Sign in to follow this  
Guest

BGLC compatibility.

Recommended Posts

Any gossips, news about BGLC compatibility updates for Airport, FSSC or other programs? Its very quiet lately. How come that gMax alone cannot be used to make full scenery including polygons, runways, nav equipment etc. and yet it is considered an official FS (scenery including) development tool? And is BGLC really the road to the future of FS scenery building? What about CFS3? Any new tricks there? I hope, I am not asking too many questions here. Ted

Share this post


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

The question is not really BGLC or not :).It is true that there is no tool like Airport yet that gives floating point polygons, but I am sure that they will add that in the future. At the moment the old code also still works (and most of the programs are not only for Fs2002 but also for the older versions, so I guess they want to keep it simple).And about GMax, it's 'just' an object designer (or maybe it's better to blame the converter MakeMDL). I don't think it is that strange that they have split the object design from the rest. The optimal code for ground polygons is not the same as for 3D objects. And if you look at MakeMDL it is clear that they looked much more at aircraft design and don't really care for the scenery.So, I don't really think BGLC is the future. SCASM also supports the new floating point commands and is a lot easier to use. At the moment I am trying to make a ASM to SCA converter so you can put GMax objects in SCASM code. That would make editing a lot easier for people who understand SCASM (there are more people how do that, then people who understand BGLC).Arno


Member Netherlands 2000 Scenery Team[a href=http://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen]http://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen/banner.jpg[/a]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ted.http://airportforwindows.com/news.htmlApparently, Airport is still going to convert to BGLC code.I'm guessing they would like to limit their dependance on SCASM ( and it's updates ), and perhaps they would like to start including TDF coding ( good idea ). Right now, SCASM users are at the mercy of Manfred Moldenhauer, SCASM's creator, as far as updates and inclusions are concerned. Airport's move to BGLC, will simply place Airport in a more flexible position to respond to changes in scenery design for FS2004+.A lot of interest surrounds object design using the floating point commands. These are already available in SCASM. But not much has been done with LWM & VTP poly and line design.. due partly to the lack of a comfortable GUI environment, and partly to the courseness of the current display resolution. My guess is that FS2004 will see greater resolution available for TDF ( finer than the 4.8 meters per pixel we now have ). That would create more demand for a GUI to be able to handle those polys, as they would completely replace the older FS98-2000 polys many designers now use, and would allow finer photoreal resolution for cities and airfields. Airport's move to BGLC could place them in a position to handle this type of scenery. There is no reason SCASM could not be updated to include LWM & VTP coding. Just about everything else is already available for SCASM, including floating point codes. But that is Manfred Moldenhauer's decision. As long as he doesn't include it, many design programs will not be able to use it.Should Airport for Windows start including TDF design, it will be a revolution for scenery design, as we know it. I can think of no other reason Airport would want to switch to BGLC, as SCASM is the equivalent for all other purposes, and is far more user friendly, as far as editing is concerned.------------As for the future of the FS series, who knows? But I'm fairly certain that FS2004 will have a great deal more in common with it's present version, that it will ever have with CFS3. The CFS series has now deviated entirely from simulation to a gaming environment, and will have nothing in common with it's 'civil' cousin... so we can no longer look to the CFS series for clues to the future of FS.I think most of us want FS2004 to be familiar, but better, design-wise. We don't want any radical changes in format... especially if they degrade the scenery environment, as happened in CFS3.Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for ver insightful and interesting replays. I cannot add anything to this, except perhaps only to convey the news from FSSC forum that this very good program will be BGLC updated not earlier than by next winter. Airport 3.0 update will be (I hope) earlier, but no firm date is yet available.Ted

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