active KSAN Naval boats are gone again

[big-mike]

All the naval boats are gone again with V2.

Can you please send me a link to KSAN v1?

Mike

[big-mike]

How can i get KSAN v1 ?

Mike

[Scott Harmes]

Hi Mike,

 

Unfortunately KSAN V1 is no longer available.

 

Cheers,

[big-mike]

Thank you,Scott.

Mike

[FreeBird]

Hi Mike its to bad they got rid of the boats for why I don't know but what I have found if your using the free shipping AI package available over at AVSIM It will give you two navy boats that come and go and hang out at those docks.   Josh

[big-mike]

2 minutes ago, FreeBird said:

Hi Mike its to bad they got rid of the boats for why I don't know but what I have found if your using the free shipping AI package available over at AVSIM It will give you two navy boats that come and go and hang out at those docks.   Josh

I have Henrik`s AI boats and with v1 all the ships were there and San Diego is a naval base.

Can`t understand this.

Mike

[FreeBird]

Just now, big-mike said:

I have Henrik`s AI boats and with v1 all the ships were there and San Diego is a naval base.

Can`t understand this.

Mike

 

I know Taking the Navy out of San Diego was wrong. Its like whoever made the scenery has never been there. I just don't think they care as this was brought up in V1.  I don't think this airport was made for VFR flying and it seems to cater to Jetliners and the PR is just to washed out and to blurry to enjoy . Plus the loss of all car traffic around the city and all the cool things that make ORBX orbx are gone. I sure wish they make a lite version with just the Airport but they said that is not going to happen. If I figure out how to get the boats back ill let you know.  Josh

[Scott Harmes]

Hi Mike and Josh,

 

Here are a few tools which may help.  If you have Henrik's AI packages you will have plenty of models to choose from.

 

https://www.scenerydesign.org/library-creator-xml/

 

http://stuff4fs.com/newpage.asp?Folder=SAMM

 

Cheers,

[FreeBird]

Thanks

 

[FireRx]

I don't even have the boats that are in the pictures 

 

[big-mike]

23 hours ago, Scott Harmes said:

Hi Mike and Josh,

 

Here are a few tools which may help.  If you have Henrik's AI packages you will have plenty of models to choose from.

 

https://www.scenerydesign.org/library-creator-xml/

 

http://stuff4fs.com/newpage.asp?Folder=SAMM

 

Cheers,

Scott,

it cannot be.that the customer has to search for solutions or has to find other possibilities when the Dev of a scenery has removed things,which were there before and ran great.

And i think,that a Naval Station like San Diego has to be there with all the boats.

Mike

[Scott Harmes]

Hi Mike,

 

I am simply trying to offer you an alternative solution to your issue.

 

I am not the developer of the scenery, and I can't say for sure why the boats you mention were removed specifically, but you must keep in mind that it is a scenery for an airport in a flight simulator.  It is a scenery of an International Airport in a high density area, and therefore compromises must be made, as they always must be when dealing with scenery development.

 

Cheers,

[big-mike]

Scott,

i really appreciate your help.

The naval boats were there in v1---why not in v2?

But i am tired of such discussions and will not use KSAN v2.

I know,ORBX doesn´t make mistakes and is always right.

End of discussion for me---thank you.

You can mark this Topic as solved.

Mike

[Scott Harmes]

8 minutes ago, big-mike said:

Scott,

i really appreciate your help.

The naval boats were there in v1---why not in v2?

But i am tired of such discussions and will not use KSAN v2.

I know,ORBX doesn´t make mistakes and is always right.

End of discussion for me---thank you.

You can mark this Topic as solved.

Mike

 

Hey Mike,

 

As I say I am not the developer, and can not make any amendments to the scenery.  However I will see if anything can be adjusted or added by the user to get some boats back.  It will be a few days until I can look at it, but I will look at it.

 

Cheers,

[big-mike]

1 minute ago, Scott Harmes said:

 

Hey Mike,

 

As I say I am not the developer, and can not make any amendments to the scenery.  However I will see if anything can be adjusted or added by the user to get some boats back.  It will be a few days until I can look at it, but I will look at it.

 

Cheers,

Thank you very much,Scott.

Mike

[Matteo Veneziani]

Hi Mike,

 

I will try to see if i can add the naval boat as the V1.

 

Cheers

 

 

[FireRx]

Matteo,

Did the static sail boats and your elephants at the San Diedo zoo get removed, too?

[Stewart Hobson]

[Ripcord]

 

It is a very good thing that the 'Navy boats' were removed.  There were not the correct boats, they were in the wrong position and some of them were not good models.  Matteo did a great thing by allowing the user to configure them in the settings.

 

BTW, in the U.S. Navy, they call them ships, unless you are referring to submarines.

 

[jaims]

I too have to weigh in on KSAN V2.  Anyone flying south from the KSAN is in for a disappointment. The entire San Diego South Bay is empty of not only Navy ships, but  ships appearing at one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the West coast.  So basically, the South Bay of San Diego is now a desert, in a manner of speaking.  Anyone from San Diego will appreciate what a visual void this is.

 

Making matters worse, the San Diego - Corornado Bay Bridge is one of the most iconic structures in all of San Diego (a picture of which is on probably 90% of postcards of San Diego).  Yet, the bridge is depicted as a flat sheet on vertical stilts, instead of the much larger A-Frame supports.  This adds to the visual blight as you head toward the South Bay.  

 

Numerous other issues: Cabrillo Bridge - another iconic structure, looks awful compared to V1; lack of traffic and boats in marinas; blurry textures, some really bad looking vertical slopes and road anomolies just east of the airport; and around Balboa Park structures...

 

It's so disappointing to see these issues because there are such great visuals with KSAN V2 - but its these other issues - like looking at a masterpiece of photographic art only to be turned off by the appearance of thumbprints. 

 

I'm back to LATINVFR V2 - with its crisp textures (incredibly clear ground textures - eg Balboa Golf course / Cabrillo Bridge on I163 look gorgeous) and the absence of so many head scratching omissions in KSAN V2.

To those who just fly in and out of KSAN - and don't live in SD or want to fly around all the visual candy San Diego has to offer, KSAN V2 is - no doubt,  just fine for you.  I get that.  

 

I just want so much to have KSAN V2 live up to its potential.  Hopefully, this is still a work in progress.  And notwithstanding the rant, a belated thanks to the developer for the efforts he  made to put out a V2 of KSAN.  No doubt that was hard work.  And it showed in so many areas.   If and when V3 is released, I will be your most ardent fan.

 

 

 

   

[FalconAF]

I'll offer an observation, and it may not be a popular one, but I think it's realistic.

 

I think ORBX and the KSAN developer ended up "watering down" the original KSAN v1 due to the high number of end user complaints about the performance of the KSAN scenery.  The sad part of that is not ALL end users were experiencing the problems SOME end users were experiencing.  You simply can't run a complex combination of scenery like ORBX SOCAL, KSAN, AI addon packages, complex aircraft (PMDG, etc) on a 5 year old hardware computer that isn't "optimized" (ie - user maintenance done on it, etc) and expect things not to "go wrong".  

 

What the KSAN developer SHOULD have done was KEEP the v1 scenery in the v2 release, but with the OPTIONS to turn BOTH the v1 and v2 "stuff" on/off in the "control panel".  I was fully capable of running v1 "maxed out" scenery-wise without the issues others were complaining about.  I'm sorry others couldn't do that.  But I have updated hardware and know how to maximize my computer settings for flight simming use when I use it for that.  So why should the "updated" v2 "water down" the original v1 I bought and paid for?

 

Just an observation.  Not a complaint.  But they took a "top of the line" scenery and "watered it down" for use by a lower-common-denominator user base.  Heck, I may as well have traded in my KSAN v1 for an early FSX-era KSAN...after paying for the v1 with better scenery, etc.  Don't hold your higher end-user capable users hostage by "watering down" a product so less capable end users can use it without complaints about it.

[Stewart Hobson]

4 minutes ago, FalconAF said:

I'll offer an observation, and it may not be a popular one, but I think it's realistic.

 

I think ORBX and the KSAN developer ended up "watering down" the original KSAN v1 due to the high number of end user complaints about the performance of the KSAN scenery.  The sad part of that is not ALL end users were experiencing the problems SOME end users were experiencing.  You simply can't run a complex combination of scenery like ORBX SOCAL, KSAN, AI addon packages, complex aircraft (PMDG, etc) on a 5 year old hardware computer that isn't "optimized" (ie - user maintenance done on it, etc) and expect things not to "go wrong".  

 

What the KSAN developer SHOULD have done was KEEP the v1 scenery in the v2 release, but with the OPTIONS to turn BOTH the v1 and v2 "stuff" on/off in the "control panel".  I was fully capable of running v1 "maxed out" scenery-wise without the issues others were complaining about.  I'm sorry others couldn't do that.  But I have updated hardware and know how to maximize my computer settings for flight simming use when I use it for that.  So why should the "updated" v2 "water down" the original v1 I bought and paid for?

 

Just an observation.  Not a complaint.  But they took a "top of the line" scenery and "watered it down" for use by a lower-common-denominator user base.  Heck, I may as well have traded in my KSAN v1 for an early FSX-era KSAN...after paying for the v1 with better scenery, etc.  Don't hold your higher end-user capable users hostage by "watering down" a product so less capable end users can use it without complaints about it.

I find this reasonable, as I'm in the same boat.  I had no trouble with v1, but then again, I don't fly airliners, which is probably why I had no problems.

[FalconAF]

3 hours ago, Stewart Hobson said:

I find this reasonable, as I'm in the same boat.  I had no trouble with v1, but then again, I don't fly airliners, which is probably why I had no problems.

 

It's not just an "I don't fly airliners..." issue, Stewart.  That is a cop-out rationalization when someone uses it (that's not intended to be a slam against you...please don't take it that way).  I didn't have problems even using PMDG aircraft with KSAN v1 (and I don't with KSAN v2 either).

 

Whether or not someone has "issues" with their flight sim performance has always...and still does...revolve around 3 things:

 

1.  Do they have the necessary HARDWARE capable of running the SOFTWARE they are trying to run?  If not, NO AMOUNT of "tweaking" will solve that problem.  It will just be like putting a band-aid over an arterial bleeding wound.  If you want to race in the Indianapolis 500, you can't buy a go-cart or a 5-year old IndyCar and be competitive in a race today against today's technology.

 

2.  Is their HARDWARE (whether old OR state-of-the-art) maintained so it WILL run at it's designed level of performance?  This is no different than if you don't "maintain" any other kind of "machine".  Your computer is a machine, just like your car.  See how long your car will run at it's designed level of performance if you don't do regular maintenance on it.  Note that in order to do this, the "owner" of the "machine" either has to acquire the necessary knowledge themselves to do the maintenance, or they have to have somebody else who knows how to do it do it for them.  And this applies to even a brand new state-of-the-art hardware configuration.  You can't buy a brand new IndyCar and NOT do routine maintenance on it and expect it to be competitive after even only 10 laps of racing it.  It does no good to spend money on a state-of-the-art computer (like a Jetline, Alienware, etc) then not maintain it.  Within only a few short months, it will run like a 5-year old computer again.  Please note...nowhere above have I said that EVERY end-user SHOULD own the latest and greatest hardware at a premium cost. Whatever "age" hardware they have, it still has to have routine maintenance done on it (in conjunction with the software it is running).

 

3.  Is the user trying to do what is totally unrealistic with the COMBINATION of the hardware and software they have?    The end user MUST have a REALISTIC expectation of what their hardware/software combination is capable of doing.  Way to many flight sim users don't do this, then complain about the software FIRST. 

 

Anybody who uses these kind of flight sim forums and flight sim software...and who has a professional background in computers and SIMULATION USE of them (note I did not say GAMES because the requirements for the two are totally different)…can easily identify what the real issue usually is when a user posts an "I've got a problem...." post. More often than not, it is NOT an issue with the software.  The issue is being caused by the end user themselves, in the way they have their hardware/software configured, and/or how they are using it beyond a reasonable expectation of it's capabilities. 

 

So, my point in my original post was.....

 

1.  If a developer wants to sell a piece of software that is ALREADY watered down on it's INITIAL release, I'm fine with that.  I can decide whether to buy it that way then.  And we all know there are addon developers who still do that today with their addons.

 

But.....

 

2.  If I buy an addon that was fully capable of running on my state-of-the-art, well maintained hardware with all of the software's "bells and whistles" it had in it's ORIGINAL release, please don't "water it down" in a subsequent "upgrade" just because some other users are having unrealistic expectations of it's performance based on THEIR hardware and lack of knowledge about how to make it work on THEIR computers.  Heck, you may as well take my $30 now, then "downgrade" the software to a $15 value item with a later "upgrade" to it.

 

I'm on ORBX's side with the KSAN issue.  Plenty of KSAN's users were NOT experiencing problems with v1 of it.  And that is NOT ORBX's fault.

 

So taking away some of the scenery that was in it before because other users couldn't get it to work is a massive step backwards.

[carlosqr]

4 hours ago, FalconAF said:

I'll offer an observation, and it may not be a popular one, but I think it's realistic.

 

I think ORBX and the KSAN developer ended up "watering down" the original KSAN v1 due to the high number of end user complaints about the performance of the KSAN scenery.  The sad part of that is not ALL end users were experiencing the problems SOME end users were experiencing.  You simply can't run a complex combination of scenery like ORBX SOCAL, KSAN, AI addon packages, complex aircraft (PMDG, etc) on a 5 year old hardware computer that isn't "optimized" (ie - user maintenance done on it, etc) and expect things not to "go wrong".  

 

What the KSAN developer SHOULD have done was KEEP the v1 scenery in the v2 release, but with the OPTIONS to turn BOTH the v1 and v2 "stuff" on/off in the "control panel".  I was fully capable of running v1 "maxed out" scenery-wise without the issues others were complaining about.  I'm sorry others couldn't do that.  But I have updated hardware and know how to maximize my computer settings for flight simming use when I use it for that.  So why should the "updated" v2 "water down" the original v1 I bought and paid for?

 

Just an observation.  Not a complaint.  But they took a "top of the line" scenery and "watered it down" for use by a lower-common-denominator user base.  Heck, I may as well have traded in my KSAN v1 for an early FSX-era KSAN...after paying for the v1 with better scenery, etc.  Don't hold your higher end-user capable users hostage by "watering down" a product so less capable end users can use it without complaints about it.

 

Hi Falcon

To be honest I don't get the sensation of a "watered down" scenery when I fly there. I find it very nice.

I used to be one of the users with performance issues like blurry textures, slow texture loading, terrible framerates, etc.  I don't have a top, high-end computer as you do but it is not a pan either.

I bet most of the people might have computers similar to mine than to yours, and that could be a worldwide majority. I think Orbx as a business company must think about satisfying this large majority than a minority with outstanding computers. They do their best to create amazing products and achieve general satisfaction but I think that it is in the majority where the business is don't you think?

The good thing is that you are for sure capable of running other sceneries at their top. I think Matteo has done his best according to the requirements, and if you notice he's been always paying attention to all comments, so who knows and he manages to do an improvement for high-end pc's..

It could be a matter of time

 

Cheers

 

[FalconAF]

We cross-posted, Carl.  See the last part of my new post just above yours now.  

 

I bought an addon for a certain price when it was originally made.  Then the developer "updated" the addon by removing some of it's scenery, in what appears to be an attempt to satisfy other users who couldn't run it on their computers.  

 

I don't think another developer like PMDG would ever remove part of its' complex airplane capabilities after the initial software release, just because some users didn't have the hardware or knowledge or discipline to run it in a way that would "work" on their computers.

 

As I said, I'm on ORBX's side with KSAN.  Version 1 worked fine for many users, so it is not a fault of ORBX that some users couldn't get it to work.  The software was not at fault.  Version 2 should not have taken away any of the scenery in version 1.  At most, it should have provided the end user the ability to turn that scenery on/off in a control panel, along with whatever other scenery changes may have been included in version 2.

 

How would you feel if ORBX took your already purchased SOCAL region scenery and "updated" it by removing all the autogen and replacing it all with photoreal scenery to reduce the "demand" of the scenery so users who couldn't get it to run "right" would be pacified?  There's nothing "wrong" with the SOCAL product right now either, but some users still complain it "doesn't work right" on their computers.

 

[jaims]

I think it somewhat myopic thinking to conclude that because a version of ORBX worked on your PC and others, that the program is free of issues, and consequently, the fault lies in the configuration of the user having issues with the version.  Seasoned  prgrammers launch their product only after being satisfied that it is bug free on a wide variety of operating systems and hardware.  The programmer who subjects his or her software to extensive beta testing will have less issues once the product is released than one who spends less time in that endeavor.  Subsequent patch releases is the typcial manner to address the shortcomings of a kess than vigoeous beta testing exercise.

 

So ascribing issues in a software release to the consumer’s hardware is rarely propounded by the programmer of the product as the genesis for the programs  shortcomings; and to his credit, Matteo never espoused this as the reason V1 was buggy.  He rolled up his sleeves and went to work on what he tacitly admitted were issues in need if correction.

 

I for one do not believe Matteos (sp?) corrections consisted simply of ramping back on visual aspects of the program to make it perform as he intended. V1 simply had programming related issues that needed to be worked out to perform in a commercially reasonable manner, ie, working uneventfully on a wide variety of systems.  

 

While I continue to credit his work, I am left perplexed  why some things that work and look so well  on his competitors KSAN  product (LatinVFR) falls short on ORBX KSAN .... this even being the case with add ons.  

 

I am wondering if it might be productive for me to post pictures of issues in V2 that I have...which are not so much performace related, but visually. Just a thought to see if this might be a process that helps with a future improved version...and moreover, to see if someone can post a similar picture showing the scene “correctly” (ie, no blurries, etc) ...the latter possibly  lending credence to the contention that the issues I raise are on my end and not a shortcoming of the software.  (I would be very happy and most gratified to see someone else posting pictures without the issues I have raised in my original post, and allude to in this post).  

 

As stated in that post, I want ORBX KSAN V2 to be all that it can be.  It has a lot to offer over LatinVFR’s KSan V2 -  but in its current state,  not enough to trump my flying KSAN using LatinVFR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[carlosqr]

23 hours ago, FalconAF said:

We cross-posted, Carl.  See the last part of my new post just above yours now.  

 

I bought an addon for a certain price when it was originally made.  Then the developer "updated" the addon by removing some of it's scenery, in what appears to be an attempt to satisfy other users who couldn't run it on their computers.  

 

I don't think another developer like PMDG would ever remove part of its' complex airplane capabilities after the initial software release, just because some users didn't have the hardware or knowledge or discipline to run it in a way that would "work" on their computers.

 

As I said, I'm on ORBX's side with KSAN.  Version 1 worked fine for many users, so it is not a fault of ORBX that some users couldn't get it to work.  The software was not at fault.  Version 2 should not have taken away any of the scenery in version 1.  At most, it should have provided the end user the ability to turn that scenery on/off in a control panel, along with whatever other scenery changes may have been included in version 2.

 

How would you feel if ORBX took your already purchased SOCAL region scenery and "updated" it by removing all the autogen and replacing it all with photoreal scenery to reduce the "demand" of the scenery so users who couldn't get it to run "right" would be pacified?  There's nothing "wrong" with the SOCAL product right now either, but some users still complain it "doesn't work right" on their computers.

 

 

Hi Falcon

I do understand your point.

Thank you!

 

Cheers

 

Carlos

 

 

[FalconAF]

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 4:54 PM, jaims said:

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

I think it somewhat myopic thinking to conclude that because a version of ORBX worked on your PC and others, that the program is free of issues, and consequently, the fault lies in the configuration of the user having issues with the version.  Seasoned  prgrammers launch their product only after being satisfied that it is bug free on a wide variety of operating systems and hardware.  The programmer who subjects his or her software to extensive beta testing will have less issues once the product is released.....

 

The fallacy of your conclusion above is you are not differentiating between a software "bug" vs someone cranking up all the sliders for the software on their computer which doesn't have the hardware capable of handling those slider settings.  

 

A "bug" in the software program would affect ALL users, regardless of the quality of the hardware they were using.  

 

A user asking the software to do more than what the user's hardware is capable of handling is not a "bug".  It is the user causing the software to choke the heck out of the user's hardware.

 

Software beta testing can identify the first issue of finding REAL "bugs".  It can't do a darn thing to stop an end user from trying to run the software at settings their hardware can't handle (which is NOT a "bug" in the software). 

[Ripcord]

Falcon AF

 

Not sure if this was your main point, but your best point was that this 'add/remove static ships' discussion could have been resolved with just making it a user option with a toggle button in the control panel -- static ships are no different than static airplanes.  Some like them, some feel that they get in the way.

 

You live in Vegas, and you seem to have some affinity with the USAF, so let's say we were talking about a hi-fi version of Vegas, which includes Nellis AFB.  My guess is that nothing would piss you off more than a bunch of static B-52 objects, or worse, US NAVY planes, parked at KLSV -- planes that obviously do not belong, and frankly they ruin the scenery for you.  Particularly when there are AI traffic packages out there that populate those areas with the real USAF traffic that actually belongs there, this would drive you nuts.  That's how I feel about static 'boats' at KSAN. 

 

The OP here doesn't have the awareness to use the correct term (they are ships, submarines are boats).  I have long been critical of the KSAN dev for placing these static objects there, and it was a matter of days before I was creating (and sharing) exclusion files to remove them. But guess what, the OP has an opinion that is no less worthy than mine.  I want them out, he wants them back in.

 

So the answer, as you correctly suggested above, is simply allow the user to toggle them on or off. 

 

Easy.

 

 

 

 

[FreeBird]

These things were asked for in the discussions leading up to the release of V2 but Matteo decided not include them for his own reasons which I respect. I personally tweaked the boats back in along with other things with only minor issues so it can be done.  I love the way my SD looks now and am really happy with V2.

[Stewart Hobson]

2 hours ago, Ripcord said:

Falcon AF

 

Not sure if this was your main point, but your best point was that this 'add/remove static ships' discussion could have been resolved with just making it a user option with a toggle button in the control panel -- static ships are no different than static airplanes.  Some like them, some feel that they get in the way.

 

You live in Vegas, and you seem to have some affinity with the USAF, so let's say we were talking about a hi-fi version of Vegas, which includes Nellis AFB.  My guess is that nothing would piss you off more than a bunch of static B-52 objects, or worse, US NAVY planes, parked at KLSV -- planes that obviously do not belong, and frankly they ruin the scenery for you.  Particularly when there are AI traffic packages out there that populate those areas with the real USAF traffic that actually belongs there, this would drive you nuts.  That's how I feel about static 'boats' at KSAN. 

 

The OP here doesn't have the awareness to use the correct term (they are ships, submarines are boats).  I have long been critical of the KSAN dev for placing these static objects there, and it was a matter of days before I was creating (and sharing) exclusion files to remove them. But guess what, the OP has an opinion that is no less worthy than mine.  I want them out, he wants them back in.

 

So the answer, as you correctly suggested above, is simply allow the user to toggle them on or off. 

 

Easy.

 

 

 

 

Hi, Ripcord.  Innocent question:  What's wrong with the static ships at SD?  Were they the wrong types?  Or what?  Just askin'.

[Ripcord]

 

Wrong types in some cases, yes.  Parked in wrong places in other cases.  And they are static -- it is exceedingly cool to see them coming and going, from time to time.

 

There are other details, Stew, but let's not beat this to death.

 

 

 

[Stewart Hobson]

Understand, and thanks for the explanation.  I'll await any improvements in the scenery along with everyone else.

 

Stew

[jaims]

On 9/7/2018 at 7:52 PM, FalconAF said:

 

The fallacy of your conclusion above is you are not differentiating between a software "bug" vs someone cranking up all the sliders for the software on their computer which doesn't have the hardware capable of handling those slider settings.  

 

A "bug" in the software program would affect ALL users, regardless of the quality of the hardware they were using.  

 

A user asking the software to do more than what the user's hardware is capable of handling is not a "bug".  It is the user causing the software to choke the heck out of the user's hardware.

 

Software beta testing can identify the first issue of finding REAL "bugs".  It can't do a darn thing to stop an end user from trying to run the software at settings their hardware can't handle (which is NOT a "bug" in the software). 

 

 

Your defense of the Ksan (both versions) and the dev is admirable but misplaced.  Essentially, your point is that any and all issues with the program is slider related...and similarly, that no possible flaw exist in the program.  That is willdly speculative and ignores issues ppl have had on high end PCs, and who, like me, encountered problems no matter where the  sliders were set (not to mention trying a myriad of Nvdia profiles and cfg tweaks).  Ver 1was in need of fixing...and I  doubt Matteo would differ with this assertion.  (and not to pound the point home too hard, the fixing wasn’t simply to make it run on a wider variety of user settings by dumming down graphics).

 

Moreover, in programming parlance, a bug includes is an unintended anomaly that occurs when the program is run on mainstream hardward and under commonly used operating systems.  So, to revisit the point made in my last lost, just because the program works on one or more systems does not mean the issues ppl experienced were, as you seem to believe, as ‘user error” (or as you think of it, users foolishy setting their sliders  the well  beyond their PC’s capability).  

 

My main beef with Ver 2 is, as I already related, two fold:  it retains some sub-par graphics of Ver 1; and it skimps on details of some iconic San Diego landmarks - the latter not being a slider setting issue).

 

 If I get some time, I will post those areas in the hopes of having them included in the next issue, as I retain a fervent desire to see KSAN be all that it can be.  

 

PS.......I remain pleased and impressed with the airport itself.