Paraparaumu for FSX

[greaneyr]

QUOTE (toprob @ Dec 14 2007, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the case of Paraparaumu, yes, but normally you'd put down taxiways and aprons over the top of the photo. That's way MS did with the new Acceleration scenery, and it looks ok on huge areas like Edwards AFB, but because it covers up much of the interesting photo at NZPP, I decided not to do that.

So you're meant to put down a lovely photo, but overlay it with the generic AFCAD textures if you want it to behave like solid pavement? Sounds like you'd just end up with the same generic textures. Hardly progress really huh?

[toprob]

QUOTE (greaneyr @ Dec 14 2007, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're meant to put down a lovely photo, but overlay it with the generic AFCAD textures if you want it to behave like solid pavement? Sounds like you'd just end up with the same generic textures. Hardly progress really huh?

You've certainly whacked that nail smack on the head.
Developers have always been warned about losing backward compatibility, but have ignored it for a number of reasons. One is that some results can only be had by using 'obsolete' methods. SCASM is one (the major airport scenery developers make a lot of use of this, and have suffered a bit lately with the loss of AI aircraft at their airports), and the FS2002 ground polys is another. Now loss of backward compatibility has become a reality, so developers will be more inclined to take note.
That's not to say that we won't use older methods still -- now that FSX is officially complete with SP2, we know what works and what doesn't, so we can blithely break the rules again -- until FS11. Then those who have broken the rules the most -- and incidentally, probably developed the most innovative stuff -- will be back where they've been for the last year, patching and fixing just to try to keep up with the changes.
What we need to do is to convince MS that we need some extra functionality in FS11. For instance, the ability to include our own runway/apron textures and still retain full use. Another must-have, as far as I'm concerned, is to scrap the flat airport concept, and allow us to use the underlying mesh as part of the airport, rather than just having to bulldoze it flat.

[Christian]

Looking great Robin!

[Charl]

QUOTE (toprob @ Dec 15 2007, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What we need to do is to convince MS that we need some extra functionality ... own runway/apron textures and still retain full use.... allow us to use the underlying mesh as part of the airport, rather than just having to bulldoze it flat

HEAR HEAR!
Looking at the flightsim world from a user's point of view, the cookie cutter coastline can be fixed, the textures can be patched, the landclass can be massaged (up to a point) and the sim can look "As real as it gets"
That is, until you get that airport in a trench syndrome, level as a billiard table.
I'm not even talking Courchevelle...

Is MS still taking submissions for "My wishlist for the next sim otherwise I take up golf"??

[greaneyr]

QUOTE (toprob @ Dec 15 2007, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've certainly whacked that nail smack on the head.
Developers have always been warned about losing backward compatibility, but have ignored it for a number of reasons. One is that some results can only be had by using 'obsolete' methods. SCASM is one (the major airport scenery developers make a lot of use of this, and have suffered a bit lately with the loss of AI aircraft at their airports), and the FS2002 ground polys is another. Now loss of backward compatibility has become a reality, so developers will be more inclined to take note.
That's not to say that we won't use older methods still -- now that FSX is officially complete with SP2, we know what works and what doesn't, so we can blithely break the rules again -- until FS11. Then those who have broken the rules the most -- and incidentally, probably developed the most innovative stuff -- will be back where they've been for the last year, patching and fixing just to try to keep up with the changes.

That's good to know but frustrating at the same time. I'm heading into releasing scenery after a few years worth of dabbling in updates and add-ons for my own personal use. I honestly feel that strongly against the generic AFCAD runway textures that it could be enough to make me reconsider, or at least think heavily outside the square. Generic AFCAD airports don't look like ANY airport I've seen in real life. Pavements are either too pale or too dark, the lines are too thick, and the runways are just too 'perfect' (as in, they all look like newly surfaced runways with tyre marks in the TDZs). It's pavement, so it doesn't need to be a super-advanced texture, because by it's very nature it's extremely repetitive. The trouble is that what MS have given us looks nothing like what we have around here at least. Runway markings seem very 'standardised' too. You can't mimic markings of runways like Ohakea or Wellington very well. Oh, and there's no RLLS option either. There never has been in FS. I've used apron lighting strips out of desperation before, but they're far too dim and of course, the wrong colour.

QUOTE

What we need to do is to convince MS that we need some extra functionality in FS11. For instance, the ability to include our own runway/apron textures and still retain full use. Another must-have, as far as I'm concerned, is to scrap the flat airport concept, and allow us to use the underlying mesh as part of the airport, rather than just having to bulldoze it flat.[/quote]

I think they are aware of that. Like anything, people will be putting more pressure on them for this and eventually we will get it in a release. When this is, of course, is what developers will be wanting to know. I guess you could drape a hi-res image of an airport over mesh and it would behave like an airport to the aircraft. The only thing being, of course, there'd be no association to that effect as far as the sim, ATC and AI goes.

Custom runway/apron textures would be an absolute delight. Another thing I'd personally like to see is enhanced water effects as you approach shallow water. Look at any FSX screenshot with water and you'll see what I mean. The waves look no different in the shallows from how they do in the deep water. This just ends up looking like someone has gone around a photo of the open ocean with a pair of scissors and dropped it in the middle of a landform.