csharpe

I recently created scenery for the quickly growing area of Hawassa, Ethiopia, including an upgrade to the old airport and the creation of the new airport. The problem is, I have not been able to locate any information on navaids, comms, waypoints, approaches, etc., despite the new airport's opening (apparently) in April! If anyone has access to this information, I would be most grateful! Thanks, Carlyle New airport Old airport and Hawassa

I just posted a version which includes a custom Ascension with accurate coastlines, lakes, road data, and SRTMGL1 (30m) mesh, as well as corrected landclass provided based on the latest available satellite imagery. http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=fsx_st_helena_ascension_tristan-da-cunha.zip&CatID=root&Go=Search Best, Carlyle

Thanks, DJ. I believe you are correct! The description of the data "seemed' promising, but in the end, it's just too messy to process. Best, Carlyle

I was wondering if the "NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Combined Image Data Set V003" was usable in FSX? I've had good look with the SRTM 1 arc and 3 arc, but I haven't figured out get a usable TIF (that resample.exe can convert) from the SRTM Combined Image files. Best, Carlyle

I realize this is an old topic, but I appear to have found a workaround that allows "Airport vehicle density" to remain at maximum and clearance to be granted for the misbehaving aircraft. For aircraft that get stuck in pre or postflight support, the baggage cart function can be disabled for the individual aircraft, allowing it to depart. Simply open the aircraft.cfg file, go to [exits], and make sure "number_of_exits =1". Example: [exits] number_of_exits =1 exit.0 = 0.4, 25.90, -4.5, -1.0, 0 The above setting allows for only the jetway to be active. If you have more than 1 exit listed and do not want to delete the other entries, add a double slash "//" to cancel out the remaining exits. Example. [exits] number_of_exits =1 exit.0 = 0.4, 25.90, -4.5, -1.0, 0 //exit.1 = 0.4, -32.00, 4.5, 0.5, 1 Best, Carlyle

Thanks, Steve!

Jim, Is FSX Gold (Acceleration) compatible with Windows 10 in its native DX9 mode? I'm still with Win 7, as I've had a tough time trying to get any definitive information on this. Thanks, Carlyle

As promised, I have created a "test" landclass to show whether or not grass LC is appearing correctly. The file at AVSIM should help illustrate this easily. http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=grass-tree_test_for_ftxglobal.zip&CatID=root&Go=Search Thanks, Carlyle

B247NG, I hear ya! I tend to avoid the forums for exactly the reasons you state. However, the topic of these texture "reassignments" in FTXG just hits too close to home, so I dived in head first. I actually posted a related question to ORBX on August 26th and have not heard back from them. But to answer your questions... Creating a "hole" for an airport background that intersects with hand-drawn landclass can be time-consuming (with a complex scenery), but it is not a big issue. However, it can only be done on the "developer" side to achieve the correct visual results. I have no problems doing this, and from the developer side, it's probably always safe to create that "blank space" for the airport to reside anyway. Now, the texture reassignment issue is a completely different problem, not to be confused with the scenery "hole" issue. The reassignment of the grass texture affects everyone across the board. This means that if 30 acres of grass was assigned to an area, it will appear as 30 acres of grass+trees with FTXG. This may seem like a small (or even non-existent) issue on the end-user side, because the end-result may be that it "looks" more pleasing. However, it can really mess up sceneries where grass is just supposed to be... grass! What's even more puzzling to me is why FTXG reassigned certain textures at all. Usually, the "reassigning" is done through a 3rd party landclass tool (like those made by Scenery Tech), and they do a great job without messing with the underlying architecture of the texture assignments. I'm hoping that cooler heads will prevail and a reasonable solution can be found. I truly am one of the "little guys" in this debate. But because there are a lot of us out there doing this for free, you can probably see why it is in our interest to try to preserve some consistency, so that the community of FS developers who volunteers their talents can continue to do so freely and willingly. Cheers! Carlyle

Thanks, Jean-Paul. It's nice to know I'm not just a "voice in the wilderness" on this topic. I also have that "Faroe Island" scenery, and that is a perfect example! Perhaps I should have illustrated my point in pictures... it probably would have gotten the point across faster and more effectively. Live and learn! Best, Carlyle

B247NG, Please do not misquote me. I clearly stated that the textures were "reassigned", thus replacing what should be grass with grass+tress. I'll be the first to admit that FSX would have died long ago without the wonderful texture "replacements" that have occurred over the years. However, "replacing" a texture and "reassigning" a texture are two completely different matters. When a company replaces an FSX texture, it is with the assumption that it is an improved, yet comparable, texture, i.e., grass=grass. When a company REASSIGNS a texture, it could be grass=trees or grass=subdivision, etc, etc. I've let Luis over at SBuilderX know about the issue, as he carries a little more weight than I do! Much "drama" could be avoided if people were to read what I'm saying, and not try to read what "they think" I'm saying. ORBX is an innovative company with great products. They just need to work out a few of the bugs.

I can confirm that more recent versions like 6.0.6001.XXXXX are a major headache. Version 6.0.5840.16386 of the UIAutomationCore.dll appears to be the "sweet spot" if it is needed. I can also confirm that FSX (on my system) appears to run fine without the UIAutomationCore.dll. So the options seem to be: avoid it if you can, but if you can't, use only 6.0.5840.16386. Best, Carlyle

Gandy, you've got it all backwards. Companies shouldn't be messing with the core structure of FSX to begin with. Many of us "developers" have full-time jobs that are not related to commercial scenery design, and we provide our service for FREE to the FS community. I have been making small patches for the more glaring problems as they arise, but I cannot address every problem. FTXG knows what they have done, and there are numerous forums dedicated to this issue that have been led by commercial scenery developers with much louder voices and gravitas. The ball is in FTXG's court. Whether they choose to listen is up to them. I will continue to design for what I know works: FSX and FSX+GEX, and I will apply FTXG "patches" when needed.

Sorry, Gandy. I thought my quote was self-explanatory. For every scenery I have created using SBuilderX, the grass has been replaced with the mixed grass/tree texture under FTXG but not under the default or GEX textures. (This has been tested and proven to be so by other users as well.) I do not make statements I cannot support, nor do I make claims. It is already well-known that FTXG changes the underlying architecture of FSX, and this is one of the results. Any other developer using the standard method to assign grass through SBuilderX should encounter this under FTXG. I can only speak to my sceneries (and there are 11 of them if you do an author search for "Carlyle Sharpe"), because as the developer, only I knew I selected "grass" and "grass" was not what was generated by FTXG. It's not rocket science... the sceneries were correct before an FTXG install, and now they are not. I really can't make it any clearer than that. It should be an easy fix for FTXG to return the texture reassignment to its original state, however, it may not be a pretty one. There obviously was a method behind these selective reassignments that led to the dramatic "look" of the overall package. Changing one element could affect the new look they were intending. The only issue is, in their successful effort to transform the FSX world, they inadvertently changed the "look" of every 3rd-party scenery that relies on landclass. The end-user may think it looks "better", but only the developer knows whether it looks "correct"! For people who spend hundreds of hours designing and hand-picking just the right textures to create the most accurate, realistic world as we see it, this is no joke.

Thanks, Jim. Since I'm in Win 7 (and plan on staying there a while), I hopefully will not have to deal with this soon!