Hi Tom,I just took off from Bagby, having disabled the Horizon Vol 3 Mesh. That "cured" the problem. I'm flying to the Lake District but, even at a distance, can see there's seawater on the tops! So it isn't the answer to that problem! What is quite absurd is that FSX treats these patches as the real thing. A large area between Kirkbride and the mountains has been turned into a vast rectangular lake. Inside its boundaries several lifelike yachts are animatedly sailing. Must avoid the magic mushrooms!
Gerry Winskill Tom Smith wrote:
Points taken GerryTeesside airport is just about un-flyable in the default fsx but it won't be long before some one a lot cleaver than me sorts it out [I hope]Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Winskill" <gwinsk@xxxxxxx> To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Horizon Troughs In FSXTom Smith wrote:wouldn't that be defeating the reason for buying it, to get more detail.Quite right re the reason for buying it; more detail. But that's more visual detail of objects etc. The problem here is the nature of the mesh, on which the detail sits.Take Bagby as an example. With the latest scenery there is, in top down view, a significant increase in the objects discernible, also in the sharpness of their definition. I can clearly make out five parked aircraft, not of my making but there when the photography took place. I can even spot whether they are low or high wing. Pity I can't check by reading their registrations! I can also see that one of my buildings is out by ninety degrees, by comparison with the real one. So, the increase in definition takes me nearer to an accurate view of the site objects. The mesh is quite different. It's an attempt accurately to reproduce the topography of the Bagby site. If it shows a number of approx 10' deep gullys crossing the runway, then the fact that I've never been there doesn't detract from my ability to shout "rubbish". Since you've taken off from there in real life, and lived to tell the tail, it must be rubbish. QED.So, my untutored reaction is that the whilst photo scenery can only be deficient in the way the photographs are linked together to create a scenery, the mesh is probably created by a quite different process, which is less reliable.We had the same thing in FS9, with one of the Devon farm strips. If I remember correctly, the trough didn't show up until the FS9 Upgrade patch arrived, with its increase in the mesh definition it allowed. At that point reaction had to be the same. How could a claim for improved mesh accuracy be squared with the absurdity of the situation it contrived to construct.The problem probably is common to most of the meshes we've used. What has changed, I guess, is that we've "progressed" into a situation where mesh absurdities are brought out into sharp focus. The move to have runways just defined with markers, across the mesh produced topography means that within the strip's boundaries the undulations now become a crucial component, rather than eye candy. With the conventional design programme approach to constructing runways these anomalies are ruled out, 'cos the programme flattens the whole site, shaving off the bumps and filling in the hollows. Another design dodge employed by some designers using these programmes is that of covering the surface of an airfield site with a combination of synthetic grass, concrete, runway, etc. In that way, once the boundaries of the site have been defined and filled in, no one knows whether the buildings etc are truly VFR compatible 'cos the designer has obscure the true facts with a canvas on which to paint.So, do we have access to a way of disguising the wilder fantasies of addon meshes? In FS9 it was as simple as choosing an FS9.cfg value between 19 and 21. Any advice on the way ahead in FSX folks?Gerry Winskill -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 18/11/2006 16:48