Cloud9 Support > Washington scenery

AES support

<< < (3/3)

virtuali:

--- Quote from: newmanix on September 06, 2010, 11:22:38 pm ---The jetbridges are not part of the terminal scenery object right? There really shouldn't be much if anything for you to modify right?/quote]

As I've said in my previous message, they are, just like in KLAX, which means we should rework the terminals.
--- End quote ---

newmanix:
Ok. According to the manual, there are about 5 or 6 jetbridges that do animate. Would Oliver be able to activate only those bridges for AES? Or would they have to be seperated from the terminal like the static bridges? Just curious. Some AES is better then no AES at all. And if it requires no work on your end, I think its worth it for the hundreds of people who bought and still enjoy the scenery and for the few like me who will still buy it.

Olivers portfolio of AES airports grows and more credits are purchased. It seems like win, win, win. But I am asking as more of a favior to dedicated customers rather then from a business standpoint.

Would it be possible to please do that?  :)

My last effort here is, perhaps, is the scenery owner from the origional C9 avail whom I could appeal since FSDT is only onboard at a support baises?

virtuali:

--- Quote from: newmanix on September 07, 2010, 07:58:31 pm ---Ok. According to the manual, there are about 5 or 6 jetbridges that do animate. Would Oliver be able to activate only those bridges for AES? Or would they have to be seperated from the terminal like the static bridges? Just curious
--- End quote ---

All bridges should be separated from the terminals, regardless if they are animated or not.


--- Quote ---Some AES is better then no AES at all. And if it requires no work on your end, I think its worth it for the hundreds of people who bought and still enjoy the scenery and for the few like me who will still buy it.
--- End quote ---

As I've said twice already, it DOES requires work on our end, if the jetways were separated it would have been enough to send the jetways sources to Oliver, as usual. But they aren't so, we have to go back to the original models, and rework them to separate the terminals from the jetways.


--- Quote ---Would it be possible to please do that?  :)
--- End quote ---

I'm sorry but, we simply have our hands full with too many things right now.

The number of things we are going to work on in the next months, is way more than what most people think ( some things we haven't announced yet, other we can't disclose even if we would like to ). This means we need to be very careful to select only the most important things and we don't have much chance for the smaller projects.

newmanix:
Ok last question and I wont push it any further. Promise. If an outside developer were willing to do it, would you allow that?

virtuali:

--- Quote from: newmanix on September 07, 2010, 09:58:01 pm ---If an outside developer were willing to do it, would you allow that?
--- End quote ---

Sorry, no. The scenery itself as a product might be old, but its source files are not something we can give away to outsiders, and there are other legal issue that we simply can't to explain here, but are obviously related to the fact the scenery copyright is not FSDT, but it's Cloud9. You simply have to accept the fact that AES for KDCA and KLAX is not going to happen.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page