[jhb_airlines] Re: IVAO

  • From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:11:43 +0100

The trees are probably the Gerrish Grey set which only work if the BGL and
textures are in the correct default folders. You could check this by
disabling the Jurby_Tree.BGL or Andreas_Tree.BGL.

Textures are a problem because, like many designers, I freely use the Nova,
Nova Gold and VOD sets. These would be well established in your FS9 setup
but I guess will be missing from FSX. Even if you put them in I'm not sure
the VOD.pat files will work.

Jurby runway height is accurate but I'll guess the flatten doesn't work and
so the mismatch becomes obvious. As FS9 flattens don't work in FSX the same
will apply to Ronaldsway and Andreas - they will both need new ones. If you
know how FSX flattens are created I might be able to rewrite the XML code
for them.

I am surprised the buildings at Ronaldsway work because most are still SCASM
coded. Only a handful are GMax.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 26 August 2007 19:32
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: IVAO

What a very pleasant surprise! Well, for me, anyway.

One of the most depressing areas of FSX has been Ronaldsway. With FSX
installed my bootup situation looked a disaster area. Most of your
lighting poles were about 50' in the air. Many of the buildings were two
dimensional, etc etc. There was no alternative but to disable it and,
when visiting Ronaldsway, put up with the Ghastly Default version. In
the case of your long cherished version it looked as though nothing less
than a complete re design could improve the situation.

When you asked the question about the taxiways I thought a re enable was
worth a shot, since the SP1 had gone onto my system, since I suffered
that first trauma.

Having re enabled IOM Alpha, I started at Andreas. That didn't look too
promising, mainly because a few textures were missing and some large
grey rectangles present. I'd hazzard a guess these might be trees.

Having taken off from Andreas I did a touch and go at Jurby. It looked
much better, though the runway height was a bit out. The textures of
hangars, Jurby Church etc were spot on. The only two points that struck
me were that the radio transmission mast was a bit ephemeral and its
light had far too large a halo.

The trip down the West coast, in this evening's failing light, was
brilliant. In the GenX area it really is debateable whether Autogen is
worth pursuing. At low light angles the ground features look almost
three dimensional. With the GenX mesh in use the coastline is spot on,
whereas VFR GM had you needing to work the oracle with a new coastline.
The West coast's cliffs and beeches are damned near perfect.

I followed an AI onto 08 ILS. It was soon apparent that your buildings
and lighting were in the right place, on the deck. The textures were
perfect and, particularly in the case of King Williams, look better than
in FS9.

The only insect in the ointment is the runways. Taxiways are fine but
all runways are in steep sided 20 foot gorges. Back on the apron and the
AI are all correctly parked. There was just one, with just the tip of a
tail fin showing. Perhaps it had parked itself on the edge of the
adjacent runway.

I switched to the VFR Terrain Mesh but there was no change.

It's well worth taking a look at, since only the runways need changing.

Hope you find an irresistable urge to do a MacAlpines job. Come to the
aid of the country!

Gerry Winskill

bones wrote:

>The only headache I see with the mix of default and my IOM scenery is
>that Taxiway B and 17/35 in the default are in the wrong place - about
>200m too far east. My IVAO sector file has the correct layout so, for
>most aircraft, I see them taxying across the grass.
>I presume the incorrect layout exists in FSX too?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>Sent: 26 August 2007 17:05
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: IVAO
>I left Jersey for Barrow, this morning, as a French flight arrived. The
>only hiccup, almost certainly down to our using different sceneries,
>was that after announcing he was clear of the runway, I had to wait as
>he appeared to backtrack along it. I suspect he was using Default
>scenery, since VFR GM shows that to be constantly adrift from the real
>tarmac. No lag; he turned off at the moment he said he was.
>Gerry Winskill
>bones wrote:
>>I'll be online for a couple of hours for testing.
>>The session last night was quiet until both Mike's turned up. We had
>>time to run some tests and these proved very enlightening. Mike Lucas
>>was using my EGNS scenery with an airfield altitude of 33ft and Mike
>>Brook was using UK2000 scenery with airfield height of 58ft. Despite
>>this variation in airfield elevation both aircraft saw each other
>>correctly sitting on the ground. The floating aircraft syndrome that
>>plagued PCI seems to be resolved in IVAO.
>>Both pilots also saw each other in the correct aircraft types (as
>>filed in the flight plan). The third PCI annoyance of lag also seems
>>to be absent in IVAO.
>>These are strong indications of a superior simulation and, as Mike
>>said last night, this would have made a huge difference to our flyin
>>at Woburn some months back. To eliminate lag alone would have made
>>that session really good fun.
>>What I would like to do is organise a session at Ronaldsway with as
>>many JHB aircraft as possible. This would test the session nicely and
>>we could see if any problems arise from this. The big question is
>>whether pilots have a spare evening free in addition to Wednesday
>>night so we can run the test. The UK night on IVAO is normally each
>>Tuesday - is anyone free this week for a run?

Other related posts: