RealNZ Scenery Question

[Rotordude]

Hi all, I dont want to bug Rob atm with trivial stuff after his op and all. but maybe someone can help me out here.

I just recently purchaced the Across the straight package and am loving it. But I would like to know if there is a way for the scenery to use the default FS runway and taxiway textures. The reason for the ask is I am now running REX2 and would like to use the HiDef runways in the package.

Thx

Pete

[toprob]

I'd suggest that you have a wee play with this and see if it works. However I can't promise anything -- the underlying Facilities (taxiways etc) were not designed to look good, as they were built to sit under the photo textures.
Wellington should work better than Woodbourne, because most of the ground is default textures, with a layering of photo-real markings.
I'll run through the files you could look at:

WgtonRunwayDaySP1.bgl;
WgtonrunwayMarkings.bgl; and
WgtnRwyBaseFSX.bgl

...are the runway scenery elements. You could rename these (with a .bak extension) to disable them, and see what happens with the runway.

Other ground texture files are:

wgtntarmac1.bgl;
wgtntarmac2.bgl;
wgtntarmacWest.bgl
wgtntarmacwestlines.bgl

Disabling any or all of these should get rid of various photo-real elements.

If you are happy with the result, we could look at Woodbourne.

[dbcunnz]

QUOTE (toprob @ Aug 20 2009, 11:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are happy with the result, we could look at Woodbourne.

Hi Robin I would be interested in trying Woodbourne as I would like to get the runway lights working again I did ask you about this last year but you were a little busy at the time and said you would look at it this year or sometime when you had the time to do it.

Doug

[Rotordude]

Thank you so very much Robin, turns out the 2 that needed renaming were WgtonRunwayDaySP1.bgl; WgtnRwyBaseFSX.bgl.

I really appreciate the work you have done, now to save up and get the rest of the collection.

Results, as Lynn of Tawa said "Tis a visual symphony"

[toprob]

QUOTE (dbcunnz @ Aug 20 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Robin I would be interested in trying Woodbourne as I would like to get the runway lights working again I did ask you about this last year but you were a little busy at the time and said you would look at it this year or sometime when you had the time to do it.

Doug

This is actually a different issue from Wellington, as Woodbourne depends a lot more on ground textures. Runway lights are in fact 'hard wired' into the sim -- they are not effects, and it is not possible to model them as effects -- although some developers make a good job of simulating the default lights. Rather than do this for Wellington (a lot of work for a less than optimum result) I have used a conditional display hack -- the runway texture which covers the lights just doesn't appear at night, so you still see the centre runway lights. (You also 'see' the default runway sections, but since it is dark it doesn't matter that much.)

At Woodbourne, I relied on an early 'feature' of FSX, which allowed the lights to show through semi-transparent ground textures -- a feature lost with subsequent patches.

Woodbourne is a bit easier to fix (it doesn't have runway centre lights, just edge lights), but does require me to do the work:) Edge lights can be simulated through effects, as they are just required to sit there and look like lights.

In the meantime, to see the edge lights, you can try disabling the file wblayer1FSX.bgl (by adding a .bak extension), but you will lose any blending, and there are some issues with the underlying photo scenery -- it does have some elements which are better covered up by the ground textures.

[dbcunnz]

QUOTE (toprob @ Aug 20 2009, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At Woodbourne, I relied on an early 'feature' of FSX, which allowed the lights to show through semi-transparent ground textures -- a feature lost with subsequent patches.

Woodbourne is a bit easier to fix (it doesn't have runway centre lights, just edge lights), but does require me to do the work:) Edge lights can be simulated through effects, as they are just required to sit there and look like lights.

In the meantime, to see the edge lights, you can try disabling the file wblayer1FSX.bgl (by adding a .bak extension), but you will lose any blending, and there are some issues with the underlying photo scenery -- it does have some elements which are better covered up by the ground textures.

Thanks Robin I have lights at Woodbourne again and it doesn't affect the day textures enough to notice.

[Michael]

In the middle image above ^^ what is the blue area near the top?? (Not the sea, on the Hill) I have that on mine, spose to be their?

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (Michael @ Aug 28 2009, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the middle image above ^^ what is the blue area near the top?? (Not the sea, on the Hill) I have that on mine, spose to be their?

This area is pine / heavy in foliage , thus creating the deep blue affect similar to most surounds in a built up city area , this is were they aptly named a range in Australia as the 'Blue Mountains'

[Michael]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Aug 28 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This area is pine / heavy in foliage , thus creating the deep blue affect similar to most surounds in a built up city area , this is were they aptly named a range in Australia as the 'Blue Mountains'

Just googled them they look quite sweet... anyway thanks.

[toprob]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Aug 28 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This area is pine / heavy in foliage , thus creating the deep blue affect similar to most surounds in a built up city area , this is were they aptly named a range in Australia as the 'Blue Mountains'

Yes, this is one area where the Wellington aerial image is 'damaged', it's a nuisance that it is located so close to the airport. You can see the source image onthe LINZ site here. You can see there's absolutely no detail in the foliage areas.
Luckily this sort of damage is quite rare.

[Kelvinr]

QUOTE (toprob @ Aug 29 2009, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, this is one area where the Wellington aerial image is 'damaged', it's a nuisance that it is located so close to the airport. You can see the source image onthe LINZ site here. You can see there's absolutely no detail in the foliage areas.
Luckily this sort of damage is quite rare.

Toprob could you let me know if your supercity project will fix the elevation problem currently in fsx using 20 metre mesh?

Cheers

[creator2003]

What problem with the mesh are you having ?

[toprob]

QUOTE (Kelvinr @ Oct 26 2009, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Toprob could you let me know if your supercity project will fix the elevation problem currently in fsx using 20 metre mesh?

Cheers

Normally I'd only update the elevations with an airport scenery, and Supercity isn't. I know I did with the FS2004 version, but this caused more problems that it solved. However as each airport is released, no doubt the elevation will be tweaked.
-Robin

[Kelvinr]

QUOTE (toprob @ Oct 26 2009, 07:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Normally I'd only update the elevations with an airport scenery, and Supercity isn't. I know I did with the FS2004 version, but this caused more problems that it solved. However as each airport is released, no doubt the elevation will be tweaked.
-Robin

ok, sounds practical to do that considering the scope of the task. more specifically will you be sorting out the Ardmore elevation issue as I have had issues there where the runway has sunk into the ground depicting a bathtub look.

cheers,

Kelvin

[toprob]

It's got nothing to do with the scope of the task -- since you can get real problems with duplicate elevations, I leave this up to whoever does the airports, so that there's only one re-elevation.
All my airports have elevation changes where necessary.

[Kelvinr]

QUOTE (toprob @ Oct 26 2009, 09:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's got nothing to do with the scope of the task -- since you can get real problems with duplicate elevations, I leave this up to whoever does the airports, so that there's only one re-elevation.
All my airports have elevation changes where necessary.

ok, thanks for your response