A little rant.  My current working FSX installation uses a copy of FS Global 2010 for mesh, UTX for landclass, and GEX for textures.  When I originally created this installation several years ago, the "airfields on plateaus" problem was so bad for North America, that I ended up just unticking the mesh for this region.  Advertised as some kind of rarity, I found that the issue was in fact quite widespread.  Since that time, the makers of FS Global 2010 came out with something called Airfield Flattening Mesh, and I guess as an owner of this product I am entitled to a free copy.

 

Meanwhile though, I made a new machine, with a new FSX install and I wanted to go the Orbx FTX Global, FTX Vector route (for the future sake of P3D), thinking that Vector would be the answer to the elevation data problem.  Sad to say, not only does the Elevation correction routine in FTX Vector not adequately correct the issue of airports on plateaus caused by FS Global 2010 mesh hardly anywhere, it's vector data overall appears to be so far inferior to what I had in UTX that I am beside myself!  As far as I'm concerned it is 80 dollars down the drain! :angry:  Back to UTX for roads, coastlines, etc.

 

Even so, though, UTX or not, there is still going to be the airport elevation data problem if I use FS Global 2010.  If I get the Airfield Flattening Mesh product from the makers of FS Global 2010 is that going to address the issue of airports on plateaus once and for all, or is it just going to change the nature of the problem by making a wider plateau, like FTX Vector did?

 

Is my only option to just abandon FS Global 2010?

 

Vanilla FSX + FS Global 2010 @ KSEA.  Not such an uncommon problem!

Its not a global issue as such it just simply that a lot of FSX airports are set at the incorrect altitude and FSX forces the mesh to meet up with them giving teh plateau effect. I have not used teh flattening tool, but all it should do is force the airport to the correct altiude, you can deit the airport BGL and do teh same thing. We all have this problem mesh ot no.

In the past I have used SBuilderX to create 'sloped flattens' at a few airports that I used frequently and had severe elevation differences, but that is a time consuming procedure but it does allow you to 'bled' the airport into the surrounding terrain so it is not as 'ugly'.

 

The higher your mesh resolution, the worse this problem appears. At the FSX default of 76 meters (I believe) the issue isn't as pronounced, but who wants to fly with that coarse resolution mesh!

 

  Paul

Its not a global issue as such it just simply that a lot of FSX airports are set at the incorrect altitude and FSX forces the mesh to meet up with them giving teh plateau effect. I have not used teh flattening tool, but all it should do is force the airport to the correct altiude, you can deit the airport BGL and do teh same thing. We all have this problem mesh ot no.

 

The Aerodrome Flattening Mesh actually adjusts the mesh around the airport to the airport's elevation, not the airport itself.

It is quite an annoying downside to FSGlobal...KLAS is the worst that I've seen in the USA.  It's not worth the 10 euros to fix tho.  And, no, the downside is not worth getting rid of FSGS10...not by any means.

When AFM adjusts the Mesh around the airport to match, does it do it in a fashion that provides an aesthetically gentle slope, interpolated, as Gypsy Baron was talking about, or does it do it the same way that FTX Global Vector did it, by splitting the altitude difference between the far and near ends of the runway, and then causing a plateau nonetheless (from what I briefly saw, it was just a lower plateau plus some vertical cliffs on the sides rising above the airfield elevation)?

 

My picture above is KSEA.  Using Pilot's Airfield Flattening Mesh, how would KSEA look, as an example?  Because with Vector's airfield correction methods, it looked "different" but certainly not "better"

When AFM adjusts the Mesh around the airport to match, does it do it in a fashion that provides an aesthetically gentle slope, as Gypsy Baron was talking about, or does it do it the same way that FTX Global Vector did it, by splitting the altitude difference between the far and near ends of the runway, and then causing a plateau nonetheless (from what I briefly saw, it was just a lower plateau)?

 

My picture above is KSEA.  Using Pilot's Airfield Flattening Mesh, how would KSEA look, as an example?  Because with Vector's airfield correction methods, it looked "different" but certainly not "better"

 

Here are comparisons without and with AFM:

 

 

 

It seems that AFM is not causing another slope, but the transition between the normal and the flattening mesh is smooth.

Looks, then, if it does that good a job all the time, like it might be worth getting a copy of their Flattening Mesh product.

Looks, then, if it does that good a job all the time, like it might be worth getting a copy of their Flattening Mesh.

 

Honestly though, I'm pretty sure that with FS Global 2010 FTX Edition and FTX Global Vector you are supposed to be getting correct airport elevations without plateaus. Have you made a support thread at the Orbx forums? Something else might be going on.

No, I haven't made any posts over at Orbx.  I honestly don't think it is a bug, I just think that after experimenting with Vector's altitude correction on and off, that maybe it just isn't doing a great job, certainly not making those gentle transitions.  There might be something else going on, but since it was a very pristine install, I'm not inclined to think so.  I'll have to order a copy of AFM, and then see if it does as good a job as those pictures you posted.  I think it's free for owners of Global 2010.

No, I haven't made any posts over at Orbx.  I honestly don't think it is a bug, I just think that after experimenting with Vector's altitude correction on and off, that maybe it just isn't doing a great job, certainly not making those gentle transitions.  There might be something else going on, but since it was a very pristine install, I'm not inclined to think so.  I'll have to order a copy of AFM, and then see if it does as good a job as those pictures you posted.  I think it's free for owners of Global 2010.

 

I've seen many cases in the Orbx forums where the installations apparently went fine but something else cropped up. I don't think it would hurt making a support thread. Remember that with AFM you're artifically modifying the mesh and the result can be far from reality.

FYI, KSEA IS on a 'plateau' in real life on the approach to the south. A few years ago, I

was tasked with creating a radar altimeter test set for Boeing so they could test their

software solutions to a issue that occured at KSEA and other airports that are on a plateau.

 

The problem was on the aircraft equiped with multiple radar altimeters like the 757 and

747 plus others, in autoland the altimeters report tom the central computer and if t

here is a large discrepancy betwen those readings the computer kicks the system out

of autoland.

 

This occurred at KSEA because the approach lights are up on a raised structure, at

runway altitude, leading to the runway(s). The center radar altimeter would 'see' that

structure and report the runway altitude, The other 2 altimeters  whose antennas were

outboard of that center altimeter antenna, would see the ground well below the runway

altitude and this would cause the FMC to leave the autoland mode at the most

inopportune time.

 

So, KSEA is not a good choice for displaying the plateau effect as there is a

real one there

 

 

BTW, my test set design worked fine, with the ability to pre-program approach profiles

that would present three radar altimeter signals back to the three antennas on the aircraft.

Each signal was independant of the others so the KSEA-type situation could be simulated

on real aircraft without the need for a test flight.

 

  Paul