After thinking about this, I am going to remove some logs from some of the airfields that I have already upgraded. They could quite easily be removed without introducing problems for the landing virtual pilot, particularly if the runway end logs remain in place.....and I don't want anyone to think that I can't be flexible :-) Would everyone prefer that I keep the dotted lines, and just have a couple of sets of large logs at each end of the runway to facilitate "lining up" ? I will also very likely keep the log defined parking areas, although some may have fences around them instead.To be honest, this suggestion has opened up the possibility of ALL of the airfields getting some logs. For example, Vashon Municipal has a big slope in the middle, which would have ruled out a full runway length of logs. However, it is relatively flat at both ends, which would enable me to construct the "runway end logs" without too many problems (hopefully).What do you all think ?Chris Low,ENGLAND.PS. Do you think that Asplund Field is too narrow to have ANY logs ? Maybe I should just have a single log (on both sides) at each runway end here. Suggestions ?

I really would like to keep the full suite of logs at R & K Skyranch. This helps to define the airfield a lot better, and I think that it looks quite attractive with the crossing runways. This could be the exception to the rule, and would make the place rather unique.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

What about Crissy Army Airfield ? I don't think that the ground is perfectly flat here, otherwise I would just place a dirt strip. I'm not sure if those logs would look convincing here, but I will probably try it and see what it looks like.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Regarding dirt strips, I have already made some grass textures with transparent, irregular edges. The hue and size can easily be modified. If you plonk some of these down you could hint at a landing strip without making it into a total dirt strip. I could send you a model to try out.You might try this out yourself:1) Make a rectangular e file (or, better yet, rework an existing one).2) Make (or repaint) a gif with a hue that's similar to the underlying grass texture.3) Soften the edges with a rim of absolute black and select transparency as you transform the gif into a mip.Otherwise, logs are fine :-)best regards,Hans Petter

I think variation is the way to go. Some airports with logs alongside the entire runway, some with just a few, some with the old dotted lines etc. It wouldn't look very realistic if every airport was the same with the exact same logs alongside the runway. That's not how it is in real life - some strips are easy to spot and line up with, others are not quite as easy and with some you have to know that there's supposed to be a strip there, otherwise you wouldn't see it :-lolLook at each airfield (if you have the time :-lol) to determine what would work best at that particular field.BTW I really like how small airports in UK-South are done. You can clearly see a grass strip because of the overlay grass texture.

Jimmi,I'm not too keen on adding textured strips. I don't particularly like the existing dirt strips that exist in the default FU3 landscape at Harvey Field and Sequim Valley. Mind you, I don't mind the ones in the SanFran region........I have decided to add full runway length logs at those airfields that are flat enough to make this feasible, and runway end logs at those that are undulating or sloped. These latter ones will retain the dotted lines.The reason that I decided this is simply because I can easily make alternative versions of certain airfields after the packs are released. In fact, anyone here is welcome to modify any of these airfields to their heart's content, and then release them separately if they so wish. I really like the logs, but others obviously don't. That's just life :-)Take care everyone,Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Chris,Just do it how YOU want. It's the old 'you can please all the people...' issue.I am quite happy, however they arrive! I never install all of them anyway as I like my framerates ;) I certainly keep most of them (well, I keep ALL of them, just not in fu3packages) however, I have favourites and it depends on what I'm flying. Sometimes, I may install all packages for the western edge of the region if I will be flying through there at lowish altitudes. If I'm heading to Medford or Sanfran from Seattle in a Dash-8, B400 or 747, I only load the packages in my flight path that I will see below 10kft (basically no small strips at all).People wonder how I get 30-40fps - that's how! Flying low and slow, with lotsa packages installed even brings my XP1700+/GE4 to it's knees :-(:-waveJon Point*************************([email protected])*************************

Ahh, the voice of a genius. Why didn't I think about that ? "Just do it how YOU want".........now that's damn clever ;-)Anyway, aren't we up to version 1.3 yet ? :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

We WILL be, when you release the packages!Actually, no - stuff it! If we base major revisions upon major technical breakthroughs and minor revisions on upgrades then were probably on about v4.720 :-lolOf course, if you count EVERY addition as an upgrade then we beat Nvidia hands-down.I suggest v471.0 :-lol:-wave Jon Point*************************([email protected])*************************

Yes the dirt strips around Seattle look a bit out of place, but have you seen those in UK-South? They blend in with the scenery textures much better. Only problem is that they cause a bit of a framerate hit.

Jon,Do you think we could get our upgrades WHQL certified ? :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

Nah!Micro$oft probably wouldn't certify it 'coz it ain't written specifically for XP! And also, every flaky upgrade they've ever sent WAS certified anyway - it's no guarantee of quality :-(I think they will be FURFIE* - certified pretty soon anyway ;)*Flight Unlimited Regular Flyers Inventing Everything:-waveJon Point*************************([email protected])*************************