Byron Municipal Airport

[Christopher Low 5,353]

This airport in the SanFran region needs upgrading. The main runway 12/30 is 4500 feet long in the real world, and runway 05/23 is 3000 feet. However, landing the Beechjet here in FU3 has always been a tricky business, and that main runway isn't even close to 4500 feet in length. In fact, based on a comparison with other runways in the region, it appears to be less than 2500 feet long :-eekThis is something that really needs to be sorted out. The terrain textures appear to show some kind of drainage channel directly in front of the runway 30 threshold, but it is obvious that work has been done to change this at the real Byron airport. Extending the FU3 runway in this direction would probably look a bit odd, but it is possible (since the terrain is flat). It can also be extended at the other end by another 500 feet.It is also obvious (based on the photo at www.airnav.com) that the parking area has a few buildings, and is located a little further back from the runway than the ridiculous one that exists in the FU3 version.So, does anyone fancy making me a new version of runway 12/30 at Byron Municipal ? This would probably need to be slightly shorter than the real one......maybe 4000 feet long by 100 feet wide. We could also do with a new version of runway 05/23, since the existing one can't be anything more than 2000 feet in length.Chris Low.

[Guest juvat2]

Well,I made this from the google sat view. But am having a devil of a time to get the texture on to the 3d model after export from Sketchup. The main runway is 4511' 8"L x 103'W so I need to scale down more and edit the texture, get rid of the water marks and reds. You think it would be useable if it can be textured?JimBhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/118363.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/118364.jpg

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Jim,That looks quite interesting. The extended textures would help to cover the drainage channel that I mentioned, and it might not be necessary to add taxiway lines (assuming that they are clearly visible in the texture maps themselves). I would simply have to add AI pathways over the top, and also the lighting.If we go down this route, then please don't reduce the dimensions of the runways. It would be better to have the true runway lengths and widths. My only concern is to make sure that it LOOKS good when added to the SanFran region. In other words, will it blend in with the rest of the scenery ? Are the textures of a high enough resolution that the runways are nice and clear (as opposed to fuzzy and indistinct) ? You know how fussy I am about these things ;-)What do you mean by "water marks" ? Also, if you are going to "get rid of the reds", it might be a good idea to try and match the colour of the textures with the surrounding terrain. That would help to make the airport "blend in", and look more natural. Otherwise, it could end up looking as bad as the contrast between the high resolution regions and the outer terrain scenery....and that would not be good :-)Best Wishes, and let me know how you are progressing. You can always e-mail me directly, and maybe even send an early version for testing ?Chris Low.Christopher dot Low at btinternet dot com

[Guest juvat2]

Well,It was a conceptual idea. I imagine the real modelers and graphics guru's here would be able to see my idea and can report right away that it's workable or to far-fetched for use in Flt3. The red tinted area's I had the idea to fill 100% opaque with green and select that as transparent with RobD's Fixmip, that way the Flt3 SF region textures would show thru. Blurry's will occur unless the model is parsed down so that the aircraft ramp is it's own model, then it's texture can be cropped and worked for best clarity with the Flt3 size and pallet limitations. Other section of the model to create as a stand alone entity would be the hanger section.Watermarks. I suppose google embedded their google water marks to keep folks from using these satellite views in some type of money venture. They've also seemed to adjust the image towards "red" away from reality.In as much as we don't try and profit off anything created for Flt3, I can't imagine google minding us using and modding their images.A rough idea I had with the textures.1st image, you can see a "g". 2nd image it's eliminated. These images are not 8/256 or have the SF pallet applied.JimBhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/118416.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/118417.jpg

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Jim,After thinking about it, I'm not sure if using a texture map of the entire airport is such a good idea. I am very fussy about the way that stuff looks in FU3, and I think that perhaps it would be best if I just add models of the two runways themselves. However, it certainly would be nice to have ones of authentic dimensions (4500 feet by 100 feet, and 3000 feet by 75 feet respectively). There appears to be enough flat terrain to accommodate both of these larger runways, so it is possible.So, does anyone want to get their name added to the SanFran 2005 credits list ? :-)Chris Low.

[Guest juvat2]

O.K,Here's the 4511x100 rw so far. The rectangle runway was simple, the texture is difficult for me to get looking as good and clear as the stock runway textures(number and hash mark clarity). I lay it right near Sf.JimBhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/118465.jpg

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Jim,I would prefer models of the runways that look the same as the existing ones in the SanFran region. If the resolution is too low (and the colours look strange), then they would end up looking a bit odd.Thanks for taking the time to experiment though. I am aware that quite a few members here have built their own runway models for FU3, so I am hoping that someone will accept the offer :-)Chris Low.