Longranger

Well for Macs the background was more on a touch display you move the text up. But in fact 6this is the total opposite to the much older windows implementations , since they had scroll wheels for a very long time. The arrows follow exactly the same logical principal: You move the text, that you currently disply up , so that it can now show the lower parts of the text. Nothing unnatual in this concept. In fact, you could say that it is the more logical view since you want to move the text and not yourself.

I would guess that this was not the idea. There are simply two ways to implement this. In fact on Macs by default you have to push the scroll wheel up to get to the lower parts of a document. At least you can turn the direction in the preferences, otherwise i would go crazy if i have to switch between the Mac, Windows, Linux and Solaris...

This is correct for existing customers! Now think about an environment where you have mostly FSX/P3D users and I try to think around how to write a News Update around Leading Edge before we get every week or every few weeks: Carenado has released ... and added .... . That's the thing I am currently "working" on. .. By the way, thanks to Goran and Ben that I really have something substantial to write. And I have try to write it in a way that not to many people voice "their" opinion about Leading Edge. For the NewBies Leading Edge will be a small company and they have in their opinion nothing new to offer. They have Saabs, they have Citations. On the other hand it is pretty obvious how much work Carenado puts into this plattform and there are airliners from FlightFactor. Everything else will be small fry with the exceptions of PMDG and Aerosoft. Perhaps my Advantage is that I only switched with X-Plane 10. It is really difficult to say if I would have made the jump without Carenado and slight promises for a jet, the CRJ from Aerosoft...Like many newer fans know the Boeing 777 or 757 from Aerosoft... And the work that was put into projects like simheaven, the work done by AlpilotX. This is X-Plane for them. After they have crossed the bridge. Sure, I could wait to write something about Leading Edge but if they occur, when there is something substantial from Carenado or the release of the FlightFactor A350 I am quite certain that this will be considered much more important.

Sure I read your post. But it isn't really easy to tell people : "Trust their next update!", when you know exactly that it is a question of WHEN not IF someone replies: "Sure, I remember the DC-3 update and how long they took to fix the compass!" Sure, I know such problems (A quick update of the update installer that killed the update installer, for example), but I can tell you for most companies such a problem with an update is a show stopper for the whole crew till the update is fixed! People have a very long memory for this kind of things. So, sorry but I don't feel extremely confident if I hear: You will be thrilled when you get the next update. There will be a lot of people that will only wait and see.

Errm, that was exactly the question that several people came up with, when the first version of the Saab was released! No small wonder since for some of them the Saab was pretty much unuseable! But I can guarantee that you won't test it with the setup that people will use, when the next version is released. You aren't the only party that improves their product and you will not have tested them with some features that were just released a few days or weeks before your product. Furthermore you will only test A FEW features together with other programs. Otherwise your testers would go insane. There will always be situations that you didn't expect in the test runs. In fact I am a software developer myself, and in fact we just now had a release. So don't try to tell me what you can test and what you can't test. There are always a lot of bugs that you didn't found in your tests. And there are bugs that you wonder why they didn't gave you this report just two weeks earlier... You always have the problem that a bug is only fixed for customers, when they have the next version!

Don't believe on NO impact. That's the problem. There are a lot of other kids on the same playground. And they all want to do their own thing and everything works fine in their test cases! But bring them together...

No. This was a slightly different point. For the PilotEdge case you already had my feature request. This came up since at the same time I was writing I received a new twitch invitation for PilotEdge. But I am very confident that I could find a lot of situations where real reflections simply are the killer that suddenly brings your GPU into swapping mode.

Well, I wouldn't call it absurd it is simply a rather cheap trick that doesn't take a lot of resources or development time. In fact there is nothing absurd behind it. Dan and his Team simply take a step by step approach and they simply learn some things, that you can only learn in the real world. A Carenado machine normally works quite well, even if the computer has to handle Sky Maxx Pro 2.0 with a ZL 17 photoscenery and a world2x-pplane OSM map in Munich with every available airport in this environment. And now do the same with the Saab and a HD texture... In fact the B200 was probably a very cheap aircraft for Carenado, since it only used HD textures and was prepared for the new GNS 430. Otherwise it was more or less a copy of the C90. The B1900D on the other hand... better sound , better graphics, more features and only the same or even less resource consumption. You don't really have to think, that people are incapable to fill their machines to the maximum. You find a lot of newbies that tend to believe that Real Terra Haze is an absolute necessity for X-Plane. Carenado simply doesn't ask for perfect solutions, since there are none. Sure real reflections in the Window would be nice to have, but how much time and money does it cost to develop this feature, what is the additional resource consumption, how many people rerally want this feature and how many people will damn this feature since it slows their planes down? For a perfect solution you would really need three options: 1. No reflections 2. Faked reflections 3. Real reflections. Different users find different aspects that they need. In fact, when I started with PilotEdge, I learned pretty fast to go through my planes with a very fine comb. And the plane that really didn't fit was the Saab. In fact I think that for Dan Klaue it is more a necessity nowadays that a new plane has to work well on PilotEdge, since more people will stream it... more people will see it and more people will buy it.

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 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

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 .

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, 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.

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.

I agree because this kind of equipment misses the core problem: X-Plane runs out of bus capacity or memory/cache capacities, while GPU and CPU have more than enough computing capacity at hand.