Sign in to follow this  
Manny

Courchevel, Lukla... I thought FSX couldn't do sloped runways?

Recommended Posts

Probably just displaying my ignorance here, but how are these products (Neuroflight's Courchevel and Aerosoft's Lukla X) possible in a sim that supposably only supports flat airports?And with the techie question out of the way, the real question is: Which one should I buy first? :)Colin

Share this post


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

There's an exellent LOD11 freeware mesh for FSX here:http://c30s.alpes.gratisim.fr/And a nice freeware courchevel here:http://www.vf-air.com/FSX2.htmSo no need to buy anything ;)Both, Lukla and Courchevel are similar challenging (AFAIK Lukla doesn't even have seasonal textures)BTW, there's another very nice Courchevel for fs9:http://www.llhinfo.com/So it's nothing exactly new for FSX.RegardsBernt Capt 767 (ex Dash7 Courchevel pilot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the sloped runways in implemented by bypassing the default airport in FSX. Since the default FSX does not support sloped runways.These are workarounds in FSX.I like Courchevel from LLH. They are slightly expensive..but worth every penny. It works well with French alps from France VFR. http://www.llhinfo.com/LLH's Courchevel works well in FSX. Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on what Manny wrote, and based on my limited technical knowledge: the default airport, which does have a flat runway, is excluded with a .bgl file. This area is then replaced with a .bgl file that has the correct sloping terrain mesh. The runway is a unique "painted" texture that overlays the sloping mesh (ie, just as mountain textures decorate mountain mesh). Now for some wild speculation: this is doable for special airports like Courchevel and Lukla, but I'm guessing that for FS to efficienty map all 24,000+ airports in the world, it's doing so with some sort of database that draws on length, width, elevation, and location. So in the default scenery, the entire Courchevel runway is the official 6420'. (I'm also guessing that very few real world runways are as flat as an aircraft carrier's deck, as they are in FS.) And, the payware looks nice, but I also discovered the freeware Bernt mentions and have been happy with it. The problem for the Euro-based developers is the weakening dollar. Seems like their products become more expensive by the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key is that it is not a runway as FS understands its implementation of the term, but a texture used for an off-field landing that simulates a runway.The actual runway which FS understands is very short - about an aircraft length long usually at the top.That's how one of the FS2004 airports was done.Another technique is to create a series of separate airports with the runways overlapping each other. Each airport is just a small amount of elevation different from the others.Either way, both techniques require a much softer landing than a normal FS landing because of the non-flat terrain below the runway texture.Many people have trouble with these airports because they crash through the runway to the terrain below the texture. A big part of that is the mental, trying to understand that 200FPM landing on a runway sloping upward that steeply is the same force as 1000FPM landing on a flat runway.Learning to think that level flight means an 8 or 12 degree climb is difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello from Chamonix (France Mont Blanc near Courchevel and others).Neuroflight (my Friend) slope runway of Courchevel LFLJ is built as a true hard "objet" , as a true FSX runway...This special hard slop runway is delicatly put and adjusted on a slop mesh. That mesh is manualy created manualy point by point made (hard to do)Free LFLJ (and many others as Lukla, Megeve LFHM, Alpes d'Huez LFHU, or M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating sloping runways is no problem in FSX using the sloping polygon facility. The only real problem is that AI aircraft cannot use them.Rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rod,well, it's not quite that easy. If you use sloped flattens then their properties will change with the mesh resolution slider in FSX. Also, you lose the ability to place any of the standard airport textures, like run- and taxiways and thus are stuck with the 1-m max resolution that FSX offers for ground textures (unless you use custom vector textures, which allow up to 7-cm but have other limitations). Thus, sloping flattens are best use for bush strips rather than larger airfields. We used them with Glacier Bay for FS9 and Victoria+ for FSX, among others.The commercial Lukla and Courchevel packages use GMax platforms instead of sloped flattens, which allows them to apply high-res textures and have a stable terrain model independent of mesh resolution settings. The disadvantage of those GMax platforms is that they don't allow for normal start positions, will have the aircraft "break through" under certain conditions, and may be partially transparent from certain view angles outside the aircraft.We're working on PAKT (Ketchikan) for the Misty Fjords FSX version and will probably offer two alternate models at the same time, so that users can switch as desired: one with a standard flatten and full AFCAD/AI and the other with a GMax platform sans AI. We'll see how that works out. Should be interesting to get user feedback.Hopefully, the next version of FS will allow for sloped airfields with full AI support but the technical issues for doing so are not trivial at all, never mind the lack of consistent data.Cheers, Holger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hopefully, the next version of FS will allow for sloped>airfields with full AI support but the technical issues for>doing so are not trivial at all, never mind the lack of>consistent data.Amen to that! And cloud shadows and better scaled autogen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Creating sloping runways is no problem in FSX using the>sloping polygon facility. The only real problem is that AI>aircraft cannot use them.>>Rod."Hello Rod, FREE slope runways of LFLJ, LFHM, LFHU, LFKX , ARE NOT polygones, sorry.. (look at 0,30 meter precision). If you think it is easy to do DO.Bush slope runways ARE polygone (there you are right )the problem is to have a smooth continous slope mesh , and is not so easy.. (try too and telll me the result...).No problem to have start positions.Other slope runways (you must BUY )like Lukla Aerosoft, or LFLJ Neuroflight or LLH products ; are "objets Gmax" put on the ground with a mesh (or not) and that mesh is not to run on , is only to adpat runway at all around FSX decor.FriendlyGuy Nemoz slope runway maker , from FS2000Read more about slope runways and altiports at : http://www.vf-air.com/Altis.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Navion and Holger,Of course you are quite correct in pointing out the various difficulties involved with creating runways using sloping polygons. This does not mean that it is impossible, only that there are limitations, which I readily acknowledge.My response was merely aimed at the original question posted at the start of this thread.Rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies folks. I think I'll try the freeware versions of these airports to see what they're like, then maybe buy one or both of the payware ones depending on my experience with them.Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>stuck with the 1-m max resolution that FSX offers for ground>textures (unless you use custom vector textures, which allow>up to 7-cm but have other limitations). Holger, after devcon I did an experiment with 7cm per pixel imagry, and found it did indeed display quite perfectly as a ground texture. I find no limitations to using it except the obvious one....no source imagry at that resolution is available, and I don't have terrabyte hds yet. To do the experiment, I photographed a tablecloth, and sized the area so that I ended up with 7cm/pixel resolution. Somewhere in my fsworld is a lovely 71.68m x 71.68m tablecloth! Best,Bob

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