Jump to content

hjwalter

Registered Users
  • Posts

    544
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

hjwalter last won the day on July 23 2023

hjwalter had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About hjwalter

  • Birthday 03/08/1943

Personal Information

  • Location
    Netherlands
  • Occupation
    Retired

Interest

  • Interests
    Flight Simming

Recent Profile Visitors

481 profile views

hjwalter's Achievements

Community Expert

Community Expert (6/7)

  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare

Recent Badges

25

Reputation

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Hi All, Not a very big deal but with my recently installed Fairchild Warthog, when applying it's brakes on the ground while moving, the nose dips down as should be quite normal but in external view, the nose wheel sinks through the runway/taxiway surface and that's not very realistic to watch in replay mode. Most probably some kind of suspension error in the first "contact point" entry in the plane's aircraft.cfg file. However, when parked and/or when taxiing, all three wheels are correctly on the ground and without issues. Does anyone know how to fix this nose wheel issue ? Thanks in advance and regards. Hans
  9. Chris_eve, Thanks for your reply but .... nope ..... my strange white blotches were not caused by some, as you call it, "demo-ware", which was showing me what happens when the related payment is overdue. After a heck of a lot of "messing around", primarily in your advised directions but without any form of success, I suddenly began to find additional issues, which were in no way related to photo or other forms of scenery, e.g. certain keyboard combinations no longer worked as they had always done. This caused me to almost immediately dig up and re-install an eight year old FS9.cfg backup file and PRESTO, all blotches were suddenly gone !! Not only that but my graphics card suddenly began showing better detailed pictures !! How these automatic FS9.cfg "updates" had taken place in the not too distance past, certainly beats me and the only thing I can now think of is that they had taken place as part of some automatic (scenery) installer, maybe even a graphics card driver update. Anyway, all's well that ends well but automatic installers in whatever form should always remain highly suspicious. Regards Hans
  10. Hi Guys, In some of my "countryside" photo sceneries I see many small white rectangular blotches appearing as I fly towards them and then disappearing again when I get closer or fly over them. Untextured (farm-)buildings maybe ? On closer inspection theey are almost all positioned in rectangular lighter coloured photo-terrain "plots" and when I directly slew down onto any one of them my slew-plane strangely enough (partially) disappears under what looks like a transparant rectangular shape. Could these be in my FS9 not (yet) existing world texture files ? If so, how do I disassemble the related photo BGL file(s) in order to find out which world textures are being called for ? Greatfull for any advice. Regards to all and long live FS9. Hans
  11. Hey Guys, In the above posts there are so many different and complicated opinions raised that it becomes very difficult to make out what the general recomendations should be. So, these are my own general recomendations and which are based on my many years of fantastic FS2004 experiences: 1. I've understood that in this thread we are in fact only talking about textures used by FS2004 (FS9) and which are almost exclusively in the BMP format and not in DDS (= FSX). 2, Textures which are viewed from strongly varying distances, e.g. those used for scenery objects and for AI aircraft, should all be mipped and can be saved in any format depending on user detail preferences and of cause on his/her PC hardware capacities but DXT3 remains the basic norm for all of these. 3. Mipping remains generally necessary in order to prevent PC graphics hardware from constantly having to fully render scenery and AI aircraft textures, which are so far away as to be out of sight anyway. 4. Alpha channels remain necessary but can sometimes become problematic when called for by older SCASM based (BGL) files. 5. Because flyable aircraft are never viewed from greater distances their (normally DXT3 format) textures need not be mipped. Long live FS2004 !! Regards to all. Hans
  12. Hi all, After systematically disaasembling the BGL files of my GCLA airport, I found quite some flattens at different elevations, some of which were even overlapping each other. The original author had most probably run up against the same problems as I did and in the end had just decided to leave it "as is" and as long as the complete (photo) apron remained usuable without "fall throughs". Anyway, after much "messing around" with the BGLs concerned and not finding any definite "fix-all cure" I decided to just mask the problem areas with some of my library file trees, bushes, buildings, etc. so that I could at least keep using this beautifully situated airport for VFR flying around the picturesque CanarySim Islands. The GCLA airport scenery itself is now no longer conform it's original reality but it al least now looks better. but only as long as detailed "scenery inspections" are not made. Long live FS9 and especially because of all it's maintenance and improvement possibilities. Regards Hans
  13. Airbasil_1 Thanks very much for your reaction but after firstly (test-)trying the BGL meant for the La Palma (GCLA) airport and by following the author's instructions, my problem sadly still persists. Trying it in other (default) scenery areas, e.g. in the "World" folder, did not produce any positive results either. At my Heirro airport (GCHI) there were no issues but that was because I was obliged to reduce the complete airport's elevation and it's surrounding coastal area (= a large flatten) to zero feet, quite some time ago. Most probably for the same issues as I now have at La Palma. However, because of the jagged La Palma coastlines, clifs, etc. and the airport's unique position on sloping terrain, this would, in my opinion, spoil the beautiful La Palma scenery far too much. My fight goes on, at least for the time being. Regards Hans
  14. Hi all ye technical FS9 experts, I have the beautiful CanarySim scenery of the Spannish Canary islands but one of them is causing problems which I just cannot seem to get solved. It concernes the La Palma island with my seperately added GCLA airport, which is mainly based on a satellite photo image and is, simply said, projected on the undulating slopes of the La Palma mountain and correctly on top of the default GCLA. The airport itself works as it should in the standard FS9 aeronautical sense but a seemingly unsolvable issue stands out in a very unrealistic way. The basic problem is caused by the underlying sloping and undulating mountain scenery protruding through the photo scenery in some areas and especially in the sloping area l between the airport and the sea. I've been experimenting with flattens in the problem areas because these only effect the underlying mountain scenery and not the photo scenery above it but even allthough such flattens do seem to work correctly they in fact cause worse problems, i.e. that the airport's (photo) apron is no longer "hard" in some areas and also that it can suddenly become transparant in unexpected places, showing the (flattened) mountain scenery below it. On top of that, some previously saved flights now suddenly initiate at the flatten elevation and no longer on the apron. I've also tried creating an apron at the airport's elevation (107 feet) via the Afcad program but that doesn't even show up, let alone that it hardens the (photo) apron or block it's transparancies. Suggestions anyone ? Regards and a happy new year to you all. Hans
  15. Bilif, I assume you are (still) using the correct color black and also that you have given the .bmp texture file concerned an alpha channel, before saving it in the DXT3 format, without mips. Probably needless to say but alpha channels are only actually created when the correct color black has been used. Hans
×
×
  • Create New...