Roger Wensley

Many might enjoy them if someone, a company or a group of people, actually take on the project for MSFS. I am not going to do it as I do not even have MSFS. All the versions of flight simulator from Microsoft have been the same; scenery to flyover and then no reality when you land.

I have posted on flightsim 610 airfields and float bases. Not all of them are in Canada or Alaska, but the majority are and contain the buildings that actually exist there in real life. All my scenery posts are for FS9, but if there is an energetic individual or a company that would like to transform and use the buildings to replace the imaginary ones in use in MSFS then I would be interested to hear from them. My email is now rogwens@gmail.com

When I first posted Ketchikan it was as a set of parts. Did you download the final version when it was just all in one post? Then delete it, and download and install the set of parts as separate posts one at a time. Then when you have poor FPS delete the part you just installed.

Long ago I was in contact with the "owner" of the scenery, and though after all this time his name does not come to mind it may have been Francois? I can try to check this but if someone confirms it then I don't have to try! There are (were?) some other good Canadian airfields by Flight Ontario too, not just Goose Bay.

There are a series of posts on YouTube by Angle of Attack that are well worth watching, showing a trip from Alaska through Canada to Oshkosh in a Cessna 172. The latest post is part of the return trip into Canada and landing in Regina in Saskatchewan. Take a look.

There are a series of posts on YouTube by Angle of Attack that are well worth watching, showing a trip from Alaska through Canada to Oshkosh in a Cessna 172. The latest post is part of the return trip into Canada and landing in Regina in Saskatchewan. Take a look.

There are a series of posts on YouTube by Angle of Attack that are well worth watching, showing a trip from Alaska through Canada to Oshkosh in a Cessna 172. The latest post is part of the return trip into Canada and landing in Regina in Saskatchewan. Take a look.

There are a series of posts on YouTube by Angle of Attack that are well worth watching, showing a trip from Alaska through Canada to Oshkosh in a Cessna 172. The latest post is part of the return trip into Canada and landing in Regina in Saskatchewan. Take a look.

+1 greeting and thanking Roger - for your work.

Flying up North in Alaska as I do so often your work really makes it come alive.

Thank you, Sir :)

 

Well funnily enough that was why I started making scenery for myself, so that in the Canadian winter I could enjoy on FS9 the summer trip down the Mackenzie River.

I second that motion. Roger is a FS9 living legend.

 

And I intend to stay living for more years until I am 90 and shot by a jealous husband. I have to say here though, without fear of contradiction, that Greg's airports are better than mine. Thanks Mark for the thanks. Greg, do you have a gun?

Brian Smith made Kodiak? I missed that, maybe as it was made so long ago. And how is it?

The one factor that indisputably puts FS9 way ahead of all other sims is that when you land at an airport or airfield it is far more likely to be true to life, with hangars and terminal all resembling the actual buildings. No other sim has the 18 years of work that have been put in by hundreds of scenery designers.

About Kodiak, the reason there isn't a freeware version is that unless one has been there and taken photos etc then it cannot be accurately made as there isn't enough information available online. I would have made it years ago, but as I never went there.....

I agree about not totally deleting FS9. As I wrote in an earlier thread, all the Microsoft simulators have been the same, in that they had nice planes and scenery for the dates when they were made, and each of them was better than the one issued before, but when you arrived at an airfield they were a disappointment. FS9 is still the only one that has that airfield that I saw for the first time when flying down the Mackenzie River in 2005 in real life.

Not sure why you guys are arguing. For me, the Microsoft flight sims have all been the same. Planes that get better and fly over landscape that is much better than it was in the last one (though UT was needed) and it ends in an anticlimax as when you get there and land there is just an opportunity for scenery builders to spend the next ten years. Though I spent 15 years, so I wonder at my sanity.

That's what you should have with FS9, the same as me and many others. UT makes FS9 into a real simulator. You want add-on airfields? Search Roger Wensley in the FS9 library.

Then why ask? If you did it once, you can do it again. Why even bother to bring it up if you're not even going to get the sim? No one will buy anything like that. Guaranteed.

 

Bit late to respond now, but as someone else asked me about the time taken I will just point out that the scenery making for FS9 took 15 years.

Just don't like being proven wrong, do you?

 

We are not arguing here about right or wrong. It is not relevant to making better scenery for MSFS.

Really? People buy airport scenery everyday. Guaranteed.

 

That's what I thought.

I know what I wrote. And now you know what I meant.

If you have read the posts from the start then you should know that from the beginning I was talking about converting the FS9 buildings I had made for use in MSFS. It would just be a case of siting the modified buildings in the right spot on the existing MSFS apron spaces.

 

The buildings in MSFS for Rockcliffe are pretty much the right shape, and the museum buildings look ok unless you go there regularly and know exactly what they look like. Not bad really. Same with the hangar, but the quonset is very good. The clubhouse, though, does not look real at all.

As I wrote earlier, flying to a place is quite real with MSFS, but once you get there then...... real buildings? Show me a screenshot of Rockcliffe Flying Club?

I tried if for a while on a borrowed computer. The view from the air at altitudes above 2,000 feet are very good, and are close to the real thing. But, flying for real is still better (of course!) and is how I got the info to make the airfields for FS9 in the first place. FS9 for me was remembering in the winter that airfield I saw for the first time when flying down the Mackenzie River in July, and MSFS cannot do that.

Given that I knew I was not going to do it, and that I would not want MSFS in it's current state, I wondered if someone else might do it for me. And how much would I be willing to pay? $C200 for them all? $C300? Given how many hours of work it would need (maybe an average 5 hours each, with some having only 3 or 4 buildings for conversion and others much larger with 20 or 25 buildings) it it was obvious that to persuade someone to do it there would need to be more interest than just me.

I am not going to do the work myself as I currently have no intention of getting MSFS. MSFS is far better from 5,000 feet than either of the previous versions, FS9 and FSX, so Ultimate Terrain is not needed. But I get that when I go fly for real. And to make 500 airfields again....... If I find someone, or a company, that will do it (and presumably sell the result) then I will give them all the buildings I made.