Bleedings?

[Bert Groner]

Very, very interesting discussion here. Chapeau! This issue will for sure end only and if a successor for FS X will be released.

But... What about a fix for the initially mentioned "double-line"-problem? Any chances to get it fixed?

And of course to get 3D-approach-light-systems to make the scenery almost complete?

Thanks!

Bert

[mave128]

hey,

i´ve checked every hold short line.
in 99 % i do see double markings.

i started writing down all latitude and longitude data yesterday. at holdshort point number 21 i quit the job.

best wishes,
sören

[Mike...]

Since you don't know what will be offered in the future ( and not necessarily by us ), it's wrong to say that you will never switch, because you can't obviously known in advance if a new product might eventually catch your attention enough to convince you switching, even if it's not *that* ATC marvel you were asking for.

You can say you don't agree with it, you can say you don't understand it, but it is not wrong for me have this particular stance. I'm not you, I'm me. I know what I'm interested in and what, although ever so interesting, tempting even, not. For a moment I thought you were reasonable, but in fact, you are not. You are totalitarian. Your opinion is the only right one. FSX is the only right platform to use. Any argument to use FS9 is "wrong". Any differing opinion is wrong.

Smarter AI. There's no definition about what is "smarter" related to the ATC and AI engine in FS. Yet in your post, you automatically say, "that" is smarter. What you think is smarter, is in fact not. What you think is wrong. You cannot think, if I had a mindcontrol device, oh, how I would use it to meld your brain... Ahem.

No, the FSX undeserved bad reputation

Not undeserved. They had extra time to get it right, they didn't. They made several decisions not followed by a large portion us and there's nobody to blame but ACES. Does that mean the addon business was healthy? No. But MS provides the core product. Without core product, there is nothing. The quality and feature set of FSX as core product has lead us to where we are now, nothing else. There are things we wanted and didn't get, things we didn't want, but got anyway. That is why FSX is not adored like you think it should be. Your answer to that is, it is wrong to want the thing you want. It is wrong of you to discard the thing you didn't want.

You think you may be doing everybody a favor by pushing FSX, the way you do. But in fact, your blind faith and belligerent posts are counterproductive. Can't you see, that in this thread for example, the schism is as strong as it has ever been? And no thanks to your constant propaganda.

Enough with this. I think your time is better spent on fixing this issue and on working on whatever you're working on that may lead us into temptation in the future. Just leave us be. When the time is right, we may migrate or we may not. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

[virtuali]

You can say you don't agree with it, you can say you don't understand it, but it is not wrong for me have this particular stance.

Using FSX or FS9 now, it's an opionion, which I don't agree, but you are entitled to it.

But the point where you were wrong, is your stance of not taking into consideration switching, EVER, unless you'll get a smarter ATC, and nothing else. This is wrong because, quite simply, you can't obviously know today, if an unforeseen new feature might convince you to switch tomorrow, even if it's not that ATC.

Smarter AI. There's no definition about what is "smarter" related to the ATC and AI engine in FS. Yet in your post, you automatically say, "that" is smarter. What you think is smarter, is in fact not. What you think is wrong. You cannot think, if I had a mindcontrol device, oh, how I would use it to meld your brain...

I think my definition was clear enough, and so was the explanation of being tied to other aspects of the sim (weather, for example) which needed to be overhauled as well.  What you are saying, instead, is far less than clear...

You think you may be doing everybody a favor by pushing FSX, the way you do. But in fact, your blind faith and belligerent posts are counterproductive. Can't you see, that in this thread for example, the schism is as strong as it has ever been? And no thanks to your constant propaganda.

What we already did and what we are working on in FSX are facts, not propaganda, and my argumentations for it were strictly technical.

whatever you're working on that may lead us into temptation in the future. Just leave us be. When the time is right, we may migrate or we may not.

Exactly my point. You finally have come to your senses, and realized that what you were saying initially, that the only thing that might convince you to switch would be a new ATC, was wrong, because other things might obtain the same effect.

[virtuali]

BTW, Mike, please check your PM

[Mike...]

Replied.

You finally have come to your senses, and realized that what you were saying initially, that the only thing that might convince you to switch would be a new ATC, was wrong, because other things might obtain the same effect.

LOL! I don't speak in the majestic plural, so what may go for some of us, may not go for me personally. 

You know, you should watch a movie called Unbreakable by M. Night Shyamalan. It's about resolve, on both ends of the spectrum, among other things.

[virtuali]

But... What about a fix for the initially mentioned "double-line"-problem? Any chances to get it fixed?

Here's the fix:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1759.msg13975#msg13975

[mave128]

that patch works,
thank you umberto.

but i still have double hold-short lines.

probably you´ll find a solution for that too.? 

best wishes,
sören

[virtuali]

but i still have double hold-short lines.

You shouldn't, if you use the AFCAD that comes with the scenery. If you want to use the Harpsi version, you need to wait until it's done, so we bring its addition into our version.

[Cereal Eater]

Since we finally have an intelligent and meaningful debate on hand about FS9 vs FSX, I'm adding my 2 cents on the matter.

My problem with FSX and Microsoft goes beyond what "Mike..." has outlined and encompasses all of it:

Microsoft did with FSX what they ALWAYS do with almost all of their products. They developed and released an entirely new product as an update which lacked backwards compatibility.

What any quality software company who gave a rats azz about their costomers would have done would have been to take the common sense approach: We have a flight simulator with lots of bugs in it and lots of room for improvement, but which works well. Let's fix the bugs, make those much needed improvements and provide a quality upgrade for our bazillions of customers!

But no, Microsucks had to trash the entire core engine of FS9 in favor of a more modern, more powerful engine for which they could convincingly promise the customer base future expansion and improvement. Then they skipped out on everyone and screwed them.

What microsoft should have done was make the basic, logical & much needed improvements to FS9, like providing a button for recompilation of the scenery library for example, so you don't have to restart the whole sim and wait 10 minutes to view any changes made to the scenery.cfg. They should have improved the shadowing performance of the aircraft on the ground, made the terrain engine able to display higher resolution terrain meshes (FS2002 displayed higher resolution mesh than did FS9! What the heck was that about??) and addressed some of the blatant ATC issues, like AI aircraft being routed via direct GPS as opposed to proper jetway routing, which causes unrealistic aircraft movements all over the place, especially over restricted military airspace such as the Nevada Test Range.

There were a million things they could have done to hone FS9 into the masterpiece it could have been. But instead they threw it away along with all it's customers and decided to "move on" to "the next big thing".

The problem is Microsoft. They dont care about doing what's right because they don't have to. They do whatever they want. Sure it makes money but at what cost? Pissing half the world off? Geting a reputation as one of the most hated corporations the entire world over? Creating chaos in the marketplace where there once was none (with the release of their incomplete and overprogrammed FSX)?

I can certainly say I wasn't the least bit surprised at the letdown. I fully expected it, as Billy Boy has a track record of doing this to his customers. But I won't be buying FSX - EVER. It's a total piece of crap, animated jetways or not.

[knarfage]

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1759.msg13975#msg13975

Can somebody please reactivate the link above. Or is it resolved with a download of the airport? I had to defrag my HD after a virus and reload my whole game, I was able to get the acropolis and bleeding fixed, but the double arrows still there. Thanks.


Frank

[knarfage]

anyone out there? help please 

[virtuali]

The download link on the forum has been removed, because that file is already contained in the KLAS installer.