Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Neutral

About ematheson

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

727 profile views
  1. As a matter of fact, yes. The daily stream of trolls didn't really start to let up until about a year or so ago... Not that you are a troll. But there was (and still is) a population of trolls who think it is appropriate to insult and malign FS9 users.
  2. Please see posts by clearedtoland. He has said essentially what I would say. If you read what he has posted, I suspect you will find a subtext saying what I have said as well... Just perhaps a little more diplomatically.
  3. You have spent the time to write several long posts essentially telling such individuals that they are stupid or lazy or both. If this was not your intent, I challenge you to demonstrate this. Your posts in this thread constitute a clear example of the negative or ill-willed responses that you claim to be seeking to end. Kindly define "informative" in a way that addresses your perceived issue. What is informative for you is not necessarily what is needed by another... Which is precisely why people post the questions that seem to annoy you so much. I submit that your wish carries an underlying sentiment that you are a flight simulator god, knowing all that there is to know about FS at that time and that those of lesser knowledge are not worthy to post here, there, or anywhere. If you have your way, avsim will become a place with draconian moderation and a utility similar to Wikipedia. I would not belong to such a forum.
  4. Oh... That. I loved the plane, but I almost never used the default scheme, preferring some of the many fine repaints that were done for it... So that detail rather escaped me. Thanks for the explanation.
  5. I wasn't in the payware market at that time (in fact, I was using FS98 on a computer that was too slow for it at that time). I'm afraid I missed that aspect of the product and don't remember reading anything like that on the documentation. Could you explain? I agree, though, it's a pretty special model. I just formatted my HD and am reinstalling windows, but on my last install, it got a lot of milage.
  6. I'd love to do the US and Canada, as I've some annoyances with the UT dataset, but sadly, I don't know of any free data of sufficient quality and coverage to use... Sadly, OSM data for much of the rural US is rather poor and despite initially planning not to, a large scenery design company (ORBX) recently ended up buying data for those regions when their OSM based scenery got panned... So that is why I've stayed silent.
  7. Perhaps the airport polys are wrong... But also relevant: airport polys are "assembled" classes, whereas your landuse polys are defined classes. In FS9, defined vtp classes always override assembled classes, regardless of what layer they are defined in... This happens for polys and lines, both.
  8. Thanks for clarifying the order of the layers. That sorted it for me.
  9. I'm pretty sure I have them in order. Does 10 go on the top or the bottom of the stack?
  10. No, that is not the issue. The OSM scenery is above the default scenery layers.
  11. I have already installed the most recent update file. The picture was taken after a complete reinstall to try and fix the problem
  12. Bug report: The area around Slough (just west of Heathrow) has got some unreliable masking going on. Needs a look at. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6N9SEnBdNpxY3dJMkxJdV9XZlk/view?usp=sharing
  13. Regarding use of the "Parks" definition - here is a topic from the FTX support forums regarding what happens when Parks are used without careful checking of the context and the result! http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/86005-terrain-anomalies-utah/ You will need to be a member in the forums at FTX to see the topic - upshot is is that with FTXVector for FSX, the National Parks are included in the landuse definitions and got automatically coded for "Park" landclass, which looks excessively incorrect when said National Parks include the Grand Canyon, Zion Canyon, and so on!
  14. Since this is FSUIPC based, it could probably be made to work in FS9 easily enough... Methinks anyway. Has anyone tested it there? I'm curious to know, for that is my Sim.
  15. I'm confident that other free data sources can be found to fill in the holes or gaps in the osm data set. In the us, we have huge amounts of free gis data available from individual states, the national map, and the census bureau... I'll bet that similar resources exist for most places in western Europe. Of course, osm data is probably more accurate where it exists than most free datasets are, but holes can easily be filled.
  • Create New...