[jhb_airlines] Re: Anyone Feeling Constructive?

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:32:41 -0000

The runway can be tiny and I think folks either put it well away from the
airfield or hide it under the apron.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 19 November 2005 11:20
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Anyone Feeling Constructive?

I'd just started to look at that, at the momemt the AFCAD with just
added parking spots seems to causing a 'phone home.
Meanwhile, I'm looking for a space just behind the parking spots that's
level, to use as a non functioning mini rwy. Tthat way the flatten might
just be applied to an area I don't use.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

>You can indeed use SCLink to merge a bunch of BGL files. I did this
>with one version of the IoM scenery but dropped the idea in the end
>because it made the scenery untweakable.
>Have you tried putting in a very small invisible runway in the AFCAD?
>I've seen this idea mentioned in the forums but I don't know how you go
>about this.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>Sent: 19 November 2005 10:03
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Anyone Feeling Constructive?
>Tried that but hopes were dashed. It seems to be unsimplistic, possibly
>to stop tinkerers. The Scenery file doesn't contain any AFCADs, they
>only appear in his Higher Afcads scenery folder, which is there to
>prevent his floaters. Disabling that scenery, which I normally do as it
>used to cause lockups, still leaves the runway in place. The Part 8
>Scenery folder contains only egng.bgl, egngexc.bgl, and egngtaxi.bgl. I
>tried running with the egntaxi removed but runway still present.
>Possibly he's created a number of Bagby .bgl files then used someting
>like Bglcombine to come up with something like the egng.bgl, inside
>which is hidden the original AFCAD. Does that sound feasible?  The
>other potential problem with using a modified version of his Bagby,
>without runways and taxiways, is that the buildings would probably be
>floaters and sinkers, since they'll be set to a single altitude, whilst
>the site undulates in several directions.
>The other way I tried to use his buildings was to exclude the runway
>areas. The programme BGLExclude allows access to a number of excludes,
>on the same site, unlike the addition of an exclude line in the
>Scenery.cfg file. I started by creating an exclude .bgl covering just
>half of one runway. This went into a new Scenery, located higher than
>Part 8. To my surprise this excluded all of his scenery. All other
>attempts had the same outcome. Agin I suspect this may be the result of
>something GS has built in; and we can't complain about that.
>Any other suggestions welcomed, though I'm reasonably close to the
>appearance of his version.
>The use of undulating runways, in the absence of AFCAD's is a two edged
>thing. The major impact, and I'd be very interested to hear the
>reactions of others, is that I never seem to tly into AFCAD derived
>grass runway fields, because they seem artificial, in a way that
>tarmac runways produced with AFCAD don't. I make exceptions in the case
>of fields I know to be flat, like Barton. Barton is bumpy but not
>significantly undulating. The other offputting thing about AFCAD grass
>strips is the texture produced. It looks nicely worn but synthetic.
>Trying to use the VFRGM identified grass strips, out of the box, is
>very unrealistic. In many cases they don't look like runways at all.
>I'm staggered that putting simple markers in place, no matter how few,
>plus a few trees, seems totally to change one's perception of the same
>VFRGM strip. When first I dipped my toes in this pool I'd thought it
>would be necessary to texture the strip, in some way, on the VFRGM
>tile. That's not proved to be necessary.
> One of the frustrations of the non AFCAD route is the absence of AI.
>So far I've used the few available RWY12 statics. A much more pleasing
>way, and one with a smaller effect on fps and access to all aircraft,
>is one I've used at Ted Andrew's Kirkbride, and in my pre RWY12
>versions of Bagby and Fishburn. There I've put together Traffic files
>that have a/c moving only in the early hours of the morning. That way,
>at all times during the day, I have your Tiger Moth, a Bulldog, APM20,
>Cub, etc, all sitting on their parking spots. I've tried to do this
>with non AFAD runway fields, by creating an AFCAD containing only
>parking spots. The hope was that, since they would be parked at bootup,
>not having to fly in, they would appear. Sadly they don't!
>Gerry Winskill
>Bones wrote:
>>Can you not just remove the AFCAD or flatten command in UK2000 so that
>>the runway disappears but leaves the ground objects in place? If
>>Gary's buildings are GMax then they should be separate to his 2D
>>objects (runways, taxiways and ground polygons).
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>>Sent: 18 November 2005 17:05
>>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Anyone Feeling Constructive?
>>I'm trying to tidy up Bagby, being in posession of UK2000 P8 but
>>preferring the real life lumpy runway. Most of the real life objects
>>can be covered, though not in the correct colours. Two things I don't
>>have RW12 access to are an Ex WD Bowser, in drab green, and Bagby's
>>somewhat idiosynchratically bitty green clubhouse. Does anyone fancy
>>trying to produce Gmax versions, from shots I can supply, in.xml
>>Gerry Winskill

Other related posts: