hjwalter

Hi Guys, After much research within my own massive FS9, I've now concluded that structurally replacing/adding mipmaps to all my existing scenery and AI plane textures, can cause unpredictable visible irregularities here and there, more often concerning those textures which are called for by addon BGL files from older sim versions. Moreover, some scenery authors also seem to have omitted/forgotten the BGL programming for the handling of mipped textures and which then automatically means that editing/adding unnecessary mipmaps to the related textures, can have further unpredictable results as well. At least that's the way it all now very strongly seems. Anyway Guys, thanks for your reactions and long live FS9 !! Hans

jmie, Could you please quote the exact file name of your "floating" B787-8 aircraft, so that I can download it myself in order to test your problem and to possibly solve it for you. I hope it's not payware though. Regards Hans

Hi Guys, Right from the very beginning when FS9 was first launched, I've embraced the general theory that ... ALL ... (standard and addon) scenery BMP textures found anywhere within FS9 and which are all viewed from variable distances, should be mipped, no matter how they are compressed as DXT1, DXT3, etc. This also includes all AI aircraft textures, standard or addon. The only possible exemptions would be those textures related to flyable aircraft and which are in external view, normally never viewed from any great distances. To check and to edit all such textures I've been extensively using a program called "MipMapManager v.0.03", which can firstly delete all mipmaps from any selected (and previously backed up) texture folder, followed in a second run by replacing them in it's own standard way. However, it sometimes seems that the newly mipped BMP files are not always welcomed by certain BGL files, mostly by those originating from older sim versions and which can then cause blurries and other strange visible effects, e.g. scenery objects unrealistically popping up at far too short distances. My questions are therefore: Is it possible that some possibly older BGL files, have some kind of inbuilt mechanism for creating their own mipmap-like effects when using their own specific textures and which therefore do not need "extra" mipmaps ? Are BMP file mipmaps always standard, whatever that "standard" may be ? Any comments on my general mipmapping theory ? Regards Hans

In the meantime I've compared my active main texture folder contents with backup versions and found that there were certainly more unexpected and/or strange texture compression differences. I also found some textures which were missing their previously existing alpha channels. I now no longer trust this folder and will proceed to overwrite it's textures by all those from an older backup, while for safety reasons, leaving any newer ones, which were not (yet) backed-up. I'm still trying to figure out what had caused this absolutely huge folder to have become edited in such a structural way and without me ever noticing it. Long live FS2004 !! Hans

Thanks a million chris-eve and defaid for your help. I copied/pasted all default and other FS9 texture names beginning with "taxi ......", from my oldest backup (2016) into my main texture folder, overwrote anything found there and that immediately solved my problem. And yes, my problem seems to have been caused by a recent automatic scenery installer, even although I always install those into a special safety folder nowhere near any of my active FS9 folders. In any case never directly into my FS9. Thanks again Guys. Hans

Hi All, I've recently and very unexpectedly run up against a new FS9 problem in that solid center and edge taxiway lines, which are all drawn by my trusty old AFCAD program, have suddenly become dashed when viewed from around 100 meters/yards and further. At closer ranges the lines are all rendered correctly but the problem moves along in front of me as I taxi in any aircraft and at any airport. In fact, a really terrible sight, also when approaching. I've tried editing all display options from within my FS9 and also those of the graphics card itself but nothing seems to help. This all now causes me to suspect the AFCAD textures themselves, e.g. no mipmaps and/or incorrect DXT compression but wherever I search, I just cannot find where these very specific AFCAD textures are stored nor can I find their names from within the AFCAD program itself. Can any of you experts point my nose into the correct direction .... Please !! Any reactions/help will be strongly apreciated. Regards and thanks in advance. Hans

Mark, I'm still using the very original Win7 64bit from the original DVDs for my huge but efficiently organized FS9. This totally to FS9 dedicated machine has never even had any kind of internet connection, so never any issues after Win7 updates. However, these sudden and unexpected keyboard issues have been bugging me right from the very beginning but I've learned to get used to them. I suspect that they have something to do with my keyboard itself but cannot find any way to prove it because other keyboards display the same problems. Long live FS9 !! Hans

I sometimes have the same problem, in that some keyboard functions suddenly and unexpectedly, no longer work. I solve the problem every time by re-storing my FS9.cfg from re-named backups in the same folder and as soon as everything works correctly again, I copy/paste my FS9.cfg file a few times and rename the copies into, e.g. FS9.txt, FS9.new, FS9.xxxx, etc. Why and how this occurs remains a mystery. Hans

Thanks chris_eve for your reply. It only confirms the developing notion, which I already had on this Guernsey subject. Too bad but the colouring of the foto scenery itself is seasonal and the summer ones tend to look somewhat greener/better. Now then, on to Jersey, where I've already seen some mesh and coastline issues. Anyway, thanks again for your reply and confirmation. Hans

Hi All ye experts, I've had all three of the addon (UK) Channel island airports for a long time already and I recently found good looking "cover all" satellite photo sceneries for both Guernsey and Jersey in the the library. I downloaded/installed both of them but the colours of the Guernsey airport terrain were not really to my liking because they were just too bright yellowish/brown. No problem I thought, so I made my own SBuildrer terrain polygon for the whole Guernsey airport area, like I've done for so many others before .... BUT .... my new terrain (= VTTP file) doesn't show up in this particular scenery, most probably because it remains hidden under the photo terrain. However, the Adcad aprons, taxiways, runway, etc. do show up and work correctly. I've already tried to place my VTTP file in a separate higher priority folder but that doesn't help in any way. Does anyone have a solution for this problem, so that my VTTP polygon actually appears on top of the overall photo scenery ? Thanks for any suggestions/solutions. Regards Hans

Baron Fritz, Your first impressions about the Model Converter X complexities are evidently more or less the same as mine. On top of that I regard really diving into this program only for my external gear view issue, as a completely separate adventure and in my specific case, with a rather low priority. In the meantime I will perform experiments with jgf's items 8 and 9. Regards and good luck. Hans

Baron Fritz and jgf, I found and downloaded all three of the mentioned programs and took a quick "sneak-peek" into each of them, with my nosewheel problem kept in the back of my mind. However, my very first impression was that the sheer volume of complexities and choices, especially within the ModelConverterX program, made me initially agree with jgf and even more so because copying/pasting (= cheating) the necessary parameters from other FS9 aircraft's contact point lines, worked just as well .... and .... a lot quicker. Therefore my sincere compliments to those developers who actually went through all those complexities to get their contact point parameters so close to the real world actualities and also very much so for the pioneering specialists at MS, who made this all possible in the first place. I will certainly take another good look at the ModelConverterX program as advised by Tom Gibson but now only as a possibility for improving gear suspensions ..... without ..... any wheels sinking through concrete runways/taxiways. On top of all that you never know what else I might run up against. Hans

Hey Guys, Yes, this whole aircraft.cfg "Contact Point" section certainly seems to keep us on our toes, mainly because of their inter-actions with other entries within the same section and even with parts within the lines themselves. It's in fact one of the very first things I always check after downloading any new plane (AI and/or flyable) and am often surprised by the amount of tweaking necessary to get the new plane to visibly and correctly stand "on it's three wheels". To check this I press my "Y" key with the new plane in external view and I just keep on tweaking and pressing my "Y" key until the aircraft no longer moves. However, I've never even looked at issues like suspension, etc. and never really deemed those to be important untill by pure chance suddenly seeing an otherwise correctly tweaked nose wheel sinking into the concrete while braking. This had made me very inquisitive as to possible technical solutions, other than just making the nose wheel 100% "stiff" (= cheating). Regards Hans

Hi there Tom, You are always way ahead of most of us armchair pilots with your deep technical knowhow on many FS/PC fronts and because of that, the saying remains true that flight simming, is far more complex for most of us than real world flying. My nose wheel sinking through the runway/taxiway problem, was definitely not a serious issue but was far more born out of my inquisitiveness based on the notion that runway/taxiway surfaces should generally be as hard as concrete and in no way should let gear wheels sink through them. In my mind there were therefore other processes involved eminating from the aircraft in question and especially from it's "contact points", some parts of which will always remain a mystery, at least for me. In the end I managed to solve my "issue" by what I called "cheating" but why and how this actually worked remains unclear, on top of which I have absolutely no experience and/or knowledge about the software you are evidently using but in the meantime I will certainly try to find the "ModelconverterX" program and will have a go at seeing what it does and/or can do. Anyway Tom, thanks for your strongly professional reaction and .... Long Live FS2004 .... !! Regards Hans

Jgf, Thanks very much for your kind explanations, which only add to my personal experiences which are that "contact point" sections are extremely difficult to fully comprehend because different parts within each line, seem to influence other parts within the same line. So, after endlessly messing around with my Warthog's nose strut/wheel specifications without any form of success, I finally decided to CHEAT !! I've had a navy Grumman fighter jet in my collection for many years and which I predominantly use for carrier operations (= hard landings/cable trappings/catapult launches, etc.). That aircraft did not display any of my Warthog's problems so, I copied/pasted the non nose wheel strut positioning part of it's first contact point line into the same Warthog's line and PRESTO !! That seems to have done the trick, with only a remaining acceptable part of my Warthog's nose wheel tire still visibly sinking below a runway/taxiway surface, while braking. Only problem now left for me is to try to understand the why and how, including in this specific case, the possible influence of the Warthog's model (MDL) file. Thanks again and regards Hans