Baz47

January 3, 2003

OK I give up. :roll: :roll:

Baz

January 3, 2003

jwenting, I've never seen a steady 0.1 frame rate reading. 2 or 3 fps is not a flightsim it's a slide show. Anyone making scenery that has this effect on a modern machine should not upload it.

I'd put money on the fact that you could not tell the difference between 6fps and 8fps but if you tweeked three settings to each get you 2fps then you will notice the jump to 12.

Also I did reference this to setting up a new system not playing with one you have been satisfied with for a long time.

Cheers

Baz

January 2, 2003

I think that the last two posts are from people who have never experienced frame rates of 4 - 6 fps. At this level you have two options, either throw FS away or try to find an explanation.

Explanations are many and varied. I have a reasonably powerful system but recently something slowed me down to 6 fps. Now I don't know about you but I can't live with that and certainly can't fly with it, so the problem was rooted out and disgarded.

Another good point for the FPS guide is that it helps tremendously when setting up a new system. Without it you would never find the small improvements which added together make the whole thing flyable.

Anyway, who wants to fly around all the time? Boring. Get fiddling. :twisted:

Cheers

Baz

December 30, 2002

Re Jwenting's quote, I can understand it to a degree but I don't think that anyone getting 8fps is going to enjoy Flightsim.

Cheers

Baz

December 30, 2002

Jwenting, I thing you were a little hard on the poster there :wink:

8 -10 fps has a very noticeable stutter and looks really bad if trying to land. If I can't get 11 - 12 fps then I wouldn't return to fly in that area.

Shafs, if the problem is in an addon mesh area then the Terrain Texture Quality will have a large effect. At 60% you will see little diference in quality.

Cheers

Baz

December 28, 2002

Jwenting, drifting in and out of flight simming I sometimes find it difficult remembering small things. "Senior moments" I think they are called.

The FS2000 manual combined with onscreen help was OK but a little long winded for a quick reference. If you need to know what a particular button does you have to start looking through the flight lessons or help menu. In FS5.0 everything to do with the simulator and navigation was laid out concisely on the page, with a good index.

Also there are 25 pages of sectional maps, covering quite large areas, directories and runway maps for various airports and places in the US and Europe, as well as approach charts.

Cheers

Baz

December 28, 2002

Thank you Mathijs. I think I'm a bit of a left over from FS5.0. :lol:

Incidently, FS5.0 had the last of the really usefull printed manuals.

Baz.

December 27, 2002

Sorry about this question but can't seem to get an answer anywhere else.

When adding scenery to FS library should I be ticking the "Cache" box or the "use directly" box. and what should the size of my cache be.

Cheers

Baz

December 24, 2002

Holland_Holland,

Sorry if my post seemed a little abrupt. It was not intended that way I can assure you. :oops: :)

Let's see if I can make my opinion clearer.

To me Flight Sim is all about visual appearance. Microsoft started off doing the whole world as best they could. Now Lago is in the business of enhancing that default scenery, a job of which they do extremely well. However , in my local National Park they have caused a piece of scenery to look much worse than the default. So much so that I don't wish to see it again.

No matter how accurate a mesh is, if it causes a bad visual experience anywhere then I think that it aught to be put right, or "made pleasing to the eye" as designers say. To my mind this is a quality control problem that should never have left the factory, in this case the Lago factory.

I don't think that Lago should take the attitude that their mesh is correct so they don't want to sort out someone elses mistake. I understand this position but I am just giving my opinion.

Anyhow, happy flying and if I bump into a 400ft high lake in Holland I'll let you know so that you can mark it as an obstruction on your map and maybe add some lights.

Regards

Baz

December 23, 2002

Holland,

I don't know anything about programing and don't really have the time to learn.

A quick look at a program called "FS Scenery Creator V1.5" by Derek Leung showed a tutorial for building an Island in the middle of an ocean using flattens and smooths. So, land can be built over water.

I was not sugesting altering all lakes, just the ones on a 400ft (133m) pedestal.

I was sugesting that it should never have left the factory like this.

Regards

Baz

December 23, 2002

rayden, thank you for the reply.

If all dimensions were kept in memory then this would solve the problem. Imagine what starting FS2002 would be like if non of the settings were remembered.

Apart from needing to alter the size of vegitation, most other objects could be to a size relative to the flight sim world. I have placed many objects to what I thought was a natural scale only to find that when placing a non-scalable item e.g. the MS cars, everything looked too large.

If you get the opportunity, take a look at the editter in Trainz. Their surveyor mode is fantastic for simpletons like me. It works on scenery and textures as well as objects by a drag and drop interface. An interesting feature, maybe of use to FSSE, is the stretching capability for fences and bridges. this gives an unlimited lenth without altering the vertical size. I do realise that they don't have the problem of fitting into someone else's program i.e. MS2K2, that FSSE does but it may give you some ideas.

Regards

Baz

P.S. What about forgetting Microsoft altogether and Lago doing a flight sim? Judging by the quality of addons todate, things would look much more realistic. :D

December 22, 2002

Hilton,

I don't think that Microsoft are bothered with FS2K2 or any patches now.

Even though the original errors with altitudes was theirs, the problems only come to light when someone tries to make an addon which may be correct but looks visually naff.

So what, if an addon has to be tweeked to fit in with Microsoft's errors, so long as it improves things visually and dosen't make you want to swear as you fling it towards the bin.

What's the point in making better scenery if it looks worse?

Regards

Baz

December 22, 2002

jwenting,

Removing the lake was the general idea. At least I could replace it with water from FSSE if it was flat.

If you want to remove rivers altogether this can be done by removing the texture "riversu". this is preferable to seeing them flowing over mountainsides and up canyon walls. A dry riverbed is not a distraction.

I do whatever it takes to make things look good visually. I think that this is more important than something being at the correct altitude.

Regards

Baz

December 21, 2002

This has probably been discussed before but a search revealed nothing. So, is it possible to alter the default size% and viewing distance.

It's a real pain to have to alter these every time when placing dozens of the same object.

Also, as a matter of interest, why are the default sizes such funny numbers e.g. 2% and 20%. Why aren't all objects at 100% relative to each other still with the option to scale, for those who must have one bigger.

I have a list of stock sizes from scaling objects with one of a known size in default FS but it's still a pain having to alter scale for every object.

Once again, sorry if this has been answered before.

P.S. Thanks for the perfect oil tanker and it sits just right over a real one in the VFR photographic scenery. A joy to fly over.

Regards

Baz

December 21, 2002

Mathijs,

I know that this general topic has been discussed. If most feedback is negative perhaps it is time to do something about it.

I know that your mesh is correct and the default lakes are wrong.

I have read your statement in the readme. I thought that this was clear in my post.

Where we differ is that I think that it would be better to correct large errors that cause your product to look bad and be virtually useless for VFR site-seeing type of flying. I think that a major lake on a 400ft cliff falls into this catagory. I do not suggest correcting all similar small errors.

Wouldn't a small flatten switch cover an situation like this?

Apart from these eyesores your mesh is brilliant and I will continue to use it. My post was intended as constructive criticism.

Regards

Baz

December 20, 2002

I have recently installed the England and Wales TerraMesh.

I purchased this mesh primarily for flying around our National Parks which are where this kind of mesh is supposed to shine. When flying down one of the most picturesque valleys in Snowdonia, the Ogwen Valley I was confronted by a lake perched on top of a 400ft plateau. this is about a quarter of the height of the valley. This is repeated to a lesser extent in the Lake District.

We all know off the height diference problems caused by inaccuracies in the default scenery with regard to lakes and airports and I accept this to a degree but because this affects such a major component in such small National Park I would have expected Lago to try and fix this. :o :shock:

I couldn't fly around this area again.

For our Italian friends, this is like the Leaning tower of Pisa being perpendicular and on a 400ft hill.

Regards

Baz

December 20, 2002

No night textures and also no animated waves around the coast. A great loss.

Cheers

Baz

December 17, 2002

Legend,

Program is made by Just Flight at http://www.justflight.com but is also in all the shops in UK, £29 GBP about 20 Euros for 3CDs. At the moment this only covers about one quarter of the country.

Lauren,

Any kind of land class is still going to be an imitation or "best guess". You can't get more accurate than a photograph. These aren't satallite photos, they were taken from a plane at 5500ft. Can't see any joints. :)

Regards

Baz

December 17, 2002

Legend,

In the last 12 months I have only flown helicopters and the Cessna, VFR.

I've never used any navigational instruments other than the compass. I once did some VORing with FS95 but have now forgotten how to tune to a VOR or NDB.

Given the above, you will see just how important accurate scenery is to me. Something that Microsoft failed to deliver and something that Mesh scenery dosen't help with in flat countries. The roads running across lakes and rivers running over mountains make me suicidal.

However the best possible addon for FS2K2 for me and possibly for you is the new VFR Photographic Scenery for the UK.

I can now follow roads, rivers and railway lines (A request please for some FSSE trains). I can see small airfields not in FS and can see the remains of abandonned airfields. Some of these airfields I have ressurected with FSSE. Looking in top-down view you can place all objects exactly on top of their photo image, even trees can be planted in the correct place at the time the photograph was taken. Everything blends in really well.

Very old airfields can be found, in the UK at least, from very old O.S. maps and if the large modern airports bother you then a flatten switch will cure this.

I realise that you are not in the UK but there is also some photographic scenery for a part of Spain. I really hope that this type of scenery becomes more widespread because I dislike having to return to the default.

Sorry for rambling on, just thought that I would show that there is life after flying HEAVY.

Cheers

Baz

December 17, 2002