[jhb_airlines] Re: Anyone Feeling Constructive?

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:00:16 +0000

I've placed three 100' x 10' runways, parallel and behind each of the three parking lines. Now have AI on them and no flattening effect on the main aprons and runways. More later; must get back to working on the BM, in the sunshine.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

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 format?

Gerry Winskill


Other related posts: