>>That's interesting, because what I see on this image is a>>thinly disguised default taxiway and apron, with a>>phototexture underlayer for good measure. It might look>>high-res from this height, but trust me, on ground level, a>>single layer 0.5 m/pixel image is nothing to write home>>about...>>>>That said, we (the scenery designers) aren't staying idle>>either. FSX proves to be a though nut to crack, but we're>all>>hammering at it.>>"...thinly disguised default taxiway and apron," >>Interesting indeed, since there isn't a lick of default>scenery or phototexture underlayer in that image. Cloud 9 is>every bit as "professional" as anyone else in the business.>>>Hello Bill,I was about to write that you surely haven't read what I wrote carefully, but I just realized you've quoted me twice. So here goes...Just to reassure yourself, get on the ground at that airport (if you don't please don't bother replying to this post), look at the tarmac and taxiway textures, look at the boundary of said textures with the grass (which is made of a single layer image, I didn't say default). There's a "dirt and grime" layer under that tarmac, but the main tarmac/taxiway textures are default. No problem with that.. just a fact.Sorry Bill, I have a lot of respect for your work and immense contribution here, but I fear you might be a bit out of your league as far as the technicalities and limitations of the FSX graphics engine for displaying scenery ground objects. I highly doubt you've been spending the last 6 months actively working on resolving these very issues for fsx sceneries. I have... It's my livelihood.Now as for your last sentence... I think it's great that Cloud9 is making FSX sdk compliant sceneries. They are making perfectly valid products, and nowhere have I implied that they aren't professionnal. They have chosen to go with the sdk, do as best as possible with the ground and move on. Great for them!Best,St

>Sorry Bill, I have a lot of respect for your work and immense>contribution here, but I fear you might be a bit out of your>league as far as the technicalities and limitations of the FSX>graphics engine for displaying scenery ground objects. I>highly doubt you've been spending the last 6 months actively>working on resolving these very issues for fsx sceneries. I>have... It's my livelihood.OK, that's a fair enough statement. I am indeed not well-versed in scenery design, although I do make it a habit to read what's posted in the ACES developer's newsgroup(s), the beta newsgroup(s), and the forums at http://fsdevelopers.com... ;)As far as what was used in the Bergen-Flesland scenery, I have only what Umberto and Alessandro themselves have written to go on, which states clearly that all the default scenery is overridden by their package.However, my main point is - that just as I've had to do with my own development work in a/c modeling and gauge programming - scenery developers will likewise have to inevitably embrace and accept the new "paradigm" and go on to develop new tricks, or remain stuck as a "one trick pony..." :-beerchug Like yourself, my work in modeling and programming is my only source of income, so of course my major attention has been in those areas for the most part. My only regret at this juncture is that I "wasted" nearly six months trying to adapt my "tried-and-true bag of tricks" to the new paradigm. Having gotten past that however, I'm beginning to LIKE the new methods I've been able to work out... :-bigangel In any case though, I mean absolutely no disrespect for anyone by my comments and observations. I have the utmost respect for all developers's efforts whether payware or freeware!

Hey,I don't want add much to the rant, there are Demos of these sceneries.But as far as "new tricks" go, I can't stay quite on that one. Both MCO as well as Bergen contain the grass rendering technique introduced in Vauchez's own PDX scenery. Of course this type of technique and textures isn't patented and copying/imitating "the best" is part how designers improve, but when I hear "new tricks" without proper credit given (= Vauchez) I reach my boiling point.And again about airport ground design methods. There is a certain way how this should be done which is in 3DSMax (or other 3d Prog) and with layers or multitextures. This isn't MSFS related or antique or 1 of many methods, this THE method how it should be done. Even the Aces folks agree on that, they just couldn't implement it in FSX ("yet" I hope).martinflytampa

Just to add for the record.Bill: I am aware you mentioned "tricks" in a general way, you just pressed my nuke-button mentioning it together with that screenshot.I can fully understand your (and many others' people) view that some scenery designers appear stuck because they cannot apply their old magic anymore and need to learn something new.Let me assure you, this FSX ground stuff is not comparable to: Before I programmed in VB and now I am "######" because I have to do it in C++ which I don't know and have to learn.Not the case. This high detail / high resolution custom ground stuff is completely missing in the new SDK. I hope Aces can integrate some method in future that will allow us to achieve the same or better results people got used to in FS9 addon airports.martin

>Not the case. This high detail / high resolution custom ground>stuff is completely missing in the new SDK. I hope Aces can>integrate some method in future that will allow us to achieve>the same or better results people got used to in FS9 addon>airports.Martin, I see that issue as no different than the one where ACES has removed the possibility of using emissive textures for VC gauge backlighting. It has taken me many months of fulltime effort to perfect a completely new method using what is available. It's significantly more work - nearly 2.5 times as much! - but the end result is actually better than the previous method.Likewise with quite a number of other things that no longer work as expected. Some functionality has been lost, but a lot more "new stuff" has been added, and simply awaits full exploitation.The net result of all these changes though means that true FSX compliant a/c models are not transportable back to FS9. This means parallel development of the same product to serve both markets.And yes, I meant the term "trick" in the general sense; as in "advanced appliction of knowledge resulting in superior results."

Bill,The thing with the ground detail is that the task is rather simple.All you need is that a custom shape/polygon lays on the ground showing your custom UV mapped texture. Because this is such a basic thing, there are not that many different ways to achieve it. You can turn off the light using the switch or a hammer, but there is no point in going to university to figure out a new method to get the lights out.VC and Gauge programming is way more complex then scenery design and this extra complexity also accounts for creative solutions. The task how to put a custom texture on a ground-polygon isn't something we can be very creative about. It either works or it doesn't.To our knowledge this custom texture on a custom shape ground-polygon simply cannot be done with the FSX SDK at this point.1. ShapeData and Resample aren't UV-able and limited in texture resolution.2. XML airport data is generic, not UV-able and no custom textures.3. 3DSMAX FSX-SDK doesn't feature a ground-polygon method.Nothing else available and mixing 1,2,3 to a workable solution isn't possible.IMO this super-simple task is also not something developers should have to sweat months to figure out - perhaps some hidden checkbox or source code code-hack. It should be documented somewhere. If developer A figured out a hack good for them, thanks for sharing the method on FS-Developer (Not).