I Loathe FSDT's COUATL!

[Nurmblitz 59]

But the 99% majority who have a flawless FSDT configured PC´s without problems, would not mind if the engine would be run outside FSX, or would they? I would not guess the percentages here, but I would say most of the simmers don´t bother to register in any forums - so don´t underestimate the "couatl loathers club`s" size. Some developers offer a lot of choice (different textures, ground vehicles, ai-traffic etc.) to make their product usable for a wide variety of customers.

 

I just don´t understand why it is so fundamentally outruled that there could be alternatives to do things.

[rsperge 182]

Not taking sides, but when you deal with software, that's complicated like fs dreamteam its always possible to have problems.  My experience, with KFLL, JFK vol2. KDFW, KORD, KLAX< and CYVR, sure I deon't ;ike the popup coming up when I start the sim, but you have a trisl to run the product if it will work for you..

 

If you do have problems, the forum, for fs dreamteam, is still very helpful, those are my thoughts, and hope they have another airport in mind in the near future.

[vc10man 732]

 

 

When I install a FlyTampa scenery, I enter a key, the scenery installs, and I will never have issues with that product again. Whether I change hardware, my PC, nothing. Software using Couatl / AM, is just too much of a contrast to that simplicity I get with other products.

With you on this one, too, Dave.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

I'm in awe of what FSDT and many other devs have managed to create for an outdated sim that was buggy and incomplete from the get go. But as a user just wanting to fly - not install, activate, type in serials, patch, tweak and troubleshoot - the complexity has lost its appeal. It's a shame. I have plenty money to spend, but sadly no time to keep up with each developers own way of doing things.

 

There are those who would say the same thing about the Windows platform in general - and others who "just use their computers" and wonder what all the fuss is about.  Everything's easy until the wheels come off, and then it's complicated.  It's unfortunate, but true.

 

Scott

[Drumcode 1,907]

Umberto, get back to work on the KIAH damn it! :lol:

[IFR7700 228]

Being DX10 compatible, is just *one* of the reason why we use the Addon Manager/Couatl, but there are many others, like everything related to interactivity in sceneries, like reacting to conditions like weather, visibility, temperature, and display objects in different states or different objects altogether.

 

The issue is, we do so many things in sceneries using Couatl Python scripts, that sometimes I even forgot some...the intelligent runway light systems such as RWSL

 

http://rwsl.ll.mit.edu/index.html

 

The advanced PAPI/FAROS system, the THL lights, they all work as supposed to do, and interact both with the user airplane AND the AI, the lights will turn on/off to alert of a potential runway incursion, just like the real life system . None of this is possible with "just" the traditional .BGL format, we need to use Simconnect (heavily), we need to control the AIs, we need to control our own object creations.  All of this, of course, is courtesy of Couatl.

 

We also used a memory-saving technique in JFK and CYVR, that patches the scenery in real time when the season switches, to have seasonal texture changes, without having to load a more complex object that contains all seasons. Again, done with Couatl, with a Python script.

 

We have a complete astronomical ephemeris calculator running, to calc the actual sun position at every date/time/place on the Earth, in order to display objects with dynamic shadows that change over the day, without ANY fps impact (compared to FSX default shadows), because all the transitions are pre-rendered, and both the calculation AND the actual object switching is made by, you guessed it, by a Python script running under Couatl.

 

A silly (nice) feature: an user told me that during summer 2011, the roof of the main terminal at PHOG was repainted from red to green. So (why not?) we have a feature that, if you set the date before August 2011, the terminal will have a red roof, otherwise it will be green. Again, not wasting any memory to keep two object loaded, so both the object switching and the check for the date is made, I think you guessed it already, with a Pyhton script running under Couatl.

 

There's a real-time clock on the old Control Tower at PHNL, which shows the current time and temperature, taken from the sim. Done by, you named it, a Pyhton script running under Couatl.

 

Those are just example on why a "simple" product like a scenery, might need scripting to offer interaction, either for small things like clocks, but also for serious AVIATION-related features with an high simulation value, such as the RWSL/THL/FAROS systems, as used at real world KDFW, KLAX.

 

But even if it was JUST DX10, one thing is just being "compatible" with it, like not having visible bugs or being able to use the scenery at night even if it use FS8 ground polygons, which is something that might be fixed with the DX10 "fixes", an entirely different thing is getting advantage of it, by modeling ground polygons that can use shaders, which is not possible with plain .BGL, so we need to control the object creation and visibility parameters in real-time, to overcome visual problems that would appear if the ground was "just" compiled with the FSX SDK, which is the prerequisite to allow use of shaders to begin with.

 

Even if the DX10 fixes would allow a scenery made with FS8 ground polygons will display properly under DX10, it will still look like an FS8/9 scenery, things like variable bump maps, shader-based (=faster) detail textures and specular reflection, would not possible if the scenery has not be designed for that, and we need the our modules to allow that.

 

This was, by far, the most comprehensive reply I have ever received on this forum.  I now have a much better overall understanding of how some of these shaders and other innovations work.  I appreciate the time and effort it took to compile this information for me.  I hope these issues can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

[Parping Couplet 117]

good for you my friend. I'm glad you have no issues - seriously;-)

If the application doesn't have any problems, my genuine question, is why is it that this subjust comes up over and over again here on avsim?

 

But i'm done with it.  It's obvious the devs get priorty on most forums and end user gets clobbered as per usual.  I've spent over 4000 pounds sterling on FSX products alone.  I would say gives the user a right to voice his opinion.

 

Quite right im angry

 

Fair comment, all of it.

[Samaritano 305]

Read the whole thread and I have to say that I have never had any problems with the addon manager or COUATL. FlightBeam and FSDT sceneries are the best and are also DX10 compatible. 

I don't own any of FlyTampa's sceneries because DX-10 compatibility even thought they look great. 

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I think you'll find ONE or possibly TWO that said that actually. The MAJORITY of posters here are trying to explain that they have issues.

And those majority I dont see opening new posts on the FDST forum seeking assistance. Instead they come hear to complain rather than seek assistance from the developer. I've read some of your posts on their forum and you were less than nice to Umberto there at one point insinuating he was calling you a liar, of which he did no such thing.

 

Its fine if people dont like a particular developers product for whatever reason. Some hate Orbx, others hate PMDG, but what really is sad is when they complain and then post on other forums about their issue and dont seek help from the developer in the first place. In some of you threads in FSDT forum Umberto tried to help you twice and both times after giving solutions you never replied if they worked or not.

[76496 17]

Thank you for adding this, so I now have the chance to illustrate the PERFECT example of how one could be sadly mistaken, and why false rumors get spread.

 

This is what happened to you, and you know very well, because I've explained it to you quite clearly in my email.

 

- You sent an email giving your Order Number, asking why your Serial Number wasn't accepted. I've asked what the error was, and you replied with

 

"This doesn't seem to be a correct Serial for KDFW"

 

- Based on the information YOU provided (this error), I told you that this error means that you typed your Serial wrong.

 

- To this email, you replied "I am typing serial# correctly, I am not an idiot", adding another line which said "I was out of  times to re-activate this product"

 

Seeing this new information from you, the "I was out of  times to re-activate this product", I guessed you might have seen ANOTHER error message that you DID NOT report, about having exceeded your maximum number of activations so, I went ahead on the Esellerate server, and checked if you exceeded your the maximum number of activations, something that I might have done initially, if you SAID you had that error in the first place, but your first report ONLY mentioned the "This doesn't seem to be a correct Serial for KDFW" error, which is a mis-typed Serial.

 

- Checking your order, I found what really happened, which I explained to you:

 

You made TWO orders for KDFW by mistake, a year ago. You asked for a refund for the double purchase and, obviously, you have been refunded immediately. This happened a year ago.

 

Of course, it should be fairly obvious that a Serial Number from a returned order can't be activated anymore. Your error was that you were initially using the Serial Number from the RETURNED Order, instead of the one for the "good" one.

 

The "good" one, instead, had all your 6 activation used, which means:

 

1) When you tried to activate the Returned order, that Serial wasn't accepted

 

2) When you tried to activate the Good order, it gave you the "too many activations" message.

 

Of course, if you SAID that you were trying with TWO different Serials and if you SAID you were getting TWO different errors depending which one you used, I might have figure it out immediately you were trying to use a Serial from a returned order. I had to guess it, from that "I was out of  times to re-activate this product" line.

 

 

What I've did then, was:

 

- Explaining the problem was caused by your use of a returned Serial

 

- Added 3 additional activations to the "good" Serial, and telling you that you could NOW activate, without getting the "too many activations" message.

 

- Suggested to delete the purchase receipt from your returned Order and keep only the "good" one, so you won't be confused again in the future.

 

To THIS, you replied with:

 

"Your product has been removed from my computer. I will eat the 34.00 dollars"

 

I really don't know what else I could do:

 

1) I explained what the problem was (you were trying to reactivate the Serial from the returned order)

 

2) I REACTIVATED your "good" Order which had all its 6 activations used up, so you could now activate and use the product you paid for.

 

How this, exactly, translates into "I will eat the 34.00 dollars" ?? And how, exactly, is something of the software's "fault" ?

 

Would you really expect anything different than not being able to reactivate an Order which was Returned ? Do you find the software behavior strange or not logical ?

Circles and circles. Trying to explain to me the difference between 0 and o which I have neither in my serial number., I also stated that I knew that I was out of activations!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again your emails were offensive in their WORDING. If I need to I can post all emails from you and we can let this forum decide. I have only USED the one serial # and that being the one that had previously activated the product the last 5 times it was activated.

[76496 17]

I would like to clarify one thing here. Umberto was not the person that was replying to my emails. I will say that by the time he did reply, I deleted message and moved on. Heat of the moment. I would like to resolve this Umberto. The product is GREAT, its the activation process that stinks. You know how to contact me.  I will keep this out of the forums from this point forward. Thanks,  Jamie Moses

[vc10man 732]

 

 

The product is GREAT, its the activation process that stinks

+++1 :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

[Manny 1,293]

When I posted this topic..I came to vent my frustration. It's like if you have issue,s you go to your best friends and mouth off your frustration.

 

That's what I did... my buddies who can understand my FSX griefs are here at AVISIM. No one outside this forum/hobbyists are going to give a crap about my FSX Issues.. Ha HA!

 

But it has gone on to some serious discussions and vendor bashing...That's the good and bad of it.

 

Oh whelp!

  :lol: 

[MadDog 353]

While I appreciate Umberto's explanation of what COUATL accomplishes in the scenery and all the bells and whistles it provides... it still doesn't address the primary issue: Why is the DRM management software integrated with the scripting software? Why the are they not separate? While the custom scripts have every right to work inside the FSX environment; most agree that the DRM portion does not. It was mentioned that the esellerate failure was the cause of the problems earlier... despite all the redundancy and precautions provided to prevent such an occurrence. Had it's impact been felt outside of FSX, I think most of the posters here would have shrugged and moved on. But when you spend countless hours fine-tuning and balancing FSX to get it just right, you don't want anything messing with it.

[Dougal 165]

What a pity that so many here (without issues it seems) feel the need to make it so very personal and talk about 'liking, hating and vendor bashing' when, in fact, there's almost none of that in this thread. As the OP stated, it has to do with frustrated customers, voicing what they (and I) feel is justified grievance, on neutral terratory. So telling us to use the FSDT forum completely misses the whole point of the thread.

 

I guess i'm probably just feeding the trolls, and should know better by now.