Fsx Taxi2gate Ltba Istanbul 100% Working Complete

EAW - sukhoi Su-26 aerobatics plane for fsx, (34Mb ), 6048, 4636. Fsx Taxi2Gate LTBA Istanbul 100% Working Complete [taj7gm], (363.78 MB ), 8000, 2370. Title Category Size S L; Fsx Taxi2gate Ltba Istanbul 100% Working Complete [taj7gm]: Software: 363 MB: 0: 0: FSX Taxi2Gate LTBA Istanbul 100 Working Complete.

1. Fsx Taxi2gate Ltba Istanbul 100 Working Completely

Orlando International Airport (IATA: MCO, ICAO: KMCO, FAA LID: MCO) Is an international airport 6 miles southeast of Orlando. It is the second-busiest airport in the state of Florida, after Miami International Airport, the 13th-busiest airport in the United States and the 29th-busiest airport in the world by passenger traffic. The airport is a focus city for Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways.

Southwest is the airport's largest carrier by passengers carried. The airport also is a major international gateway for the mid Florida region, with flights by foreign air carriers. The airport code MCO stands for the airport's former name, McCoy Air Force Base, a Strategic Air Command (SAC) installation. FEATURES:. Custom Ground Textures.

Custom Photo Scenery. Custom mesh. Hand placed Autogen. Carefully detailed 3d objects. Full detail Buildings. Realistic Ground Markings.

Numerous static objects. Fencing. AFCAD. Realistic ground textures. Night ilumination. Volumetric Grass. Moving Jetways.

(CTRL+J). Animations. Much more. I live very close to KMCO and I often go there to do some plane spotting. I have downloaded this add on for my FSX:SE and I have to honestly say this is the best add on I have downloaded in a very long time. The level of detail on this scenery is amazing. I am very happy with my purchase.

The level of realism to the surrounding area, taxiways, runways, jetways etc is amazing. They even got the B-52 bomber at the B52 Memorial park at the beginning of Rwy 18L. You will love this add on scenery. One of the best works by Taxi2gate for sure. I am very impressed by Taxi2Gate KMCO.

This is my second Taxi2Gate scenery and I love it. The area covering KMCO is very large and accurately depicted from other pictures I've seen.

Plus I lived in FL for some years and this airport looks just like the real thing. Taxi2Gate is 100% on point with their sceneries. Moving vehicles, trams, and let's not forget the jetways which makes sceneries realistic! Where others fail they are raising the bar. With almost everything maxed I get 15-30 approx fps, which is good for me.

A good route to fly is KMCO to KBOS, a usually route for Delta. Taxi2Gate has a jem in this airport. The modeling, texturing, and animated touches are great. Framerates are good if you have a decent system.

However, if you have AI, you're going to be having problems. Apparently, Taxi2Gate created the bridges a little different then developers like FlightBeam and FSDT do. Their bridges do not have taxi links across them. This means that if an airplane lands and needs to cross a bridge, it will disappear. And if you try to add taxi links, it messes up the bridges' mesh and they all end up 10ft above the ground.

That's the only reason why it has three stars, and the only reason I have yet to make a trip there. What a fantastic Scenery by taxi2gate! The modeling and texturing are great the modeling of the inside of the terminal is a really nice touch. And I think is better then just having the traditional texture on it by modeling the inside it makes it more realistic as you taxi to the gate. Having used this airport many times in real-life and lived in Orlando Florida, this scenery is very well made and a great recreation of the airport it also has a special meaning since the taxi2 gate team dedicated this to my wife who passed away in Orlando so a special thanks goes out to them and look forward to the many future projects don't miss this opportunity to own a really great airport and wonderful scenery for flightsim.

This scenery is great. It is very accurate. A few problems though. AFCAD file is a bit messed up but that is fixable.

The united airlines gates, sign says copa airlines. The taxiway bridge that crosses the road on the north side is glitched out. Whenever planes are landing on runway 36l and 18r the dissapear a few seconds after they have landed. I would recommend at the moment to not buy it right now. There are a few glitched that some people might not like at all.If you are fine with a few glitches than buy it. I am just warning you of some of the things I did not like about it. It is still a great scenery.

The textures are top class. If it was not for those few glitches it would have been a 5 star all the way.

I live very close to KMCO and I often go there to do some plane spotting. I have downloaded this add on for my FSX:SE and I have to honestly say this is the best add on I have downloaded in a very long time. The level of detail on this scenery is amazing. I am very happy with my purchase. The level of realism to the surrounding area, taxiways, runways, jetways etc is amazing. They even got the B-52 bomber at the B52 Memorial park at the beginning of Rwy 18L. You will love this add on scenery.

One of the best works by Taxi2gate for sure. I am very impressed by Taxi2Gate KMCO. This is my second Taxi2Gate scenery and I love it. The area covering KMCO is very large and accurately depicted from other pictures I've seen.

Plus I lived in FL for some years and this airport looks just like the real thing. Taxi2Gate is 100% on point with their sceneries.

Moving vehicles, trams, and let's not forget the jetways which makes sceneries realistic! Where others fail they are raising the bar.

With almost everything maxed I get 15-30 approx fps, which is good for me. A good route to fly is KMCO to KBOS, a usually route for Delta.

I wont even download 1.02. Didn't work for me, what a piece of. I am totally unsatisfied with this product, the quality is substandard, as well is the performance. 'is wondering how they test the product before release'. Pushing out sceneries asap is one thing however no eye for detail and performance is a total other thing. One more thing, not a word from Aerosoft.

Guys if you want to fix the issue you can always contact us, we wont bite! Edit: sorry for the language, but i feel Aerosoft is only cashing in the profits, however gives zero product support. Didn't work for me, what a piece of. I am totally unsatisfied with this product, the quality is substandard, as well is the performance. 'is wondering how they test the product before release'.

Pushing out sceneries asap is one thing however no eye for detail and performance is a total other thing. One more thing, not a word from Aerosoft. Guys if you want to fix the issue you can always contact us, we wont bite! Edit: sorry for the language, but i feel Aerosoft is only cashing in the profits, however gives zero product support Guys, My curiosity was bigger than my unhappiness, so I decided to try version 1.02 I installed the new version, opened FSX without changing anything through the scenery config tool and just loaded EIDW. AI traffic was working perfectly! Then I though: 'this scenery is totally crazy! The update didn't work for one and and is now working for me'.

I did test the scenery twice just to make sure and AI traffic was fine. Then I opened the scenery config tool and switched textures res to 1024, removed volumetric grass, opened FSX once again and loaded EIDW and guess what?

AI traffic was messed up again. Just to let you know, when I installed the scenery I selected the option to disable animated flags. Well, it leads me to think that the problem, in this case, is related to the scenery config tool. Oh, and I'm still having huge stutter. Edit.: Volumetric grass seems to be corrupting AI traffic.

I did another test. Re-enabled 2048 textures and kept the grass disabled and AI traffic was still crazy. Then I switched textures back to 1024 and enable volumetric grass and the traffic worked fine. It would be useful if you and more people, including Aerosoft team, did the same testing just in order to confirm this or not.

I tried to run Dublin again last night, using the suggested settings of textures @ 1024, no animated flags and volumetric grass disabled. This certainly negated any OOMs from manifesting, so that was progress for me.

I was flying in an AEX. However now I have moved beyond OOMs occurring almost within 1-2 minutes of trying to taxi to the runway, I have to say that the performance of the airport is certainly not smooth. I'm running an i7 @ 4.3Ghz, 16GB of gaming grade memory, a GTX780 (3GB) and all running under Win 7 64bit and using DX9 (FSX). The only scenery that I am running (in this region) is FTX Ireland (FTX Global) so I am not running anything above and beyond that which is supported. I then switched my textures back to 4096 and restarted FSX.

Once loaded, I setup my AEX at the gate, using Taxi2Gate's LTBA (Istanbul). I taxied to the runway but throughout my LTBA experience the frame-rate was silky smooth and it just left me wondering what could be so different between Istanbul and Dublin so as to create such a chasm of distinction in respective performances?

I own a plethora of Aerosoft airports and to be honest Dublin is the first one (Aerosoft) I have seen bring my PC to its knees. I'm not upset or disappointed as I enter into any airport purchase knowing that there is always a potential for performance issues and I've just learnt to accept them when I experience them (though ORBX BNE did generate a fairly emotive reaction when I first ran that on my old rig). I also experienced similar issues recently with UK2000's LHR v3 and I simply don't use it because I have other airports I love. If anyone has any suggestions that will improve the current situation then I would greatly appreciate it. I have to say that the performance of the airport is certainly not smooth. I taxied to the runway but throughout my LTBA experience the frame-rate was silky smooth and it just left me wondering what could be so different between Istanbul and Dublin so as to create such a chasm of distinction in respective performances?

All I can say is that I've never had as much stutter as I'm having at Dublin. Regarding your question about LTBA vs EIDW I ask myself the same. Guys, I'm sorry but I'm clueless wright now. I did all I could to try to find the source of the problems we are all having.

I pass the word to Aerosoft and hope they manage to fix the scenery, otherwise I'll request a refund. Sorry for the double post. Something went wrong with my internet connection. I have to say that the performance of the airport is certainly not smooth.

I taxied to the runway but throughout my LTBA experience the frame-rate was silky smooth and it just left me wondering what could be so different between Istanbul and Dublin so as to create such a chasm of distinction in respective performances? All I can say is that I've never had as much stutter as I'm having at Dublin. Regarding your question about LTBA vs EIDW I ask myself the same. Guys, I'm sorry but I'm clueless wright now. I did all I could to try to find the source of the problems we are all having. I pass the word to Aerosoft and hope they manage to fix the scenery, otherwise I'll request a refund. Sorry for the double post.

Something went wrong with my internet connection. I have not had major issues with Dublin other than the autogen exclude and have found things have run reasonably well, though I have noted FPS are not as good as OSLO v2. I have not encountered an OOM at this stage. I'm not sure if this video will help or annoy, but its what I am getting using the following set-up so if you have a similar system and are getting OOM's then it does suggest settings need to be considered:. Intel Core i7 4770K OC'd to 4.5ghz. Corsair Hydro Series H100i Liquid Cooler. Intel Z87 Chipset Motherboard.

16GB DDR3-1866 RAM. 120Gb SSD - For Windows 7, Office etc. 512Gb SSD - For FSX and P3Dv2. I tried to run Dublin again last night, using the suggested settings of textures @ 1024, no animated flags and volumetric grass disabled.

This certainly negated any OOMs from manifesting, so that was progress for me. I was flying in an AEX. However now I have moved beyond OOMs occurring almost within 1-2 minutes of trying to taxi to the runway, I have to say that the performance of the airport is certainly not smooth.

I'm running an i7 @ 4.3Ghz, 16GB of gaming grade memory, a GTX780 (3GB) and all running under Win 7 64bit and using DX9 (FSX). The only scenery that I am running (in this region) is FTX Ireland (FTX Global) so I am not running anything above and beyond that which is supported. I then switched my textures back to 4096 and restarted FSX.

Once loaded, I setup my AEX at the gate, using Taxi2Gate's LTBA (Istanbul). I taxied to the runway but throughout my LTBA experience the frame-rate was silky smooth and it just left me wondering what could be so different between Istanbul and Dublin so as to create such a chasm of distinction in respective performances? I own a plethora of Aerosoft airports and to be honest Dublin is the first one (Aerosoft) I have seen bring my PC to its knees. I'm not upset or disappointed as I enter into any airport purchase knowing that there is always a potential for performance issues and I've just learnt to accept them when I experience them (though ORBX BNE did generate a fairly emotive reaction when I first ran that on my old rig). I also experienced similar issues recently with UK2000's LHR v3 and I simply don't use it because I have other airports I love. If anyone has any suggestions that will improve the current situation then I would greatly appreciate it. I'd suggest the following.

These settings are giving me acceptable performance at EIDW (at least 20 fps with NGX). Reduced AI aircraft/vehicles/cars reduced AA set lodradius to default 4.5 installed 1024 clouds set fsx.cfg to 1024 set EIDW config to 1024, no flags/grass reduced autogen to normal This is on a i5 2500k 4.4ghz, 8gb ram, GTX 560. Framerates were pretty good on my last test flight at EIDW Dublin (both at the airport, and also from the surrounding dense FTX Ireland autogen). For the record, this is the PC that I am running it on. Intel Core i5 2500k CPU @ 4.3Ghz Gigabyte Z68D-A3 motherboard 8GB DDR3-1600 RAM 1GB GeForce GTX 560Ti SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme Music 2TB Hard Disk (FSX and all addons on the same drive) All of my scenery settings are at maximum, apart from water at Mid.2.x AA is set to 8xS SS is set to 2xSGSS AF is set to 16x The flight was performed with the PMDG 737-800NGX, and UT2 AI was set @ 100%.

There were a LOT of AI planes active at the airport (many of these have 32bit textures), but the framerates were acceptable to me (I didn't check, but then I never do. I just worry about whether it is controllable or not). I did not encounter any unusual AI issues on either of my two test flighs to date. It should be noted that this was a simple taxi/take off/turn downwind/turn to final/land/taxi test, and that the FSUIPC chime sounded three or four times as I moved back along the taxiway adjacent to runway 28. However, the chime actually stopped as I turned off this taxiway and moved towards the main airport terminal buildings. Mathijs thanks for your reply.

However, i feel that the overall performance of the scenery is lacking behind, other developers. I have been running several high level add-ons, FSDT JFK, LAX, as well as FSDG LGTS etc. And never had a stutter and now your saying ' this is obvious the most demanding scenery they have loaded.' The ammount of buildings and square meters of JFK and LAX is at least double the amount of DUB. How could it be a specific problem of the user?

Still I am disappointed in the quality of the work especially when comparing it to other releases. I hope you could fix these issues soon, at the moment I am an unhappy customer. Have you tried this with version 1.02? I have just installed a new FSX on my laptop that has a far less powerful GPU and a CPU that is just below your i5. I then only inserted the Highmem tweak and installed Dublin. While I will not say it is fast on my laptop, it gets a fine 24 fps average using the default B737 (the only way to test a single product is to keep the rest default, right?).

That's less than the 40 to 50 fps on my desktop machine but well in expectations. So your hardware should be perfectly capable of running the scenery. So I would expect an highly tweaked FSX.cfg that ends up working bad with a scenery like this (easy to test, just back it up, delete it and restart FSX), or that you have very limited VAS memory. Mathijs, as I´m one of the lucky persons who has no problem with EIDW, it runs smooth and normal AI etc even no problems getting OOM´s running P3Dv2 including ORBX IRE.and I like it very much but I would like to react the way you answered the topic above.

From my point of view it does not make sence what you did as it is simple unrealistic these days! The majority of simmers has tons of addons, quite a lot out of your house, but you are making tests on a virgin FSX installation and refering to that and that is unrealistic!! If one would use your word, one would need to disable all add on sceneries just to make sure to have ie EIDW activated. In these days most of the scenery maker know about problems before they relase the products. You as well know for sure that there a thousands of different computer configurations available which are causing different results.

Knowing all this you and your fellows support guys should not point immediately to the customer instead you should look into your product. I´m sure nobody here is posting problems just as fun or insult you!! If somebody is telling you all this and this is happening ONLY in EIDW, you should carefully listen and not pointing back to the customer. This just my general opinion and NO!!! Offence as I´m also a loyal customer of AS since long and quite a big number of your products is what I own!

The direction your service and customer support is turning, that is what worries me! Seems like the good ole rule of thumb has gone: An addon airport, popping up during your approach, adds some 200 MB(+) to your VAS usage. If Aerosoft EIDW X is in the 750 MB range, that pretty much turns Dublin airspace into London airspace: It's like three addon airports (from former times; 3 times 250 MB gives 750 MB = EIDW) popping up at the same time - that's more or less what happens in tight London airspace with a number of addon airports sitting next to each other. If it's possible for Aerosoft to deliver the eye-candy and immersion of three addons in a single product (and, still, for the single price of 25 EUR ), I gladly accept the offer, but I really need to be able to scale down the VAS usage, if needed: There's a requirement for a configuration/'castration' tool as we have been provided with by the Thessaloniki release and its follow-up.

(Sorry for repeating myself.). From my point of view it does not make sence what you did as it is simple unrealistic these days! The majority of simmers has tons of addons, quite a lot out of your house, but you are making tests on a virgin FSX installation and refering to that and that is unrealistic!! Okay, how can you see how heavy a scenery is if you load it in an overloaded FSX? And if we have to test with other add-ons, which do we choose? It would mean you get information like this: FSX SP2 + NGX + Dublin = 35 fps FSX SP2 + NGX + REX + Dublin = 34 fps FSX SP2 + AXE + OPUS + Dublin = 40 fps FSX SP2 + DX1O tweaks + PMDG 777 + OrbX + Dublin + Vatsim = 20 fps FSX SP2 + PMDG 777 + 4 k textures tweaked livery + OrbX + Vatsim + AES + xxx + xxx + xxxx = OOM And we could make hundred of thousands more different combinations.

How would that tell you if the scenery is heavy on resources or not? I could create any fps between 50 and 5 with some experimentation. It would proof absolutely nothing. What I now do is use the setting as advised in the manual (in this case all sliders fully right except autogen and water) with the default 737. That way I can see how demanding the product in question is. Just I would test an aircraft over the ocean to remove as much variable as possible. Edit.: Volumetric grass seems to be corrupting AI traffic.

I did another test. Re-enabled 2048 textures and kept the grass disabled and AI traffic was still crazy.

Then I switched textures back to 1024 and enable volumetric grass and the traffic worked fine. It would be useful if you and more people, including Aerosoft team, did the same testing just in order to confirm this or not. Yes Daniel, that's the same for me. I use EIDW with flag on Off and in 1024. If I put the grass on 'OFF'. I have also this problem with AI traffic.

Fsx Taxi2gate Ltba Istanbul 100 Working Completely

Now, again in 1024, I put the grass on ' ON ' and no problem with AI traffic.