Er!k
-
Posts
312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Er!k
-
-
I did a few flights in and out of Torp, latest one being on gate 2. It is not possible to ask for a stairs (ramp connection) or catering. Also pushback is only available after asking for IFR clearance. See screenshot.
Can this please be fixed?
-
1
-
-
Very nice! Cannot wait to fly there. Hopefully there is some snow then
-
2 minutes ago, Tino said:
If you are buying a product under "Partners", it's safe to assume support is offered from said "Partner". Nothing difficult about that.
I understand, but if you look at the Orbx forum you will notice a lot of people don't
-
1
-
-
Only thing that concerns me is support... All third party support is handled in a different way. But how does a customer know? It buys product a b and c, and goes to Orbx Support. Support then says, go to the dev. Case a means sending a mail case b is opening a topic on a forum and case c is contact via Facebook.... Confusing and not really customer friendly.
-
1
-
-
This is indeed great news! Combine the quality of FlyTampa with the ease of use of Orbx Central and you have a winning team! Hope the other MSFS sceneries (Copenhagen, Las Vegas) will become available as well!
-
1
-
-
Wow! Looks great. Hoping for good performance as well with 2 large airports in the vincinity...
-
-
Maybe the dev team waited for the new Update 7 to test if the latest version of MSFS works well with the scenery?
-
1
-
-
Wow, looks even better in MSFS, and must buy for me! I think the jetways will be static? Since this type is not supported by the SDK yet?
-
1
-
-
Another fine destination!
-
Small suggestion for the Norwegian statics, since every plane has a unique tail design, either use multiple textures or use the white tail variation
-
There is only 1 persons who knows: @Marcus Nyberg
-
3
-
-
Is it possible to include an option that will not overwrite the existing landmarks? If you add that and one with HD textures everyone should be happy!
-
1
-
1
-
-
I gave up using this product... Performance is not good, bugs/misplaced objects/missing objects are not being fixed; bad compatibility with other airports than FT EHAM (like Aerosoft EHRD/EHBK) and NL2000... Removed all autogen to improve performance, but indeed buildings from the larger cities cannot be removed as far as I know.
-
v1.20: Double windmill object spotted (coordinates in screenshot):
-
Are the devs following this topic at all? It has been very quiet. I see all new kind of sceneries rolled out (which I can understand), but will you also maintain existing packages?
-
Any word from the devs? The project seems to be abandoned although there are about 3 pages of things that may be fixed
-
1
-
-
Would it be possible in an upcoming patch to make the city buildings optional? Got a heavy hit when flying near the Hague area, but love the photo ground...
-
1
-
-
it is very quiet here... Lately I am experiencing CTD's when entering Dutch airspace. I.E. When doing a flight out of EGLL, Aerosoft Airbus, no AI landing on FT's EHAM, experienced this several times. RADAR_PRE_LEAK_64 error; I think there is a memory leak somewhere?!
-
Is there anything to share about an upcoming patch?
-
Fort Vuren also has some incorrect autogen, may be removed:
-
Slot Loevestein is looking a bit sad
Maybe remove the autogen there and replace it with the castle?
-
Some additional wishes, the Water tower from Meerkerk would be nice to have as well
-
First of all, thanks for the great job you guys did! I am now spamming a topic full of missing landmarks and on the other hand people are asking for better performance.
My performance is OK, except near the Rotterdam - Delft - The Hague area where too much dense cities are next to each other. Maybe it is an option to make the cities controlled via the autogen slider as well? Or maybe there is another holy grail in gaining some extra performance over there?
Look like a tough job to find the ultimate balance! Speaking for myself, besides the double/interfering objects, the missing landmarks are 'nice to have'.
Can't open user guides for MSFS products
in Microsoft Flight Simulator Support Forum
Posted
I experienced the same. I guess a manual is in most cases obsolete, since installation in MSFS is much more straightforward than in P3D or X-Plane. Since there are also no configurations/options possible, this part also does not need an explanation.
But a document with some charts etc. would be nice...