Roger Wensley

Delete the beaches? This applies to the wave effect along the shore, which are generated by the beach textures. So if you remove the beaches using SBuilder.... I don't think there is any other way to do it. If you are referring to some other wave effect then this is not the answer you need.

On mine too. The terminal doesn't light up. Or the apron flood lights. Thanks for that.

Anyone using the long-ago-posted scenery for CYGR made by Pierre Gallant? I was looking at it with a view to making some corrections to the ground markings and found that the night textures of the buildings do not appear to work. Anyone with input on this? Pierre no longer responds to email.

I don't know how, but when I looked at the Carenado website it appeared to have no FS9 versions. I now find that it has the C182RG and the C210RG.

Or the Carenado C210? As far as I can see they are selling genuine engine sounds for the C210 but not the C210 itself?!?

Are there still in existence, somewhere, C172RG and C182RG planes and textures?

And I made both those for FS9, and a bunch of others in the neighborhood.

Is this your name, Rockcliffe? I ask as it happens to be where I learnt to fly in Ottawa.

Stewie, I need your email address so I can send you an exclude bgl that you will use, so just email me at the address I gave above so I can reply.

Stewie, give me the exact position in degrees and minutes etc, the width of the runway asphalt, and the airport elevation in feet or metres.

rogwen at rogers dot com

Making scenery for FS9 for over 15 years has uncovered a whole gang of quirky results, one at a time. But that is a new one for me.

Roger,

 

I tried what you suggested, in VC mode with a zoom of 0.5 or less and the objects concerned do seem the pop up/disappear at greater distances but this does tend to make the whole external scenery look too far away and therefore less realistic. The same also applies when in 2D mode with the same negative zoom levels. Moreover, this is not the structural solution, if there is one, I was really looking for.

 

Thanks anyway for your suggestion and I will certainly keep it in mind.

 

Hans

 

Hans,

 

In my experience that is how the ground scenery appears in real life, so I would say it is more realistic, not less. Even if you are only at 3,000 feet or so, anything on the ground that you can see is at least a kilometre away. If you are standing on the ground how big is a car at a range of 1 kilometre? I don't intend to push the idea and you should do whatever you prefer; it is just my opinion.

 

Greg seems to have explained it well why objects pop up suddenly.

I have a comment that is related to this discussion. What is your zoom level set at in virtual cockpit? I have found that 0.5 is the level that best reflects reality in spotting objects on the ground from the air. There are, definitely, some objects (particularly small planes) that appear at a shorter distance away than one would expect and I have never found a solution for this, or seen a definite solution in the forums. I make scenery objects, and in general larger ones get seen first, so "why" is an occasional mystery.

I presume there is a beach texture around the island? It is this texture that generates the "wave" movement in the water, and this sometimes spreads onto the land too. I presume that describes your problem? If so, without getting rid of the beach texture there is no way to stop this. If you want email me a screenshot rogwen at rogers dot com

And thus ended the lesson.

If I had read this series of dismayed complaints about any other product that was for sale, such as a car, I would not purchase it and the product would be withdrawn from sale with profuse apologies. The tone of the posts here does not seem to have changed for the better since MSFS was first sold, and there appears to be no reassurance that it is about to improve to a reasonable standard of reliability. Such as that of Windows 10 for instance? Who would have predicted this three months ago? And who would have bought it if this had been known?

Rivers and lakes stand out more than a street layout from 10,000 feet, and that was what UT gave to FS9 to be matched against the chart on a pilot's lap. For sure it could be used for VFR navigation and it was exactly like flying the Cessna 150 that I trained on in real life. Of course, MSFS has a more accurate coverage and is far better than UT, but when it comes down to landing at Rockcliffe CYRO and looking at the clubhouse.....

Remind me how I post a pic on here?

Custom ground textures are something that I avoid, for several reasons. The usual reason for showing badly is that they were created at a level too close to the ground underneath, which then confuses FS9 as to which scenery it is supposed to be showing. If the textures form a part of the airport where planes will taxi or park there is a great temptation to get them as close to the ground as possible as otherwise taxiing planes will look like they have flat tyres. SBuilder is the preferred programme for ground textures as it alters the existing texture instead of creating a second texture on top of the existing.

To put some perspective on this I would just like to remind folks that the same excellent result was reproduced in FS9 15 years ago with Ultimate Terrain 1.2 and Flight Ontario's Toronto scenery. And come to think of it, MSFS is actually a better Ultimate Terrain and not a better simulator, as it falls short where both FS9 and FSX did before which was (and is) the scenery at ground level.

Am I correct in thinking there was a carbon cub included in Microsoft Flight?

The weird thing is that while it does not work for AI planes, it does work for the plane you fly. Do we know anybody capable of tweaking the FS9 software to make it work for both? Tom?

I now understand the thinking behind it. It is another example of the lack of understanding of aviation by the designers of FS9, rather like their decision to mark the path to parking spots with taxiway edge lines but no centre line. I can put a tick in a box for a "one end runway", but in fact it is a "one way" not a "one end" runway and both landing and take off are in the same direction. So a one way street rather than a one end runway. So Stewie, sorry but we can do nothing about it.

Douga66, thanks for that, but it just got more complicated.

 

Tom, Did you know something or what? I had checked take offs and they were all on the correct runway, 34, no matter what direction the wind was in. But, after reading your query I went back and checked landings, and they were also all on runway 34, no matter what the wind direction was?!? I need to look at this further; though there aren't many ways for us to get it wrong we both know how FS9 can complicate things.

Tom,

 

Yep. If I knew how to load a pic on here I could show you an AI plane about to take off and the windsock behind it showing it is taking off downwind.