Yes, I am really curious why Orbx doesn't want to take care of this...!

 

Well I have a few ideas, it's around marketing region products and or future products from Orbx ... otherwise why get a regional product if the Global one does it all well.

 

 

I think you made the changes inside the Terrain.cfg, and did not resize the bitmaps, right?

 

Correct, didn't touch the .bmp files.  However, I think the correct way to do this would be to add some Alpha to those files for better blending ... there are actually fewer file variants than Terrain.cfg entries. 

 

 

Just set my friend up with a 50% reduction. He loves it...

 

Looks great Mike, have you tested in summer, spring, fall?  You might find some variance, the snow tend to cover up issues.

Hi,

 

I thought a good quality mesh would get rid of the elevation problems, Since someone posted Aspen, I thought I'd try there first... I guess not.

 

Installed: FS Global Ultimate The Americas, FS Global Base, FS Global Vector

 

 

So even mesh from PILOT'S has issues with airport elevation?

 

-_-

All mesh products have airport elevation issues. You can blame ACES team for coding airport elevations at the wrong altitudes.

All mesh products have airport elevation issues. You can blame ACES team for coding airport elevations at the wrong altitudes.

 

But the above shot show airport elevation issues with FTX Global Vector, which supposedly corrects them. This means that PILOT'S mesh isn't as accurate as they claim (they keep saying that only with PILOT'S mesh you won't get airport elevation issues when they are corrected to real-life values).

Bernd P. from Pilots, already revealed that the airport elevation fixes will be released in Vector version 1.10. Only a handful made it while most did not make it on the initial release. And the pilots mesh, especially the Ultimate version is accurate, while the MS default elevations will always be incorrect. Usually the better quality the mesh, the more the plateaus are evident.

 

But the above shot show airport elevation issues with FTX Global Vector, which supposedly corrects them. This means that PILOT'S mesh isn't as accurate as they claim (they keep saying that only with PILOT'S mesh you won't get airport elevation issues when they are corrected to real-life values).

 

In real life the airport elevation is 7837 feet at runway 33 and 7680 feet at runway 15 a difference of 157 feet ..... and I don't think we can have sloping runways in the sim?

 

FSX and P3D have the elevation fixed at 7824 feet at both ends and this is my result without PILOTS mesh and without FTX VECTOR. It appears all I lose is one small road to the left of the field of vision and everything else appears ok.

 

All mesh products have airport elevation issues. You can blame ACES team for coding airport elevations at the wrong altitudes.

 

Aces used data from Jeppesen for airports, as far as I understand it. The reported elevation (AFAIK) is the highest spot within the airport boundary. For smaller airports, it's Gomer's best guesstimate. Large airports have generally a smaller variance from end to end (if any) than do GA remote strips in the Rocky Mountains. When you work with mesh and see that XYZ airfield and it's 3,800 foot runway has a difference of 80 feet between the two runway end's elevation ask yourself how that is suppose to be rectified within FSX's/P3D's/FS9's flat airport construct.

 

Maybe there will be a day when non-flat runways can be a reality, in fact I believe it could be done today and fit within FSX or P3D, but it's not a trivial task and to accommodate AI traffic would be a major undertaking. Until then, airports and elevation and higher es mesh will present a challenge.

 

As far as ALL products having issues? Please enjoy the Hawai'i mesh I uploaded to the Library today! :dance:

Maybe there will be a day when non-flat runways can be a reality, in fact I believe it could be done today and fit within FSX or P3D, but it's not a trivial task and to accommodate AI traffic would be a major undertaking. Until then, airports and elevation and higher es mesh will present a challenge.

Sloping runways were discussed during the programming for FSX. It was possible. X-Plane has them. But then X-Plane shows why many sloping runways can be a disaster. We really need a lot more elevation data points....otherwise, there is much more slope than in real life, or some runways that are near impossible to takeoff with. To do it right, a lot of airports would have to be created by hand.

Those jagged roads look horrible and don't fit in at all.

Ill stick with regular FTXG for now.

 

 

Yes, I am really curious why Orbx doesn't want to take care of this...!

 

This would probably set a precedent IMO.

 

Sascha

Here is a video I made for Orbx openLC area ... or at least what I understand to be a sample of how openLC will work.  Also includes adjustments I made to road and motorway skirting sizes.

 

Please ignore the title error - it's not two summers, first 1/2 of video is winter, the second 1/2 of the video is summer (same location) ... it's available in 1440p HD (again highly compressed video so take that into account).  FPS was between 20-30 while recording at 2560 x 1600 -- recording is fraps at 30 fps (so there is no frame rate match fluidity) ... think I'll try a different lightning effect (REX 4 set is a little to defined for my taste).

 

Don't know if this is a REX 4 bug, but when I changed seasons, the runway remained as a winter runway (when taking off, landing it was back to summer) with snow/ice on it.

 

Also noticed that at some parts my system was having a hard time keeping the hi-res textures loading ... only seems to be an issue with the openLC area as other locations are fine.

 

And yes I bounced both landings, doooh!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_ze9wCZNY

 

Happy New Year all.  Lets hope for a great 2014 in flight simulation.

 

Cheers, Rob

Updated the video titles (deleted old one):

 

 

Rob

I have found that other than the "water - black polygon issue" (which seems to be a very rare occurrence), FTX Global vector works fine with P3d2. FTXG Vector doesn't lower frame rates much, if at all. My disclaimer is that I also use FS Global 2010 mesh, so that may be the reason that Vector works as it should.

 

The only add-on that I am till waiting for is ASN for P3d2 (not holding my breath for FTX OpenLC). The FSGRW update may beat ASN out the door and in the mean time OPUSFSX works nicely with P3d2.

 

I am generally running:

 

A2A Cessna 172 Trainer

MyTrafficX 5.4c (AI Traffic)

REX 4 Texture Direct (cloud, sky and water textures)

FS Global 2010 -FTX edition (mesh)

FTX Global (land textures)

FTX Global Vector (rivers, shorelines, waterbodies, etc.)

OPUSFSX (real time weather)

 

Honestly, the GA flight sim experience is so improved by this combination of add-ons, that I can't imagine anything else competing with it for realism.

 

I agree with you. My system contains at the moment:

- A2A Cessna 172 Trainer (GA aircraft)
- REX 4 Texture Direct (cloud, sky and water textures)
- FS Global 2010 (mesh)
- FTX Global (land textures)

This is a wonderful combination. B)

I am waiting for Active Sky Next. I am interested in MyTrafficX 5.4c (AI Traffic). How did you install this addon?

 

 

 

OPUSFSX (real time weather)

 

I have posted questions about Opus in their forum (on AVSIM) here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/431039-opus-34-and-p3dv2-questions/, but would love to hear your feedback on it.  Very interested in the Live View and what that is about.

 

Thanks, Rob.