The next sim

[Guest R_Driscoll]

I've spent some time around Oswald Field without realising it - you have done a lot of construction work between McChord and Seattle city and again the detail is amazing.I haven't done any more scenery development work for Seattle for some time. Its a difficult area to work in because so many developers have done bits and pieces, often overlapping. It would be great if all of this could be integrated into one best package. The English scenery development work has led to many major breakthroughs, so that our efforts there are closer to realistic modelling than what has been done in San Fran or Seattle, i.e. modelling specific buildings, actual taxiways etc comparable with the add-on packages for FS2004, but although this method works well for small defined areas, it can't be used on large scale, so that a combination of the methods would seem to be best.If I was going to work on Seattle again, I would prefer to be a part of a unified team that worked as we did for the English development, by discussion and agreement on areas and methods, i.e. a bit of planning rather than add-hoc development. Chris's work also needs to be considered - he has redone a lot of the areas that other people had done earlier, and although its possible to swap packages in and out, its inconvenient.I think it would be possible to make the major airports to a higher standard, not as high as the English packages because of the better airport documentation there, but certainly better than the generic taxiway approach I used before. But who would co-ordinate a redevekopment of Seattle? Sadly I don't think there are sufficient numbers around any more, and not enough people prepared to help raise the standards. To me Seattle will always be second rate compared to what we could have achieved.RobD.

[Hans_Petter 1]

Rob, if you have plans for the original Seattle region I would like to help. As you know by now, I prefer realistic versions of real airports. So does Chris Low. Then, when the basic layout is correct we may add as much "fun" as we desire. Future work on Seattle would require good background material and I would be surprised if it's unavailable. After all, this is a state in one of the world's most developed countries, second to Australia only :-)Hans Petter

[Guest jonpoint]

Yeah, Seattle's my 'oyster' of choice right now. The varied and interesting terrain in this region cannot be matched in California or the UK IMHO. When (!) I release my current packages, we'll have another pretty place to fly from/to/around. Those of you that have tried it may question my location choice (in a National Park), or my suggested usage for the land there (Farm, glider club) but hey! Seattle must certainly be an interesting place - a friend who worked there reckoned it toook two years of weekends and holidays to see 50% of it! As a pilot, he reckons from Oregon to Vancouver Island is some of the nicest scenery to fly through in the world. Delmar (Benjamin) also once said that the Pacific Northwest was a most interesting area to cross and he always enjoyed an excuse to fly to AWO for the airshows! Anyway, in the last 2 months I have planted thousands of trees around mountaintops, trying to match the panoramas I see on the 'net! This was also my reason for revealing my terrain 'upgrade' - having seen the Cascades from SEA in photos, I was determined that everyone should have the same views ;) One day, I'll get bored with it but not right now...:-wave Jon Point*************************(effyouthree@hotmail.com)*************************

[Guest R_Driscoll]

Its difficult with the two Seattle systems running together - the older version made by many people and the newer version primarily by Chris. I know people are making individual choices about which system of packages to use, mixing and matching to get the blend they want.My apologies if I have offended anyone by saying "second rate" - that was a poor choice of words. I was not saying that anyone's work was second rate (except my own - certainly I could do all of my Seattle packages better now). The opposite is true - Chris, Jon's, Al's, etc have all done painstakingly careful work and broken new ground. Its not the packages but the frustration of having multiple systems for Seattle. I'm not comfortable with simply switching scenery collections in and out. For the UK work we have been able to divide our efforts and there has been so much to do that there have been no overlaps at all. But Seattle is to me a big mess - many great packages, but all overlapping each other.My frustration is that I can't see how to resolve this. My current commitments to packages will keep me busy for some months - I can't do the reorganising myself. Chris might be in the best position to do this, but he came in after the early work and I don't know if he has the early packages. I know some people think the Frank's Hangar work was frivolous, and sometimes it was, but there were also some very good packages built then.I guess my ideal Seattle would have the following:1) outer terrain installed, outer terrain packages installed (I love the Grand Canyon, I like flying to San Fran - that's my main use of the Jumbo) - some of the Eastern packages like Grand Falls never worked properly for me).2) properly landscaped areas (large areas) around the rural towns (the way that Chris and others have done them) - several existing packages could be transferred directly, but updated with Jon's models.3) redo the major airports. LGS had tight framerate budgets (which they failed to meet!) - we have more freedom to add detail, and so all the LGS main airports should be scrapped and redone in the manner used for the new UK packages.4) one person to oversee the AI - I suspect the existing AI is close to right though. This includes airport taxiways markings etc as well.5) room to re-edit and continue to improve, for people to keep designing and adding packages, and not just a few fringe ones out in the bush. I don't think a completed Seattle is a good idea - there should be room for continual development, and for individuals to keep adding their creative masterpieces. Think of the progress we have made in just the last year!Maybe its too late for a grand scheme like this, and if this idea is unworkable, I will probably try to do this for myself (as a hobby, not necessarily for release). But we have many of the parts of this system in place already, and some people may already have a system close to this on their computer!As a first step, given Hans Petter's interest and skills, I have started collecting data on Everett. Its early days but I stand by what I said earlier, that photographic documentation of Washington State airports is not as good as for UK. I can get almost nothing for McChord (not surprising - its a military base!).And now for something completely different! A few scenic shots ....http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/47236.jpgThanks for the glider Jon!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/47237.jpgBut I haven't installed your new config file yet! Sorry.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/47238.jpgAs night falls, the power plants go into overdrive.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/47239.jpgShould I fly or catch the train? Hmm, I think I'll take the train.RobD.