Aerosoft Dublin for X Plane 10!!!

[SwissCyul]

I just found out that Aerosoft is developing Dublin Int. airport for X Plane 10!!! The scenery looks amazing, but it's not released yet. But judging from the video this will be one of the best airports ever made by Aerosoft for X Plane!!! 

 

 

[TheSlasher]

thanks for sharing. I, myself did not know this!

[cabnz1]

Looks good

[Ben Russell]

Now that is how you make a promo video! Very nice work.

[Mario Donick]

Well modelled, but really needs static aircraft and ground traffic...

[G-ERTI]

Looks great but I wish they did EGLL instead as that is what is really needed! There are already some good freeware EIDW packages out there...

[SwissCyul]

Yeah, that would be even better!!! Well we can only wait and hope

 

And i don't know if you guys know, but they are also developing Manchester airport:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/83603-airport-manchester/

 

The preview forum for Dublin has been opened with some screenshots:

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/83606-airport-dublin/

Edited August 10, 2014 by SwissCyul

[mtaxp]

Looks great but I wish they did EGLL instead as that is what is really needed! There are already some good freeware EIDW packages out there...

They are working on a new EGLL to FSX/P3D and then they'll do it to XP10 , just like they did with this Dublin , it was released for FSX/P3D and now for XP10 .

[clavel9]

I'd seen that video - very impressive work. The only otherwise available scenery has been a choice of Lego-brick or Cormac's which is a number of years old and doesn't include Terminal 2. I'll be top of the queue when this becomes available.

[Push_IT_Up]

Impressive........  

[joandreas]

Not telling release. when aerosoft finds a way to add static aircraft as the animated ground vehicles tend to add on overall impression.

[captain_alligator]

really needs static aircraft and ground traffic...

Sorry but I have to disagree, particularly regarding static aircraft. If you fly on-line or use AI traffic, these just get in the way.

At the very least I'd like to see Aerosoft offer an option to turn off static aircraft during or after installation.

Even better would be an option in X-Plane's rendering settings to turn them on and off globallly...

[Longranger]

They just released Dublin. They offer an additional "Scenery" on their download server that places static planes from OpenSceneryX on the Airport.

The Airport itself is decent. Good night lighting and so on but nothing moves and nearly 1 GB big due to extensive ground textures.

It is clearly below TrueScenery or Beti X Stuff and even Mykonos has a better quality, but at least the airport is a bit bigger than these competitors.

IMHO it can't compete with EHAM but with Zürich.

[andydckent]

How does it do on frame rate? Aerosoft EHAM killed mine. Unusable.

[Longranger]

How does it do on frame rate? Aerosoft EHAM killed mine. Unusable.

Well, I don't have any problems with EHAM. Even in the terminal area I have 15 fps. For taxiing okay, near a runway 25.

Dublin between 17 to 22 fps. But my machine has sufficient capacity to handle such texture races (18 GB RAM and 4 GB VRAM).

It is more the Carenado CT206H that holds the frame rate down.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Longranger

[SwissCyul]

Well, I don't have any problems with EHAM. Even in the terminal area I have 15 fps. For taxiing okay, near a runway 25.

Dublin between 17 to 22 fps. But my machine has sufficient capacity to handle such texture races (18 GB RAM and 4 GB VRAM).

15fps???? That's really not enough to run the sim properly... 20 is already pretty low but to have the sim come to full effect you need at least 30fps  

[Longranger]

15fps???? That's really not enough to run the sim properly... 20 is already pretty low but to have the sim come to full effect you need at least 30fps

You speak about flying. I speak about fps tortures which means extremly low lefvel flying across the airtport (every normal pilot would loose his license for such flights, or in fact taxiing between the other planes directly in front of a termional and tower. For such purposes it is enough.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Longranger

[SwissCyul]

You speak about flying. I speak about fps tortures which means extremly low lefvel flying across the airtport (every normal pilot would loose his license for such flights, or in fact taxiing between the other planes directly in front of a termional and tower. For such purposes it is enough.

Well, everyone has it's own opinion about fps

For me it won't be enough but that's my opinion

[Longranger]

Well, everyone has it's own opinion about fps

 

Well, my opinion about fps is:

Normally I don't watch at my fps.But the important thing: No this Airport isn't the best airport Aerosoft released. If you were happy about Anchorage you will probably be happy about Dublin. If you complain about EHAM you should better use http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=21857 .

Edited September 8, 2014 by Longranger

[andydckent]

Wow 15 fps is pretty shocking. X-plane slows down at lower than about 20 fps. 15 might be OK for taxing but when it slows down that low on final approach as it does at EHAM there is just no point IMO. Any other reports on fps at Aerosoft EIDW? I'd love to have the airport but no point if I end up not using it like EHAM.

[Mario Donick]

Wow 15 fps is pretty shocking. X-plane slows down at lower than about 20 fps. 15 might be OK for taxing but when it slows down that low on final approach as it does at EHAM there is just no point IMO. Any other reports on fps at Aerosoft EIDW? I'd love to have the airport but no point if I end up not using it like EHAM.

 

I did not have yet the possibility to have a look at Dublin by myself, but I don't believe it will have a performance as bad as EHAM, mainly because I suspect it do be similar to the other scenceries Aerosoft converted from FSX, which run all okay performance-wise. (EHAM, like Mykonos, was not a conversion, but X-Plane exclusive, and maybe a bit overdone in the modelling department -- it has very very detailed 3D objects and textures). I expect Dublin to be comparable to Anchorage in terms of performance.

[Longranger]

-- it has very very detailed 3D objects and textures). I expect Dublin to be comparable to Anchorage in terms of performance.

Mario it isn't as easy as you think. EHAM has one bi9g addi6tional problem Amsterdam. If you use OSM2XP or world2xp Amsterdam sometimes tries to compete with Paris! The city really killed on approach even without the scenery. While it was based on FSX material the people that worked on it more or less knew what they were doing.

 

Anchorage had a different issue. I just now made a flight at Ted Stevens and it wasn't fun with 12 fps, but this had nothing to doi with the Airport but the mountains and the weather (foggy everything was dripping with rain, partly clouded with god rays, lens flare and so on) left a signific impression, but if you look at the objects they are rather plain compared with Dublin. Dublin has the problem that the city and harbour are near the airport. It increases the object load significantly since wor5ld2xp tneds to place a large number of smaller buildings.

In fact there is a siginificant difference between the freeware and Aerosoft. While the freeware especially added to the older part of the airport that is more distant to the city, Aerosoft rather ignored this part of the Airport and instead increased the number of objects near the city dramatically.. We aren't talking about the airports alone and depending on the weather SkyMaxxPro can pretty much kill a flight (ok the use of the vFlyteAir Arrow III was another problem).

 

But due to these extremly different settings and the large number available equiment I find it rather hard to make a simple performance comparisson. Mykonos or Santorin fly significantly different. Dublin is obviously still pretty much an FSX airport as its core nothing else! And if you consider the price IMHO it is fighting a loosing battle!

 

Dublin

 

and Ted Stevens

 

Edited September 9, 2014 by Longranger

[Mario Donick]

EHAM has one bi9g addi6tional problem Amsterdam. If you use OSM2XP or world2xp Amsterdam sometimes tries to compete with Paris! The city really killed on approach even without the scenery. While it was based on FSX material the people that worked on it more or less knew what they were doing.

 

I agree that the area around EHAM is a bit problematic, but in my experience it is more all the small water areas that can have a bad influence on FPS if you have reflections on. However, the airport itself is very intense -- its level of detail is partly insane, for example you have 3D modelling _inside_ buildings. This is, for older computers, hard to handle. (It was even worse in the initial release, but an update made it better after a while).

 

I also want to emphasize that EHAM is NOT based on FSX material. It has nothing do to with Aerosoft's FSX EHAM, but was developed by a completely different developer (XYZ Visuals, who formerly developed the X-Plane freeware for EHSB Soesterberg (Camp New Amsterdam). EHSB and EHAM partly share the same objects).

Edited September 9, 2014 by Mario Donick

[Longranger]

 

I also want to emphasize that EHAM is NOT based on FSX material. It has nothing do to with Aerosoft's FSX EHAM, but was developed by a completely different developer

It is based on the FSX MATERIALS! I don't want to search the really ancient threads but when it was developped Heinz said that they got the Fotos and maps that were used for the FSX version but then they used their own tools. So EHAM is so far FSX based as the Carenado planes are FSX based. Then they got into a totally different workflow. Dublin wasn't necessarily based on material for the FSX version but if you mask me the materials got into a workflow that was developed for FSX!

The workflow and the complete thought process was obviously targeted for FSX, although they were developing for a totally different plattform. IMHO Düsseldorf was better targeted toward X-Plane than Dublin.

[Mario Donick]

I don't want to search the really ancient threads but when it was developped Heinz said that they got the Fotos and maps that were used for the FSX version but then they used their own tools.

 

My definition of "FSX based" is that there is an Aerosoft product for FSX which is afterwards made available nearly identical for X-Plane. With EHAM, this is not the case -- although there is an old Aerosoft EHAM for FSX, the X-Plane airport has a completely different look with new textures and 3d models. Just compare screenshots. It might well be that the orthophoto and some general map stuff comes from the resources Aerosoft already had.

 

Dublin, however, is clearly the X-Plane version of Mega Airport Dublin for FSX/P3D, released in March 2014. The same 3d models, the same textures, basically the same approach Aerosoft took for Keflavik, Hamburg, Zürich, Lugano, St. Gallen-Altenrhein, Toulouse, Weeze, Düsseldorf, Anchorage, Nice, Faro, Paderborn (have I forgotten one?) -- all are FSX conversions, with similar pros and cons.

 

In contrast, Amsterdam and Mykonos are specificially made for X-Plane (and this is because their developers are from the X-Plane community). and the next one will be Manchester.