As to a DC9, yep ;)As to textures and realism, I agree with Rob here. Both He and I have made models which far exceed anything FU3 is capable of displaying, texture-wise. This becomes apparent when parts of models that shouldn't be seen are plainly visible at certain angles. FU3 creates 'chinooks' on top of some models - but only when viewed at certain angles. Same goes for aircraft. The detail available to any aircraft creator is almost limitless, given the 8-bit limit. If I'd bothered using all the detail available to me on planes, they would look real sharp - but also look out-of-place with the scenery. For example, I am using 3 bitmaps per side on the S340, giving 768 pixels along it's length. Unfortunately, when sitting on the ramp/apron/taxiway, it occupies about 4 pixels of ground texture :-erksHence why I try to overtexture only the bits one sees when parked etc, as they are the most noticeable. Once you get 100' away, the ground textures get masked by the scenery.As far as fewer but more complicated models go, it's still a tradeoff. When I created a new marina for Half Moon Bay, I was surprised at the framerate loss so I removed various parts of it and the ONLY improvement was by removing everything but the breakwaters. These were large but simple models whereas the wharves were more complex. I then tried putting it all together in one HUGE model and I still got bad framerates but now from further out, because now it was one model, it came into view much earlier :-rollRegards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

Yes. Sometimes I find that I have to delete the whole package and rebuild it from scratch and that helps. But I still don't understand what causes the big drops in framerates in some packages. Is it to do with deleting models, or models straddling tile boundaries, or too many models in memory so FU3 can't load them efficiently? Who wrote this code anyway and why couldn't they have told us some of this in the White Pages? You can fly from Heathrow to Southend with models continuously in view, with reasonable framerates, but looking west around LCA gives slow framerates. Why? Arrgghhhhhh. Sometime I'll rebuild them from scratch again, trying to exactly place each model first time, no deleting. But I think agtim's genius is a chance here - if he could write a little program that could explain the package header structure ...RobD.

Hi Robert,thank you for the praise, but the standard I didn

There needs to be a compromise in detail since we can't make models for the whole world, and over the years I have come to agree with the MSFS system that detailed airports help the feeling of reality, because that's when you're closest to the ground. To give an example, in FU3 drive up close to the gates of Buckhingham Palace. There is an "Easter egg" there - just behind the gates is a highly detailed sign telling you what time B.Pal is open. But has anyone ever seen this? No, it was a waste of a very large textured MIP!x( But on the other hand, has anyone ever noticed that the main cargo terminal at Gatwick is called "Avermeyer International"? I don't think so! Its too far away from your normal taxiing routes.Now look at Grays AAF. The taxiways there are in high resolution, and the feel of taxiing along them is very realistic, especially as FU3 models the bumps and noises. But at Luton, which is far more advanced technically, the feel is not as good because I have used large textures to "overtexture" or improve the resolution of the whole airport. The orange taxiway lines are blurry and little better than the default FU3 taxiways. So now I think I have a way of combining these two together, and that's what I want to work on for the next airport. But Ansgar, even blind Freddy can see that your AI models are now way ahead of my ground models, and I would like to try to improve the standard. Not with greater complexity in models, but by improving the bitmap resolution at those points which you see most, such as taxiways, close buildings etc. Building smarter, not more.You have throught of some new ideas for the framerate problem, especially that one of shared textures. I had never thought of that. The original LGS models certainly used shared textures (their houses have many textures in common, for example), and I never thought it could be a problem. So I have used the same concrete textures for everything from aprons to rooftops. Do you think this could have an impact? Anyway, I will add it to my list of suspects.My top suspects for impacting framerates now are:1) models near tile boundaries2) deleted models not handled correctly by FLED3) shared textures ???4) number of models5) models that interact with the ground (eg runways, sloping terrain)The factors I think are not important (but used to think were important):1) model complexity (see Duxford - no big framerate issue) - has a small effect only.2) size of texture (max size 256x256 is not a factor)As I said before, since agtim's not very busy (apart from building UK, building Switzerland, fixing elevations, building planes, writing FU3 utility programs, adding terrain mesh etc), maybe he could sort out the package header and we could fix this model deletion problem.The new FU3 is very impressive though. I could never fly over generic terrain again, and the worst must be this new MSFS fad of putting correct streets and roads over generic textures so that you get a mismatched mixmax of generic roads under floating grey lines. Worst idea since Adam ate the apple. But we have detailed photographic scenery, in large areas, with excellent planes. Not bad.RobD.

AnsgarYou plain brilliant - thanks so much for your committment and devotion to FU !!RegardsShelton.Australia

a short update here....I

Ansgar,Gee... while in Ohio you need to wave hello to Tom Staggerwing Beech... being in his neighborhood and all. If you want to wave to me face Southwest and wave real hard... I'm in Colorado... a bit farther off. Stay in that same position and wave really, really hard and you may get through to Bob FlyBert Stiles in LA. ;)Seriously while in this country if you find yourself with some free time shoot me an e-mail with the telephone number for your hotel and I'll try to give you call... I always have extra minutes on my cell phone. :)

Ansgar; same for me. I'm in Akron ,Ohio. Be glad to chat with you on cell . Welcome to Ohio although weather is cold and snow,freezing rain ,bla ,bla bla .Oh well 55 days to spring !!CaptRolo

Make that 25 days :-)Chris Low.

:-jumpy Ahhhhhh, :-wave :-wave :-waveit

Hi Captain and Tom,check your mail for the adress details - hopefully the old adresses are OK. Pls. notice that I have no internet connection in US via laptop or so. But if everything goes well it should be possible to arrange a phone call. It

Ansgar I received your message and responded to it.Capt I did a "reply all" so you would see the info I dug up. But the address for you must have been bad as I got a message back saying it was undeliverable. I did a Google search on Ansgar's hotel and got the needed info (I think). Send me a e-mail if you want to know more.

Hello friends,since yesterday late afternoon I

Ansgar,Too bad I wasn't able to connect with you. I have found that when you know someone over the Internet for a long time it is very strange but also very good when you get a chance to actually talk to them on the telephone. The first time I called Bob Stiles we were almost kind of shy for a few minutes. You have been friends for a long time and have many things in common but the voice is still new to you. But after that first little bit it is great.It was even stranger to actually meet a bunch of people that I'd known for years at the AVSIM Conference last year. Except maybe the part about when I went to shake hands with Tom Allensworth and knocked the drink from his hand. :-lolGreat picture by the way. :) But how come you took such a slow airplane? ;)So... the important part... are you going to be able to make it to the chat?

Dear Tom,yes I also was interested to hear you personaly at the phone - it