I know that its virtually impossible to make the airports all really beautiful and highly accurate. Right now its defintiely far from optimum. I still expect that we wont have stuff like Fly tampa but I am hoping beyond hope that we fix the strange giant hangars with weird textures and the lone three or four story terminals at most smaller fields. With FS9 we got those very nice row hangars which you see at most airports. I think adding some generic FBO type buildings and hangars instead of the square boxes found at fields now would go a Loooong way to improving realism. I would think you only really need a few types of random airport buildings and hangar types along with some convincing terminal sections to make things far better than they are now. Just a thought and I'm curious what others think. I really think it kills the realism when you drop into a small field and see a rotating beacon and a four story 200 foot square box or two with no windows for a hangar!Hornit

I agree Jim. I have found that AEU7 textures make a huge difference from the default ones and actually make these random boxes look more like a building, LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

I use Aeu7 too, albeit resized! I still think too many airports, particularly the smaller regional ones which just look weird due to those "boxes" Doesn't mater how nice you texture them they are still totally wrong for that airport "atmosphere.Hornit

They could have 3-6 different sets of generic building depending on the size of the airport. The size of the airport could be derived from the number/length of runways.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

There will be some improvements but due to the fact that we need to produce 24,000 airports not all will look like custom scenery.

Exactly! This is what Im talking about...Following is a small airport in Western Massachusets that I am familair with. The default pic is obvious. I spent a bit of time with ScenegenX and excluded the "boxes" and added some simple hangars which appear far more realistic. I am using AEU 7 but its tweaked as i didnt like some of the new textures, that plus it's resized for no stutters. I think this is possible utilizing some really simple objects, with small textures. There doesn't need to be more than a few types of hangar, a few types of FBO type building and a storage type building and some T hangars. For larger airports, all you need are some more realistic looking Concourse buildings, not four stories stacked, and some larger hangars and cargo looking facilities. All could be basic MS type buildings but the hangars, FBO's and terminals should be a bit more real looking than what we have now. Personally I think it would go a very long way to enhancing this sim. The airport and its surroundings are where we spend a lot of our time, why not put some emphassis on that?I'd be interested to hear what the MS guys think! :)Here's some shots, excluded the default and replace with what are more "real" looking API's.Hornithttp://x-plane.org/home/hornit/kgbr.jpghttp://x-plane.org/home/hornit/kgbr1.jpg

Im really not talking about custom, I know thats not practical, Im just thinking of improving the type of building you place, lose the boxes and crap textures is all. Not even really worried about textures to tell you the truth. The shining example I can think is that we got those fabulous long hangars found at some of the regional fields, that was EXACTLY what I'm talking about!!!Hornit

In this shot you can see that fabulous hangar we got in FS9 unfortunately we also still have this abomination you would call an FBO/terminal by the tower! ACK!!!! By the way, the towers in FS9 are also a welcome and nice addition. I think they should all have a small one or two story attached building though, most have that. I find it hard to believe that there is no way to replace that with something better and do it easily and fairly simply. If thats not the case then I guess that's cool. This is one of my largest pet peeves with this sim along with the visibility and overcast issues. If there isn't any way to do what Im asking then at least stop the sim from making those buildings more than two stories high, even THAT would be huge!!!Hornithttp://x-plane.org/home/hornit/good.JPGhttp://x-plane.org/home/hornit/bad.JPG

I would offer to do the textures for FREE for the additional models.

> Im really not talking about custom, I know thats not>practical, Im just thinking of improving the type of building>you place, lose the boxes and crap textures is all. Not even>really worried about textures to tell you the truth.Cool. I'll tell the art team you don't mind their crap. ;)> The shining example I can think is that we got those fabulous>long hangars found at some of the regional fields, that was>EXACTLY what I'm talking about!!!Yeah, I like them too, but if I told you how difficult it was to get those hangars to work right you might understand our relunctance to tackle any buildings that any more complicated.

This is a concept that is near and dear to my heart. It took me a couple of days to document the calls necessary to access the Small/Medium/LargeAirpot.bmp textures for use with SceneGenX (XML code), and even then, I still don't quite get how they work. (In fact, I even got Tom Hiscox to officially support these undocumented texture numbers, he's a great guy and supports SGX really well). Somehow the textures change their starting point along the length of the texture, it seems, based on building dimension, but I can't figure out the pattern or how to get it to do what I want. For instance, sometimes the large hangar textures will put doors on 1 or opposing sides, and sometimes doors end up on adjoining sides of a building. Any hints on how this works?Any thoughts of changing how these textures work somehow so you end up with a door on only 1 or opposing sides of a building.Also, any chance you could get FS to look in the local texture directory first for these three textures so you could mix it up a little bit airport by airport?Thanks,ThomasP.S. I still haven't taken the time to figure out how to texture buildings with GMax. Should I attempt that? (which would solve my problem, really), or is GMax going away?[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Please dont construe that wording to mean I don't appreciate what you guys have done with FS9. The textures aren't crap, it's the way the buildings display them. If you guys solved the problem with those hangars then how is it any different to do it with a few more hangar types? I'm really interested in why it's so hard. I'm thinking that If you could solve the problem for that then it's a simple aplication of that solution for just a few other type buildings. If that's not possible, then could you do something about the multi-story problem? I think thats a pretty easy one also no? I'm an airline pilot and most places don't have buildings much bigger than two stories for the terminal. At least the majority of places. The larger hubs obviously are bigger buildings but for almost everything else it would seem that this could be fixed. Most of the two story terminals I see now in FS are fine and look really nice with the add-on textures. Since most regional and smaller fields aren't really accurate when it comes to building placement anyway, why not have better looking buildings? It doesn't have to be right, having it LOOK right makes it more convincing I guess. What Im saying is I would rather see a decent texture on a two story terminal than something with a repeating nightmare thats four stories high, just because some data somewhere says it's that big. Not sure If I'm making myself clear, but I think it's an area that you get a lot of bang for your buck. Maybe a little work, but a very big jump in satisfaction and realism. Appreciate you guys in here and listening!Hornit

I am being totally serious when I say I would help for free. I'd like to see it very much. I'm betting enough folks agree with me that I could get some object designers and GMAX whizzes to help make the stuff. I don't know GMAX but I have done a good bit of scenery and don't mind learning a thing or two or pounding my head against the wall to get something done! :)Hornit

> I am being totally serious when I say I would help for free.>I'd like to see it very much. I'm betting enough folks agree>with me that I could get some object designers and GMAX>whizzes to help make the stuff. I don't know GMAX but I have>done a good bit of scenery and don't mind learning a thing or>two or pounding my head against the wall to get something>done! :)>>HornitI'd bet that if you weren't an employee, you'd have a hard time convincing MS/ACES to use your work for "free" - too many legal implications with that.However, you can lead by example and show off some possible stylings on some fictitious airports and then show screenshots.

"However, you can lead by example and show off some possible stylings on some fictitious airports and then show screenshots"Well, I just did as above. That IS fictitious, All I did was replace the MS placed structures. I think it would take someone who can program things in the sim or a real scenery guru, which Im not."I'd bet that if you weren't an employee, you'd have a hard time convincing MS/ACES to use your work for "free" - too many legal implications with that."Actually you just sign an NDA and then a legal agreement that we wont be getting compensated, pretty simple If you ask me. All I would want is a mention in the credits. If you have Freeflow Bermuda, I did the airport for that. Its not fly tampa, but I'm not looking for that. I know enough people who might just be able to make it work though. As all these threads are, they are just suggestions, hopefully MS uses a few of them.Hornit