Sign in to follow this  
Guest Motormouse

Chris Low, you might want to check this out

Recommended Posts

the new satellite photo and map thingy from'Google' (link)http://maps.google.com/coverage is limited to mainland USA only at the moment,but satellite photos are more up to date than Terraserver.http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Berkeley&spn...43759&t=k&hl=enshould get you a photo of Berkeley and Treasure Island,San Franand thishttp://maps.google.com/maps?q=gnoss&ll=38....07617&t=k&hl=enshould get you the hangars at Marin County (Gnoss)airport ,which is a lot busier than Looking Glass ever made it on this evidence, as is this one,Marinhttp://maps.google.com/maps?q=Berkeley&ll=...07617&t=k&hl=enInteresting to see how all the individual 'T' hangars arearranged together to make a single or dual row...er, thinks...Robyou might need to model some of those :-lol:-wavePete

Share this post


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

Pete,Thanks for the information. The resolution of the satellite photos does not seem to be as high as those on Terraserver, so identification of radio towers is rather difficult.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,The resolution of the photographic images varies quite dramatically across the entire region, and a handful of radio towers that I wanted to see were in low resolution areas !As for the hangars at Half Moon Bay, I suppose that I could add another parking area, an extra taxiway, and one or two new AI parking spots. Mind you, if I decided to do this at Marin County....and Gnoss Field.....and upgraded Byron Municipal to include a larger main terminal area.....and a longer runway (4500 feet)....and an extra taxiway....and, and......Well, perhaps some things can wait until SanFran 2020 ;-)Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, you're right! Those interlocking hangars look interesting. But I can't model structures from top down view. Jon probably can. He can model anything from anything. But I need some angled or ground views.I didn't especially want to leave the Seattle region and work on the UK region, but now that I have, I'm very glad. The photographic data for UK is so much better. So when I make packages, with most of the packages what you see is what is there, as accurate as my modelling skills and limited palette can make it (although I confess I cheat - the trees are'typical' trees, and I reuse hangars if I can't find good photos of the real ones). And when you fly over London, the size, heights, textures etc of the landmarks are from real photos and dimensions, when I can. But I can't get this accuracy in the Seattle/San Fran regions because the photographic documentation is so much poorer. I searched the web for good pics of McChord, and got one poor quality photo across the airfield. OK, its military (airforce), so some secrecy. So I tried for Paine, and again, just one or two photos of indeterminate age. So I am left with the poor quality original LGS models. Not worth it.I know Jon has made some packages in the same way, and he found good photos through friends and contacts. Jon, you should release those sometime.In response to Ansgar's comments on me being different in the way I make packages! - here are my views (designed for GA rather than the heavies - I fly for scenery!):I think LGS/FU3 ran out of time before they could complete many of the things they intended, but this is what I like to see in a package now:1) good quality taxiways, realistic signs, ramps, runways, ILS equipment, approach light stands, control tower (not the default ones, uggghhh!), at least some proper grass verges (it makes a real visual difference when taxiing), at least some actual hangars, some moving models, some attempt at a diaorama of some type, eg pushcarts etc around a plane. This is graphics intensive and needs to be done carefully - not too many transparency textures or trees!2) removal of all LGS taxiway lines, edge lines (poor quality, outdated) with actual edge lines, centrelines. But their lights are good.3) some detail away from the airport - local features, such as the Needles at IOW - something to zoom around and look at en-route.4) local shipping, trains and planes - i.e. large moving things. creates depth to simulation.5) a good AI/ATC/ILS etc for the package, integrated to the world. I guess that's easy for a new package, although developing the UKS ATC was difficult despite Hans Galaasen and others excellent starting points.With current processor speeds, this is now possible, and the end results are comparable with FS2002 imho. But they have hundreds of people working on it - we have just a few!Well that's what I like, and since FU3 has provided that capacity I have been very happy to stay with FU3 for many years. RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,With respect to the airports, I believe that Ansgar may be referring to the fact that you like to create textured taxiways for your airports, whereas I have stuck with the existing lines. The reason for this is primarily because I am worried that textured taxiway sections will contrast too sharply with the existing terrain textures (this is precisely why I don't have the outer terrain scenery installed; the contrast between the two different types of terrain is ugly IMO).Mind you, the work involved in converting all of the Seattle and SanFran airports to textured taxiways would be extensive, and I just don't have the motivation to do it ! However, I will admit that textured taxiways would solve a couple of problems inherent with the default taxiway lines:-1. Those users who do not have top of the range PCs would probably discover an improvement as far as "freezes" are concerned. Users of my Seattle and SanFran packs will probably be familiar with this effect at one or two locations (McChord AFB and SeaTac International airports in the Seattle region, plus Crissy Army Airfield and Alameda NAS in the SanFran region). The problem in Seattle is (I think) primarily due to the reconstructed taxiway lines at the two airports mentioned. Maybe this has something to do with the modified versions not being "optimised". I don't know. I just know that it was annoying until I purchased my current super computer ;-) The problem in the SanFran region is due to the large number of objects being displayed around San Francisco city itself.2. I don't know about anyone else, but I still have problems at certain airports with "sliding aircraft". When I try to move along certain taxiways, the plane "slides" to the left and right, making it virtually impossible to remain on the taxiway centreline. That is a real pain in the a*** !Best Wishes,Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, perhaps some things can wait until SanFran 2020 ;-)":-lol:-wavePete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All,My attempts to compare framerates with FLED runways and taxiways vs. discrete models were frustrating, to say the least. I originally built Clare's Valley using just FLED and got tired of the lines dropping out. The more parking spots I added, the slower it got - whether displaying AI or not *:-*The current one uses textured models and discrete lights and actually gives (gave?) better framerates. There are 2 catches to all this:* You must manually place everything. If you desire accuracy though, this is the way to go.* If not on flat ground, taxiway sections can sometimes disappear every now and then.As to optimising existing FLED layouts, I have no idea what it is that causes these to not be optimised in the first place! All I know is that some complex layouts are real s-l-o-w (or were, I keep forgetting about my improved PC :-roll ). Maybe it also has something to do with AI ATC but I'm no expert here - I build planes and do voices but I don't know how it all hangs together.Chris,"I just know that it was annoying until I purchased my current super computer ;-) The problem in the SanFran region is due to the large number of objects being displayed around San Francisco city itself."Ah yes, super computers. I loaded an updated video driver last night and......as I turned across the coast after leaving Half Moon Bay and turned East towards SanFran city, I hit 'ctrl+f' and watched as the counter sat around 35fps (never dropped below 25fps) whilst flying over the airport, with power pylons snaking off into the distance ;) (BTW, I did tell you that the updated pylons packages work fine - and with the originally-named mipfiles? Sorry, I couldn't remember telling you.)I'm still getting used to what the creators of FU3 intended...It's lovely ;)As to the 'sliding' planes, I just 'belt it' and get up to ~10kts quickly - it seems to obviate the issue. I have actually had the Renegade turn almost 180 whilst stopped (idling) when I was taking screenshots around Carquinez, although I think that may have been the 'earthquake' simulation :-lolWhen the email's back up (??!?), I'll send you some more models ;) :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,Can you not just send those models using your Hotmail account ? Not being able to do anything is driving me nuts !!Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,Sorry, sorry, sorry!I have sent them via the new address - let me know if it doesn't get through. I managed to export my address book from Lotus but Outlook trashed it (basically attached the on-screen username to the email address), causing me to have to edit EVERY entry :-grrHotmail has suddenly become a pain as, although it allows 10 Meg attachments, it won't accept zipfiles(!) and reports that they contain viruses :-rollMeanwhile, I recovered from the dentist last night and just watched TV for a change. I watched episode 2 of the "Grumpy Old Men" series - what a breakup! Funny, I never pictured Rick Wakeman as a GOM! Now it makes me realise that I'm one & so are most of my friends *:-*That also means 'you guys'...:-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics are better using USA Photo Mapper. Here are 3 of Half Moon Bay at 2 meter, .5 meter, and .25 meter. That area of buildings looks more like an industrial area than an aircraft hanger site. Look's like there's lots of junk and old boats around them.Chris, where are the Half Moon Bay towers suuposed to be? Maybe I can download that specific area and see if there are towers there and post the screen shot here.JimB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,I wasn't looking for any radio towers in the Half Moon Bay area, although I did find a small one up on Montara Mountain. To be honest, if you can find any radio towers in the Diablo Mountains to the south-east (those mountains that include Lick Observatory), or perhaps Tassajara (the ridge south-east of Mount Diablo itself; north-east of Livermore Municipal), then please let me know. I have no idea if there ARE any radio towers in these locations, but it would be nice to add them if they are there :-)Chris Low.

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