rogwen

Maybe it is not mipped textures that your setup cannot handle; maybe it is a mix of mipped and unmipped? That can be seriously problematic.

So if it never got to the point of display, a texture problem is unlikely.

It could be a texture problem but not necessarily a missing texture; it could also be a texture that has not been formatted the same as the others. A single 32 bit unformatted texture amid a herd of DXT1 or DXT3 textures can cause this. Given that it happens at dusk (and during the night?) points in the direction of a night texture, so look at textures with the LM suffix (eg "hangar 12.bgl" would have a night version called "hangar 12_LM.bgl") and see if they are all the same format. If you don't know how, that is a whole other subject, but just for a start look with the eye at textures with the Windows image setting at "large icon"; if there is one that shows the texture instead of just the icon that is likely the one.

Firstly, when you try making scenery you will find that flocks of haphazard taxiway signs are just the tip of the iceberg. FS9 was made by hordes of outsourced companies who got paid by the numbers they produced, not for the accuracy of what they made. Or even, you will find, didn't make it at all, "But where's the runway? There isn't a runway?" Second, there is no "sticky" texture for taxiways or aprons, and no connection between the plane's "wheels" and the "ground". This is not real life, it is just malfunctioning software. Third, while it is admittedly possible in real life to get a small plane to bounce along if you find the right speed on the right surface, FS9 is not real enough to get that right so once again........ While being critical, it is also a miracle that with so much being crammed into FS9 it manages to function as well as it (sometimes) does.

I have never thought to ask this on the forums before; I just accepted it as a fact as there doesn't appear to be a way to do it in SBuilder. When I exclude roads from an area, using the exclude function in SBuilder (either default FS9 roads or Ultimate Terrain roads, or both) the exclude does not include the lights along the roads, so at night what are really insignificant dirt tracks across barren tundra light up like a city, even though I have deleted the roads themselves! If they had originally been made as gravel instead of asphalt then there would be no lights, but unfortunately that is not the case. Is there a way to dump the lights along with the roads?

Tom Gibson solved it on flightsim. It is because of the ILS!?!

I am making Kotzebue PAOT for FS9, which does not have a control tower, and I have noticed that AI aircraft seem to prefer the east-west asphalt runway to the north-south gravel one, even when the wind is 16 knots from the north. In fact "seem" is an understatement, they fly as if there is only one runway. To head off the inevitable question, I have checked and both runways and all taxiways are connected and there is nothing preventing them using the gravel runway. Is this normal? I think it is the first time I have made an airfield that has the two surfaces plus adequate runway lengths for both.

It seems that airfields in FSX, P3D, and Xplane with real buildings are not hugely popular. One response. One. And that from someone who will be making a scnery in a few months time. Ah well, I tried.

So that I do not waste time checking on the forums here and other sites and finding no responses, email me so that I only have to pay attention when there is a response and someone has an actual project in mind.

I have made numerous "real" buildings for scenery in FS9. If someone wants to make an airport or airfield that I have already made for FS9 and wants to use the buildings I have already made (presuming it is even possible after some twiddling, I have no idea if it is or not) then email me at [email protected] I will not be following this on line at all, but it applies to P3D and FSX too.

I have made numerous "real" buildings for use with FS9 scenery. If it is possible to re-use these in P3D, perhaps after some adaptation (I have no idea if this is actually possible) then if someone is thinking of making an airport or airfield that I have already made for FS9 and wants to use my buildings email me at [email protected] I will not be following this in the forum, but it applies also to FSX, and X plane too.

I have made sceneries for FS9 with realistic buildings made from photos taken on-site, and it appears to me that FSX is lacking in that regard. It seems silly to use "wrong" buildings if with a little work the ones I have already made would work in an FSX scenery too. If you are thinking of making an airport or airfield that I have already made, and if you want to make use of the "real" buildings that I have already made, then email me at [email protected] I will not be following any discussion in the forum on this, but this suggestion applies to P3D and X plane too, if it is even possible. I have no idea if it is or not.

And you seem to do ok, so maybe I will

Ron, know anyone else who might take pity on me?

Before you forget how to paint in FS9 I need a little something from you, a stock C 172 in the colours of Kitchener CYKF training school. Interested? Not at all interested but will do it anyway? They have 19 of them so a big impact on the CYKF scenery I am making now and which is almost finished.

Nice painting. If you are bored with 208's why not do a 172 for Kitchener CYKF training school? They have 19 of them and I am making CYKF for FS9, but my plane painting skills are almost zero, and nobody seems interested to paint a stock FS9 172. There are three other types too, but the 172 is the main plane. My email is [email protected]

email me if you don't locate it and I can send it to you [email protected]

Scott, to avoid cluttering up the forum with a drifting-off-topic-conversation, email me at [email protected] so I can interrogate you re P3D?

Scott, what does it manipulate? Change buildings from FS9 to FSX models? If it is made by Arno I would not be surprised to find it dealing with my every wish list.

I thought I posted yesterday. Scott, Jim Vile has told me to become familiar with ADE9X as there is a section in there that deals with approaches to landing, and it doesn't necessarily depend on weather. And maybe take offs too, I haven't looked at it yet. He confirmed that the MAIW waypoints won't work for this, but I don't know the reason. That's as far as I got and I won't post on here anymore unless there is something significant.

ford_friendly, I haven't tried it, as I said. I was reading what others wrote and it seems not everyone agrees, from their own experience.

To clarify for ford_friendly why, after reading through the MAIW stuff, I decided not to pursue it, please note what I wrote, that only one "waypoint" can reliably be used BETWEEN AIRPORTS according to opinions in the MAIW forums. To use three to get a plane to fly along a valley makes it unreliable and likely to fail. The result is a sudden appearance on a parking spot without landing, which is the same result if a plane hits a mountain. As I can achieve that right now without doing anything...... I will go look for Jim Vile at FSDeveloper (I already use the site, though I never stumbled over Jim) and I will also look at ADE9X (I use SceneryGenX for scenery making, excellent as I get scenery objects and apron edges drawn on the same page). This isn't going to go anywhere, but just in case............

The email to Jim's buddy Reggie also came back undelivered. MAIW seem to think that using more than one of their "false" waypoints between real airports doesn't always work (or ever work? their opinions vary). I looked at Seward and some other problem airports and I figured that to get a plane to reliably fly along a valley while climbing or descending needs at least two waypoints, one at each end. And that is when the valley is straight. So my excitement fades and I go back to making airports in Canada and Alaska.

I emailed Jim Vile but it came back saying delivery had not located that email address. I found in a forum that he talked about "Reggie" as being someone that had done a lot of work on AI that he (Jim) had used, so I emailed Reggie. Hoping for a response. In fact I don't expect to solve the problem, but it would be silly not to try if the insertion of one waypoint then points a plane along a valley and gives it time to reach an altitude where mountains don't matter. This started when 3 days ago I watched one AI plane take off from my recent creation of Seward PAWD on its way to Anchorage and fly into a mountain, while the next one turned a bit earlier and flew along a valley. I was tempted to give all my GA AI planes the same config file as the one that turned early, but given that would only solve the problem at Seward........ So it was on my mind when I found choppers using way points. Now for MAIW.

I found Jim, who made Juneau and Innsbruck without waypoints. He did it by exploiting a different landing procedure already part of FS9, and this would have no effect on take offs, plus it would only work in certain weather conditions. I will search on as there are other folk who have been investigating this.