Sign in to follow this  
Geofa

'Sand' textures really starting to annoy me now.......

Recommended Posts

Ok,So we all know about the terrible 'sand' and 'desert' textures that plague FSX in the fall and early winter seasons, but I am finding that getting rid of all of it is next to impossible.I'm running FSX SP2 with UTX USA and Canada and the FSG US Landclass. I don't have a landclass product for Canada as I find the UTX urban landclass to be sufficient. (I have seen the cloud 9 Xclass for Canada and it is not very accurate at all so I passedI then came across Adam Mills textures for USA and Europe. I installed them and I am pleased with the results, however the sand textures still exist in the airport backgrounds which now look horrid and the UTX road encasement textures (of course) still match the old 'sand texture', which looks really stupid. I think I am going to give up and just fly in the summer months, but 'real' weather at -20 in the winter is going to look pretty silly with summer textures on the ground. I just cannot stand those sand textures around the airports and roads any longer though!!How did these textures ever get passed as being acceptable for the conditions that they are portraying? Even FS9 looks better in fall and winter than FSX.Does anybody have a difinitive answer to get rid of the airport 'sand' backgrounds? I will head over to the UTX forum for help with the road encasements.Thanks,Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi,I agree! Those "sand" textures are hideous. At first, I thought my video card was at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it really kills the overall experience. Hopefully the upcoming GEX product will resolve some of the issues...RegardsJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have hopes for GEX, but after using Adam Mills' textures I don't think GEX will change the airport background polygon texture. Hopefully I am wrong......Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum it up: this sucks. Not even the valiant defenders of FSX could mitigate this one. I hate the desert airports, I just plain hate them, and I shouldn't have to wait for a 3rd party payware add-on to fix them, either. I was actually starting to get more into FSX with Sp2 and the f/a-18, then winter came and I was reminded how awful this game looks sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads like this remind me how glad I am that I never installed this POS. Talk about messed up. If someone doesn't fix all these problems (e.g., GEX) and FSX continues to run poorly, I may skip it altogether. :-erks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geof,I fully understand why.....What I don't understand is how these textures were passed as being acceptable in any circumstances.It now appears that a landclass product or a texture replacement product will not fully cure this issue and we will be left with odd looking 'sand' airports to fly into. I would like to know if this can be fixed or not.I had every intention of buying UTX, GEX, FEX etc. but for those that are happy to leave FSX as a stock installation the fall and winter textures and airport polygons suck big time (and they may do even WITH the texture replacement products!)FSX is rapidly becoming too much like hard work.........Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you read that post you will see that the data is more detailed for many areas-and less detailed for others.For instance-in Se Michigan where I live the area is dotted with hundreds of lakes. Fs9 misses about 50% of them-and the ones it has are not accurate in landshores or shapes. The default fsx has them all-and they are quite accurate. (The lake I live on is in default fsx and is very accurate-in fs9 not even there-just farmland where a lake should be).So the decision right or wrong must have been made that rather than having a mediocre coverage for the whole world, that there would be a much more detailed data for some of it-at the expense of leaving out others where perhaps the data is not as good.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot agree more!!I don't know...maybe they passed because it was a smaller file size???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making excuses. I don't like the deserts either.However, I am stating what my understanding is why the decision was made to do it this way.It certainly doesn't look like garbage in Michigan-but perhaps you are not aware of the differences between the stock fs9 and fsx for areas where the coverage is good.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in the far past (relative) someone from Microsoft explained that the landclass texture they either purchased, or made, had this flaw. However, it would be terribly expensive and/or time consuming to correct it.Indeed it is a major error in terms of quality control. Since I see no help on the horizon I installed Adam Mills textures and modified them a bit (texture BMP) to meet my taste. A few splotches of desert remain but it is becoming reasonable now. The airports use "grass skirting" textures. Same as all of the other stuff and in the World folder. There is an Excel file that Holger produced that shows the file name in the World folder for the texture BMPs. A part with the airfield is shown below. The first colored number is Northern Europe and the second is North America. Other number follow for the remainder of the world. Look in world/texture for BMP files beginning with the blue numbers. You need the entire Excel file for other areas and textures.I use Martin Wright's DXTBMP to convert the special FSX format to a plain BMP. Then with GIMP (free)) I "paint" change the coloring of the textures. The winter textures have "wi" in their file name which, for most, means you change 7 BMPs since there 7 variations in design to eliminate repetitive displays when at altitude.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yokehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180051.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>To sum it up: this sucks. Not even the valiant defenders of>FSX could mitigate this one. I hate the desert airports, I>just plain hate them, and I shouldn't have to wait for a 3rd>party payware add-on to fix them, either. I was actually>starting to get more into FSX with Sp2 and the f/a-18, then>winter came and I was reminded how awful this game looks>sometimes. While I'd agree that sand textures are not perfection, I certainly won't use a "blanket" statement regarding "winter textures". Much of the mountainous/cityscape textures in the mountain west look a lot better in stock FSX than FS9, looking over snow covered mountain landscapes. I just looked through my collection of screenshots from last year, for both FSX & FS9, and those FSX shots are quite impressive; just as I had remembered. In fact, FS9 looked rather dismal in comparison.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geof,I'm not debating the increased accuracy of terrain and water features in FSX stock.The features you are saying improved in FSX over FS9 has no relevance to this topic.I'm talking about landclass and textures, not terrain and water feature accuracy.I'm all for the new and improved landclass variations and types as it means more choice down the line with improved landclass and texture products, but as it stands right now even after changing the textures to the set created by Adam Mills and using FSGenesis landclass we still have to put up with airport polygons being textured with this god awful sand colour.It seems the only way to change this (as detailed in a post here) is to manually edit each airport background by hand.Joy of joys more endless tweaking....Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your initial question was "How did these textures ever get passed as being acceptable for the conditions that they are portraying". I assume since others piped in with the "desert" mantra that this complaint went beyond just airports.I think Holgar answered this in any case which is why I posted his link.As for airports-I think they are one of the most unrealistic things in Fs worlds-every version up to now. Real runways don't appear as obviously in the real world as they do in fs-and yes they don't have a generic polygon of either green or sand or any color around them. Either do roads which is why I don't find the encasement texture by utx terribly realistic either.I think the real answer for this in the future this is tileproxy driven scenery where actual real roads and real runways are displayed along with their real slope, colors, and surrounding real world landlclass. The present way of displaying airports is terribly limited, an can't ever be very realistic-except as you mention-by doing each one individually by hand-not very practical for a whole world.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to areas other than airports as well, which with Adam Mills textures do look somewhat better. That does leave the airport polygons as discussed.The sand texture as a whole should never have been allowed to exist in the finsished product regardless of any excuses offered.Your reference to improved terrain and water features (vector) in FSX still has no bearing on the texture set that is used to display seasonal variations. The bottom line is that the texture used to represent the area determined by the landclass is just WAY off.Just because stock FSX improves the accuracy of terrain and water features over FS9 (which is a moot point anyway if you use UT in either FS9 or FSX) it doesn't mean we should regress to global warming conditions being prevalent in large areas of the world when it comes to the textures that are used to portray the seasonal variations.I hope GEX improves on the advancements that Adam Mills has already made with his texture improvments but having to manually alter the airport polygon texture to match is going to be a real pain.Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read what Holgar had to say? I think he explained why the choice was made. It took me a while to find-but in this thread a year ago-both Holgar and Koorby-two of the most respected fs scenery designers in the business explained it quite well:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchIt obviously is not the choice some would have made-but there is a logic to it-not an excuse....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that thread when it was originally posted and again from your link.Bottom line is this:Even with FSG landclass, the deserts still remain. Do you know of any better landclass product for the USA than FSG?If this is the best landclass product available for FSX then cleraly the 'sage grass' texture is still being used within this 'improved' landclass.We can say it's the landclass fault, USG data fault, whoevers fault, but the problem to me is that no matter which landclass product is used (including the best from FSG) these textures are STILL being used.If the landclass products took the issue away then we wouldn't need to mess around adding modified textures.So this 'sage grass' classification only goes so far in absolving the blame for this.Again, even if we manage to fix the deserts, we are still left with 100's of airport polygons that will need to have the textures altered.It's a mess whichever way you look at it. It seems that flying in the summer months is the only 'real' way to stop this from happening. Not exactly realistic when the weather is -20!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some small examples of fixing the textures yourself. Winter in Western Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh. The question I have is - could Microsoft have hand tainted the offending sand textures with one person during one work week? Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yokehttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180071.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180072.jpgSome work still needs to be done on the sand area in a few textures. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180073.jpgSUMMERhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180074.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe FSX is a watershed and FS11 will learn from all this?I hope so......Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is real bad here in upstate NY and whole NE, very hidious looking. The word hate comes to mind. It is so far off the target to real world flying that is makes FS5.0 look good. It is a shame, esp since Aces has ignored it. Reminds one of the day when super vivid colors were used to depict things like Pumpkin patches, Bright red Bricks etc.Landclass upgrades do a good job of selecting the right class, but no matter, it was the image processing/selection/balance of these textures that is way off. Looks like someone used a preset in Photoshop to "correct" the image data.Have to agree with others that this is a complete QC screwup.A bone is bone is bone. Its ugly, its unatural, its a bone.The FSX textures are so interlaced with this overly bright dirt/desert/sand texture that it is just plain unfun to the eyes.I get excited with all the new addons but it fades real fast as you get in the air and come face to face with the bright scorched patches of earth all around. Completly turned off by FSX now.Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this