Is SceneGenX the best way forward?

[Guest shanwick]

Bearing in mind that I am quite satisfied with FS2004 and that I will not buy FS2006 when it comes out because pending retirement means less money to spend, I have started designing my own scenery to enhance the enjoyment and usefullness of what I already have.I am therefore wondering if producing scenery with SceneGenX has any particular advantages over using the older method of Airport for Windows. For example, is the output physically more accurate or robust as far as FS2004 is concerned?Any views will be very much appreciated.David

[Guest fame]

Hi David:"I am therefore wondering if producing scenery with SceneGenX has any particular advantages over using the older method of Airport for Windows. For example, is the output physically more accurate or robust as far as FS2004 is concerned?"It's a question of compatibility in design parameters moving forward of FS2002 and earlier versions of FS. Since you own FS2004 the following tools are the way to go IMHO:FS2004:Gmax: http://www.discreet.com/products/gmax/ The gold standard for creating objects in both FS2002 and 2004. The program comes with Microsoft's Pro version of FS2002, or downloads a copy directly from Descreet's Website.For modeling the balance of your scenery (airports, runways, taxiways, Etc) you'll require additional tools. I recommend SceneGenX (www.airportforwindows.com) or AFCAD to handle this area of design.One final note of caution; the programs mentioned are in a constant state of development, therefore it's always in your best interest to secure the latest version available.All have a learning curve... practice does make perfect.I hope this helps in some small way, visit the URL below (see sig), for additional ideas and suggestions.Good luckTom G, Sr.

[arno 1]

Hi David,As Tom already mentioned SceneGenX and AFCAD are indeed the best two choices when you want to change aprons, taxiways, etc at your airport. This are the only two programs that allow you to make these elements according to the new XML scenery standard of Fs2004. All other tools like Airport for Windows, FSSC, etc, still use the older Fs2002 or Fs2000 commands, although these are still supported by Fs2004 (backwards compatibility).So switching to the Fs2004 standard tools is mainly adviceable for the future, to make sure your work continous working on future versions. If you only plan to use it on Fs2004 the older tools will still work, but the new tools in general give better a slightly better performance.Personally I prefer AFCAD2, I don't really like the GUI of SceneGenX. But I guess you should just try which one you think works best. The disadvantage of AFCAD2 is that it does not allow you to place objects, so I am using a separate object placer for that (Rwy12 or ObPlacer XML for example).

[jonpatch 1]

If I may add to what Arno has said, I use AFCAD2 in combination with SBuilder. I too am not that happy with the SGX UI as well, although it's only tool I'm told where I can construct generic buildings. SBuilder allows me to easily place objects, do flattens, and many other functions, in a reasonably good user interface.Jon

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

If I may add to what Jon has said, the Airport for Windows/SceneGenX interface is a hodgepodge of elements developed over many years, and takes a lot of effort to learn, not to mention getting used to it.A major problem for me is that the windows are of a fixed size and have a greater resolution than my monitor (a fixed-resolution LCD at 1024 x 768) which means that the bottom part of all the windows cannot be seen or accessed. This makes using this program essentially impossible for all those who do not have monitors with greater resolution.I mentioned this to Tom well over 4 years ago, but he is very busy and has never done anything about it.Unfortunately, another scenery design tool has recently appeared that contains this very same basic limitation. Too bad.So, I too vote for SBuilder and AFCAD - they are really all the scenery design tools that one needs.Best regards.Luis

[jonpatch 1]

Back to an earlier comment: with respect to Rwy12 for object placing: if you use other folk's libraries it has advantages and disadvantages in my view. Big advantage: users save installation time, download time and disk space by reusing elements. Very cool. Big disadvantage: you greatly restrict your user base by constraining your sceneries to folks who have taken the time to download and install Rwy12 and various libraries. However if you just use library objects it's fine.My choice is not depend on Rwy12, or to use it much (Sbuilder does all the object placing I need), although I do have an upcoming release where Rwy12 users will get some optional eye candy. It makes adding such goodies easy.One guideline I've found very effective in evaluating a tool and its support: does the "help" work, is it thorough, are the FAQs all in place, etc. The more professional the help function the more likely it seems the program will work well. And a public forum is a good indication as well. An exception is AFCAD2 which, despite no after-distribution support, is so well done a program it not only sings and dances, it'll correct your pitch as you sing along . . .Jon

[Guest shanwick]

Thank you to everyone who responded to my question.I have looked at the various options suggested and now realise that there are a lot of new things that I would have to learn and cope with to move to the newer technologies. I'm not looking for forward compatability with future versions of MSFS but just want to enjoy a bit of enhancing of what I already have - and enjoyment in the process as well.So I think I'll stick with the three simple programs I've already learnt to use - Afcad, NovaSim and Airport for Windows.Thanks again.David

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

I take it all back. I have been very unfair to Tom.After another look at SceneGenX, it is apparant that Tom has redone all the creation windows in the program and that they will now all fit in the smallest resolution screen, even VGA - with the sole exception of the Advanced Buildings window that is still unusable.My apologies to Tom, who has shown great devotion to the development of this program, as well as a tremendous willingness to listen to the needs of his users, and to add to the program as needed.Best regards.Luis

[Guest bahri]

Hi!The new version of SGX can place api macros, it creates two seperate bgls one with the newer bglcomp compiler and the other with the api using scasm.I think this is a graet combination for those who are still changing over like myself.I have a few complicated api made with EOD and I am not yet fully conversant with Gmax so I'm sticking with the Api for the moment.Sgx can now be used for both so one can do away with AFW. it makes placing easier as you can see all your project in one interface.Regardsbahri