FSX Annotator Request

[Guest koorby]

Can I request that the FSX version of annotator allow for the manual placement of the following (static) autogen objects:- Street light poles with shining lights- Vehicles- Simple low-poly human figuresThese would be specific library calls from a pulldown, not generic random library calls as per the FS9 version. i.e. select 'Red Truck' or 'Corvette' or 'Postman' etc. Those three static items alone would basically revolutionize how ground scenery looks, and I am thinking it would not take a huge recoding of annotator.exe to achieve. A compromise would be random calls to those 3 specific objects.Dynamic objects? Well that's a whole other story ;)

[Guest]

Personally I hope there are no static vehicles and humans. Its another annoyance..

[1mikel151 71]

>Personally I hope there are no static vehicles and humans.>Its another annoyance..LOL, turn your slider down and they are gone!Good call koorby, would love to see this as well, people are badly needed, especially dynamic ones.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[Guest koorby]

>Personally I hope there are no static vehicles and humans.>Its another annoyance..Read my post again; I am referring to custom autogen placement, not default out-of-the-box scenery.Some of the posts here are a source of great amusement :)

[Guest]

Call it what you want Koorby but static vehicles and humans are still an annoyance ;)

[1mikel151 71]

>Call it what you want Koorby but static vehicles and humans>are still an annoyance ;)I find vehicles, static or not important for the immersion. Do they not have cars were you fly or does everyone have a big garage :-rollRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[Guest koorby]

You know what I find a f*#$&* annoyance? Almost every post on AVSIM is hijacked by some naysayer who deems it neccesary to say something contrary to the topic at hand.For pete's sake, why would you find vehicles and traffic an annoyance? I mean, get real mate, either you want realism or you are using FS for something else entirely? Did you post that comment just so you could make a smarmy remark? Did it add value to this thread which was directed at the devs? Do you think they want to read your comment? Why don't people THINK before they post? It's almost as if there is a post-count contest on in this place.... sheesh!I think I feel an AVSIM vacation coming on real soon now .....

[FlyingsCool 3]

For you.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

[FlyingsCool 3]

Yes, I have a growing list of people who's posts I will not read.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

[Guest pixelpoke_from_MSFT]

>Can I request that the FSX version of annotator allow for the>manual placement of the following (static) autogen objects:>>- Street light poles with shining lights>- Vehicles>- Simple low-poly human figures>>These would be specific library calls from a pulldown, not>generic random library calls as per the FS9 version. i.e.>select 'Red Truck' or 'Corvette' or 'Postman' etc. Those three>static items alone would basically revolutionize how ground>scenery looks, and I am thinking it would not take a huge>recoding of annotator.exe to achieve. A compromise would be>random calls to those 3 specific objects.>>Dynamic objects? Well that's a whole other story ;)Koorby,You can do this already in FS 2004. :)From the Autogen SDK doc:"By default, there are six different classes of library object: Urban Small, Urban Medium, Urban Large, Water Objects, Rural Medium, and Rural Large. At runtime, Autogen chooses which library object associated with that class for that region to display. You can edit default.xml to create new classes of objects and to redefine the objects associated with each class. "Of course, you've got to make the models...Cheers,Jason

[Guest]

> For pete's sake, why would you find vehicles and traffic an annoyance? I mean, > get real mate, either you want realism or you are using FS for something else entirely?I'm assuming this is aimed at me. The key word is static. Not everyone is a fan of these including myself (especially the 2d variety). IMO they help kill the realism and when I see them I will search for the offending bgl files to delete. To me any kind of static vehicle or person is an annoyance.

[Guest christian]

I was just about to post that I think that you can do it already in FS2004 (but wasn't 100% sure). Jason bet me to it and luckily confirmed it (thanks).If you have a close look at the default autogen, you can see barns, watertowers, churches, etc all placed with autogen, but using gmax models. I think the way to do this is to first create a library object in gmax and then do what Jason said.Christian

[Guest koorby]

>Koorby,>>You can do this already in FS 2004. :)>>From the Autogen SDK doc:>>"By default, there are six different classes of library>object: Urban Small, Urban Medium, Urban Large, Water>Objects, Rural Medium, and Rural Large. At runtime, Autogen>chooses which library object associated with that class for>that region to display. >>You can edit default.xml to create new classes of objects and>to redefine the objects associated with each class. ">>Of course, you've got to make the models...>>Cheers,>>JasonThanks Jason, that what I suspected the answer would be :) You see, I'm not a gmax modeller and had hoped the 3D vehicles shown in the FSX shots would be callable? I guess if they part of the library we can play with the XML.

[Guest Bell206freak]

Take my my Mount St. Helens Scenery Package for instance.. Are you saying that the cars that simulate full visitor center parking lots are an annoyance?To me.. anything static or moving enhances the immersion.

[n4gix 4,947]

>IMO they help kill the realism and when I see them I>will search for the offending bgl files to delete. To me any>kind of static vehicle or person is an annoyance.So, completely empty parking lots at airports and shopping malls are somehow "more realistic" than ones that show some "life?" :-roll I suspect you're simply saying "stuff" simply for the sake of "saying stuff..." IOW, a verbose vendor of vacuuous verbiage... :-lol