappointed from this "Update", why does it not have the EGLC specific Touch down zone marking lights? You even missed it in V1.
This is a very important part of this airport... UK2000 version has it, as far as I know.
The ground markings at the GAT area, are also far away from correct/complete.
What's worse, the green threshold lights have been misplaced and are now located on the physical threshold instead of the displaced one. This was correct in V1 as far as I can remember.
-
1
-
-
On 5/20/2023 at 6:43 PM, bvdboomen said:
As far as I know, it has to do with the data resolution from the used weather source being to low. I also believe MS/Asobo are aware.
Oh yes Asobo is aware. Unfortunately it seems that they hope that everyone will forget about the issue, since resolving it could mean for Asobo/MS to pay more money to the data provider MeteoBlue for higher resolution data.
The issue is there forever since the earliest Alpha versions of MSFS, so around 3 years now. Users need to revolt, otherwise this will never get solved.
-
Question:
The area immediately east of the runway, right across the strip of water beneath the approach lights; In the original scenery we could see a rather large parking area / chunk yard filled with cars, containers, boats and rubbish, and it was all flat. So landing on RWY27 always felt a bit immersion destroying due to one flying low over this vast area of flat objects being in plain sight. Have you perhaps been able to clean it up a bit or add a 3D model here and there?
Not expecting super detailed things of course, but just a bit of 3D (stock objects) here and there would make the approach look so much more realistic.
-
19 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:
Hello,
I am not sure why there are these adverse comments about Accuseason.I see no trees nearer to the "runway" in either shot.
Are you certain Accuseason is enabled in your example? I see zero difference in vegetation.
In any case, my gripe with the add-on is the fact that it alters default vegetation not just in colour, but also vegetation size and type. This leads to all sorts of unpredictable results throughout the range of airport add-on scenery. But the users are not told to expect this before buying, it is sold as one seamless nice experience when it is in fact incompatible with certain sceneries.
It's a hack. One that is nice in certain use-cases, but a mess in many others. I have no issue in people using it, but they should know what to expect and know about possible adverse effects the add-on has.
-
4 hours ago, Rene Feijen said:
Self reply: If I look at the pictures at Orbx direct, the trees are alright. Could it be incompatibility with Rex Accuseason?
That would be my guess. The AccuSeason add-on interferes with default vegetation, so it can certainly mess up trees and bushes placed by scenery developers, because it can change the type of flora placed in sceneries.
My advise would be to uninstall AccuSeason and wait for Asobo to implement seasons. The REX add-on can mess up things anywhere you go, not something I would want to have in my simulator.
-
1
-
-
I see that as well when I approach Bern. Perhaps Orbx needs to report this to Asobo. Us users doing the same won't change a thing I'm afraid.
-
1
-
-
Thank you very much for the hot fix, highly appreciated!
After having another look at your scenery, I'd kindly ask you to put some additional rather critical issues on your list for the update:
-
Taxiway Lighting
Please remove ALL green taxiway centreline lighting. There's no such lighting anywhere on the real airport.
Remove the blue taxiway edge lighting on intersection A. No blue lights there in reality. C and F only. -
Runway Guard Lights
Please add runway guard lights. All intersections feature runway guard lights at the holding point. placed left and right of the stopbar markings. -
Red/white Runway numbers at holding points
Further to my comments above regarding the white on red runway number markings. Please not only replace the default double runway markings with single ones, but also add the missing runway numbers painted at the holding points E and A. -
Yellow holding point markings
When adding missing ground markings, perhaps you could also beef up the holding point markings in general. The real ones feature dashed yellow lines running along the centreline on each side indicating to pilots that they are approaching a holding point.
And here's another somewhat cosmetic request:
-
Yellow taxiway marking colour
Your wingspan restriction ground markings have a different shade of yellow compared to the other yellow taxiway markings. In reality these markings are all of the same yellow colour. It would look quite a bit more realistic if these colours would match.
Thank you again for listening.
All the best,
Markus
-
1
-
Taxiway Lighting
-
9 hours ago, AnkH said:
Bummer, but with this static ATR non removable, I am not going to spend money on this product.
Go right ahead and buy, the developer confirmed that the ATR is going to be removed:
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Max Addante said:
You can expect an update for the next week, I should easy implement some of your suggestions.
Next time I'll ask for help from the community to get better information about the airtport.Hey Max,
delighted to read that, it's good to know that you're listening to feedback and are producing an update.
While working through the issues, could you please take a look at your building textures. I noticed that in low-vis conditions some of your textures do not react well and cancel out any fog effect showing pure black through the fog. At first I thought it was the usual MSFS glass in fog issue, but then I noticed that the problem also shows on some wall textures, while various glass textures are unaffected.
So just put some fog in your sim and vary the distance to your objects and you'll immediately see the affected textures.
Let me know if you require any screenshots though.Thank you again, looking forward to the update.
-
Congratulations on your first Orbx release, a lovely rendition of Bern it is indeed! I see good modelling and texturing throughout with a seamless integration into its surroundings. Some of the hangars you modelled look absolutely stunning!
I did notice some issues I hope you can correct soonest:
-
The fictional ATR static aircraft needs to go. It just doesn't fit at all since Swiss never operated any ATR in their livery. Please remove it or make it optional through Orbx' customisation functionality.
If you want to have a static airliner that is more suitable than a Swiss ATR, you might consider doing a Helvetic EMB-190 instead? But with all the traffic add-ons available nowadays it might be easiest to simply skip any static airliner. -
The ground markings are lacking in various places. Please consider adding the important markings for green area parking and its parking stands, as well as the blue area parking lines. Those are all clearly visible on aerial imagery from Swisstopo for reference.
Furthermore, the holding point markings do not resemble the real ones. As I'm sure you've seen there are only single red/white markings indicating the runway ahead, yours are doubled.
Also your heli spot markings are the wrong colours mostly.
And also several lines on the main apron are the wrong colours, like the lines indicating the edge between taxiways and parking should be red-white instead of white only. - The windsock next to the glider hangar is missing. You can see its position on the Swisstopo aerial imagery.
- Could you enhance the aircraft spawn positions somewhat? It would be useful to have a parking position in front of the glider hangar for starting in a tow aircraft. Also please add all parking spots on the main apron, there's plenty of them missing. Blue parking might benefit of more than one as well.
- The glider runway seems to have half of its white markings missing towards the north.
Right, these were the ones that I see being a must to fix. Next some cosmetic ones that I think would not be too much work to also adjust:
- The green threshold lights of runway 32 do not match the position and size visible on the aerial image. Over at runway 14 it is all correct. So maybe you could duplicate this for RWY32?
- The public road going around the airport to the south features yellow lines marking the edge of the road. These should be white instead. Swiss roads usually do not feature yellow edge markings.
- Are you absolutely sure about the colour of the grass runway holding point and edge markings you placed? This would be a question for your sources I guess. I haven't been to the airport recently and I know there have been changes to the grass runway. But in the past those markings have not been yellow but white instead. Also a question for your sources; Should the grass runway taxi signs be lit? The grass runway is not in use during hours of darkness, so lighting those signs doesn't make sense. But who knows, just a question.
Thank you again for doing Bern and for looking into these issues.
Markus
4 hours ago, Mikael Cedergren said:Is there an option to disable the static aircraft? Its 2023 and the AI options are endless. I dont see why developers force is to have them This is absolutely a purchase for me but only if I can remove the static planes
No option to disable any static aircraft unfortunately.
-
2
-
1
-
The fictional ATR static aircraft needs to go. It just doesn't fit at all since Swiss never operated any ATR in their livery. Please remove it or make it optional through Orbx' customisation functionality.
-
2 hours ago, Ed Correia said:
Thanks Markus, that makes sense and should be easy to implement.
thanks Ed, great to hear that! -
1 hour ago, Ed Correia said:
With the displaced threshold on 14, the TDZ lights run to 635m down the runway (621m on the charts) but for 32 they run to 850m down the runway (622 on the charts). So for 14 it works OK but not for 32.
I'm assuming that is what is being referred to with the TDZ lighting remark.
Hello Ed,
thanks for looking into this, however your assumption is incorrect.
The remark for TDZ lighting on the charts refers to where the lights are located AT, not how long they are running for from the threshold. Simple TDZ lighting does not run along the runway, these are simply a pair of lights on each side of the runway centreline.
Chapter 5.3.14 in ICAO Doc Annex 14 describes simple TDZ lighting in detail, but here's the relevant illustration that summarises things perfectly:
So as you can see, just 4 lights for each runway landing direction. 4 lights for RWY14 and 4 lights for RWY32, located at the distance published in the charts.
If the SDK does not allow for these lights, and you're unable or unwilling to do custom lighting, then I suggest to simply DISABLE the Asobo TDZ lighting, as having no TDZ lighting turned on is a much more realistic scenario compared to having a huge carpet of lights that simply does not exist on the real runway.
Let me know if you need further info, I'd be happy to help. Also if you require lighting information out of the Swiss AIP publication I can send them over.
Cheers,
Markus
-
Looking good so far, I'm very interested in getting this.
However, I do hope that the developer will have another good look at the runway lights. The real runway is equipped with simple TDZ lighting only, which is completely different in layout and dimension compared to CAT2/3 TDZ lighting.
-
duplicate post - please delete
-
18 hours ago, paulk said:
May I ask how you rate Manchester, I have never purchased as the screenshots don’t look that good to me, but am open to suggestion from anyone who owns it.
I don't like it I'm afraid, wanted to as it has many good qualities. However, certain things are just painfully inaccurate (runway markings or lighting to name a few) and never got fixed in the years since release. You will also have the pleasure of overflying a flat VOR station on short final, the promised 3D rendition of it never arrived. It is also not really optimised for optimal performance.
They said they would revisit EGCC last year, but that never happened.
So for the time being I cannot recommend it and welcome any UK airfield Pyreegue can do. EGKK would be my first choice, but I will also settle for Stansted or Luton. I don't consider Gaya to be a worthwhile developer. While they do have plenty of talent, they always rush their releases and then never ever fix any issues. So what's the point in having their work, if bugs are never addressed.
We should try and clone Pyreegue instead
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Scott Harmes said:
How good is it! I was surprised to see this too, i had no idea it was being made. Saw it last night and grabbed it instantly. Having visited the airport a few times i can agree it's an awesome job.
Thanks for that. Can you perhaps comment on FPS and stutters, do you think it's running smoothly? Asking because some previous airport offerings from Impulse had not been well optimised for performance.
-
53 minutes ago, paulk said:
Never used AIG I will have to investigate, do I just download the model and livery and if FSLTL sees it it adds it in?
You need to install the AIG Traffic tool to use it to download all the airlines you want. Then just don't use AIG to inject traffic and FSLTL will automatically pick up AIG models if it doesn't have its own.
FSLTL is a fantastic tool but right now it is missing a lot of important models. Since it was designed to pick up AIG models, the process is however really seamless and simple once you understand how to download AIG material.
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, paulk said:
Hi Jon
So i set my settings to match yours. I got a Luxair Dash 8 at EGLC, sadly never seen any BA e-Jets yet, have you?
FSLTL does not feature any E-Jet models, that's why you can't see any at EGLC. If you want to see Embraers, you'll need to install AIG models alongside FSLTL.
-
1
-
-
On 7/30/2022 at 2:47 PM, EasternT3 said:
Interestingly, Mathjis Kok at Aerosoft was talking about direct sales from aerosoft vs the marketplace, and he said that profit from each avenue is actually similar, so this point you make is incorrect.
Uhm we all know that Mathijs loves to talk about a lot of things
Aerosoft being a distribution partner for MSFS obviously is not the same as a small developer like FT when it comes to sales conditions. Or are you seriously suggesting that FT's income would be the same whether they'd sell in their OWN store vs. one that makes money from selling other products?!
Yes I have knowledge about certain terms and conditions but that doesn't matter, since whatever knowledge I have is not meant for the public to hear. If Microsoft takes 35%, then you can kind of extrapolate how much Orbx would be taking, and no it's not 5%, otherwise every developer would obviously sell here immediately.
Amazing how one gets grilled here trying to defend a small developer's decision to not sell all their stuff in foreign market places if they have their own store.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what Orbx is doing, I'm buying from their store too, obviously!
I just hate seeing people trying to force developers to sell through Orbx by shouting "I only buy your stuff if you sell at Orbx" all over social media. If some devs don't want to sell at Orbx, or the Marketplace, they usually have very good reasons for not doing so. If you guys want to punish those developers by ignoring them, sure, go ahead and miss a lot of fantastic stuff.
-
On 7/26/2022 at 11:53 AM, EasternT3 said:
It's a shame, I really don't get the thinking in one FT developer wanting to sell through Orbx and the other doesn't...surely as a developer you'd want to sell in as many locations as possible, or you'll miss out on potentially sales - hopefully the hold out dev changes his mind and brings his portfolio to Orbx
This one is rather simple, isn't it. FT has its own sales infrastructure. Orbx taking away a big chunk of the sales price, why would you want to sell all your stuff at Orbx and decrease your income? While offering FT scenery at Orbx might increase the product's visibility and generate additional sales, other people will also buy there just for convenience, even though they already know FT products and where else to get them, thus severely decreasing FT's income.
OBRX Central, while convenient, is not the centre of the universe. People saying "oh I will only buy things if they are on Orbx Central!", I find that rather silly, and lazy. If you like the product or the developer, then support that developers business decision and buy at their own store, how hard could it be.
-
2
-
-
On 6/7/2022 at 6:51 AM, John Dow said:
Outside the airport boundary it's Asobo country, and if the photogrammetry isn't up to scratch you should take it up with them. Personally I prefer to fly in the KBUR area with PG off because it's so bad.
Yes and no. What the developer COULD do is exclude the photogrammetry immediately outside of the fence and place some higher fidelity stock objects (or even custom ones). That way taxiing along the fence would not be an awful experience like this.
We all know how horrible photogrammetry objects can look in the sim. For me a quality airport scenery product takes this into account by not just stopping development at the airport fence. I expect a developer to make things look nice from everywhere I can taxi or park or things that I overfly below 500ft AGL (i.e. short final).
By doing what I wrote above, the developer could easily improve the experience for the customer.At the samte time I agree, take it to Asobo. What MSFS needs is the ability to have a setting that automatically excludes photogrammetry a few hundred metres around the airport perimeter globally, and place Autogen stuff instead. That way, scenes like melted cars and trees on short final or next to a fence are less likely to destroy the immersion. However, I still prefer for scenery developers to care about what is placed around the airport perimeter and doing some manual work if required.
Aerosoft being a distribution partner for MSFS obviously is not the same as a small developer like FT when it comes to sales conditions. Or are you seriously suggesting that FT's income would be the same whether they'd sell in their OWN store vs. one that makes money from selling other products?! 
One for Nick I think.
in General Discussion
Posted
It doesn't work that way. It is quite normal that when developers sell in their own store, it will be a bit cheaper than in all the other places, since those will normally ask for a chunk of the sale price. Hence the higher total price in places like the Orbx store.
If you wanted best price, you should have bought directly from BB, but you won't have the convenience of the Orbx scenery manager.