has anyone but me noticed that the default buildings in fs are scaled much too big? at least 1.5x their actual height? think this is done for effect? the height of manhattan is way off. - i know this because i am an architect in ny and have worked w/scale drawings of it., fs is too big.also, if you turn off autogen scenery, does it only turn off the random bldgs that are placed by fs, or does it turn off all buildings and airport effects, i would rather fly with only the actual buildings so the aerial photos would show. its nice to land somewhere that you know and not have the real streets obscured by weird little buildings.

That's interesting, although I have not noticed it myself - about the scales of buildings that is. I hope MS is reading.RH

Yes, I've noticed this too. Thought at first it was just the trees that were out of scale, but after putting in the 40% smaller trees from FSNordic.net I realised it wasn't just the trees. I think it may be a conscious choice to do with resolution at a per-pixel level, as the smaller finntrees do tend to become `sticklike` rather than shaped textures at quite close range, so I suspect the buildings would also lose resolution. It's less noticeable when you zoom the cockpit view out to 0.75 or 0.68xBe an interesting experiment though - resizing the trees AND the buildings?Allcott

There has just been released as freeware in the libs here a meter rule that can be slewed into position against aircraft, etc., to perform on screen measurements. That might help determine scale as the perspective can now be taken into account.Autogen scenery is additional items placed by landclass. If you turn it off it should not affect actual scenery elements designed into airports such as jetways, etc., controled by the scenery detail slider. What will go away are the landclass specified objects such as the elements of villages and forests not designed in as actual scenery files.I have just started using Megascenery - New York (distributed by PC Aviator and developed by Aerosoft Australia). They recommend turning down autogen objects in their Northeastern scenery area. I have not determined the scale height of objects placed with that program based on sat photo elements. I'll have to check if any elements are actually 3D or just textures for overflying. Their technique was published in Computer Pilot a couple of months ago.I'll try to run a test flight in Manhattan without autogen on in a few days. Why don't you post the height of the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty as a reference and I'll install the meter stick aircraft.

I think that you are correct. I believe that it manifests itself in a couple of ways around airports too.1. Have you ever noticed those GIANT jetways at KORD, KATL, etc?2. Some terminals take up so much real estate that some taxiways are too narrow (KLAX and KSFO are good examples).R-

Hi pwal.Another example would be stadiums. In the default Chicago scenery, Wrigley Field is not only misplaced, but also around 50% too large. I think this is common throughout the default scenery, and has been common for many versions.It's hard to believe that the buildings and trees sizes were misrepresented accidentally. Maybe the design team didn't like the smallish effect of "real-sized" objects. There's nothing about Gmax, or BGLC ( the object language ) that would require objects to be too large... they are fairly accurate in dimensions. I suppose teeny-tiny trees are not as visually impressive as huge trees. ( Or maybe this is just a "guy" thing ;-) ).Dick

As I recall scenery items must be specified in meters. In FS2K2 I used Schiratti Control Center to place and scale an item. The first try I had a bus the size of three hangars. I divided by three and OK.I guess we are not seeing that huge of an error here but one never knows.

the empire state building is 1,250' tall (to the base of the radio antenna)i've also noticed wrigley field, its too far north, and too big.-interesting about the perspective ronzie.the issue of perspective could potentially account for some of this. The human eye sees close to a camera with a lens length of 50mm, theres nothing requiring computer programs to abide by this though, if the perspective is a bit stretched it could leave the impressionv that things are too big.or maybe they draw everything in meters, rather than yards, which would account for a 110% size increase.however, i bet ms just does it for "effect" purposes.

HiCould you fix this by editing the terrain.cfg,there is a size entry for each of the autogen objects???//Telephone Lines[Autogen.13.0.0]AutoObject="0ab068666h,0486bd8e8h,04c16d690h,088765545h"ObjectSize=1000 <-----------?ExclusionWidth=3ClipData=1Offset=20Density=70PlaceOnWater=0MinAutogenDensity=0MaV

Good catch on the autogen objects.

You can find some interesting info here:http://www.scenery.org/

Actually, the increase on the size of buildings and Trees have a purpose, we have to remember that this is just a representation of a 3d world, I made the test designing a known landmark in GMAx at original size, it looks too small if I zoom out aprox 65-70% wich, for me it is the best zoom to fly from the VC ( gives the best sense of speed during TO and Landing).At 3000 ft the landmark almost can not be seen, which is not true in real life. The best ratio for the landmark was 1.5:1. At the airports, the size of the closest objects to the AC (Gates) have to be close to 1:1. but the buildings and Control tower is 1.2:1.It seems that when an object is going to be seen far away from the viewer the size of the object has to be altered in order to compensate for the lack of perspective feedback in the computer screen.There is no need to model in Meters, you can draw in any scale you want and then make an easy conversion to meters for the whole object.

Until we have computers capable of display 12800 X 10240 they will have to use perspective "tricks"...