Posts by frui

    Jeff, will level 14 limit the final conversion to 1m, even though the source resolution we get from FSET is 0.25cm? In that case will it be meaningless to use the source resolution of 0.25m with level 14 and we should increase it to level 15?

    If you are using FSET, in many areas you can actually get 0.25m resolution (-1), then convert it at level 14 produces amazing results. But, like you said, it will take some time to convert everything.

    Before the update, I did some regions with resolution higher than the DLC. I used VE 0.5m, but the stripes are still there.

    I did hit upon a solution of my own: I thought I could "solve" this issue by creating a very big region that completely encompasses the DLC. As the stripes would not appear within the converted regions, it should not appear in this case. But I can't test this method, as the computer would crash with such a big region. :)

    Yes, they are in the adyacent tiles to the converted areas, both sides. I "solved" the issue by converting to smaller areas with more resolution, and those blurries (or low res areas) dissapeared, but this was done before the update of yesterday.

    Cheers, Ed

    The blurry section is not in the converted area, but just outside it, within the DLC area. I think it's the same location as the previous stripes which are gone now. Maybe the team has used some method to turn the stripes into blurry section which looks less pronounced?

    Here the blurry sections at the boundaries of the converted areas obliged me to do another conversion for a smaller area and problems were solved, but haven't tried again with the updated .exe.

    Good work!.

    Cheers, Ed

    Thanks Rodeo for the good news, and thanks IPACS team for the fast and effective action!

    The stripes are indeed gone. The blurry section is the same place as the previous stripes in the DLC area, just outside the GeoConvert scenery. It looks less pronounced than the stripes.

    Thank you so much Rodeo! I have already created the airport successfully with your help. It's just so simple!

    I was trying to add an airport to the GeoConvert scenery. According to the tutorial wiki: "It's best to work off of a sample template for this. The TSC file is what tells Aerofly FS2 where to place the runways for your airport." https://www.aerofly.com/aerofly_fs_2/d…enery_creation3

    But I can't find a sample TSC file. I am also a bit puzzled about what the "main coordinate" means. The wiki says " main coordinate can be the main building, the center of runway or just the tower of the airport." But later it says "We need 3 more points: The tower position, the beginning and end of at least one runway."

    Can I use the center of the airport terminal as the main coordinate? If I use the tower of the airport as the main coordinate, how can I use the tower position again as required?

    If the sample TSC file is not included, can anyone share one of his own? Thanks in advance!

    Thanks Jan for the explanation. In fact previously I was thinking the same as you, so I was patient. It was Torsten's following words that lifted my anticipation: "we already have the physics engine for helicopters for our R/C model simulator, so in theory we can upgrade this engine a little, which would allow us to simulate large helicopters. If the physics in the small scale are ‘right’, its not that much work to get it right for bigger helicopters. "

    So could you just use the physics engine of your R/C model helicopter if it would not be too much work? I want the helicopter so badly that I'd happily play a R/C model in your splendid scenery. Maybe you can improve the physics later because everything is just early access?

    Hi,

    The Q400 had the new engines that required more work on the physics side, helicopters require even more work. The thing is physics simulation have to be done by the headquaters at IPACS because that is core simulation stuff and that requires at least one of the two main programmers to stop their work and focus on helicopter physics, e.g. transitional lift, vortex ring state, etc. The wash of the rotor on a helicopters does a lot more because it's directly aimed at the ground, aircraft prop wash is tangential to the ground most of the times, so we could neglect some ground interaction there...

    So it may be faster to create another aircraft instead of a helicopter because we could do that without much interaction with headquaters. As with 3rd party developers Andreas and I can create aircraft on our own by now, apart from different physics like helicopters are.

    That's also what I am thinking. They must have someone who has been focusing on developing the aircraft. Now that Q400 is done, he can shift to the next aircraft, and what next can be better than a helicopter? It would also be much easier to make than Q400.

    And for the start we don't need much realism for the physics. I don't think most AFS2 users care much about helicopter physics either, because we are relatively casual players, or experienced player who want an easier way to play flight sim. The more realism of the helicopter, the harder to control it, which is contrary to the user targeting of AFS2.

    I used to fly the default R22 of FSX a lot. It's said to be joke, very unrealistic, but I was having a lot of fun. The charm of a heli is simply irreplaceable, even if it's unrealistic.

    I doubt that will work. You can expect IPACS to drop working on for instance ATC to start working on a heli. Or weather. Switching between various tasks always result in loss of time: you will have to dig into new things and later on you will have to figure out where you were when you stopped working on that other project. I think it is best if IPACS is focusing on whatever they are focusing on now.

    Obviously this doesn't necessarily mean that one of the guys can't start working on a heli, now the Dash done, while the others continue working on ATC. Byt updating a priority list on the go doesn't sound wise to me.

    As much as I love the helicopter, I respect other people's priority, which is basically not much different from mine. If the helicopter should take as much time to develop as ATC, I will vote for ATC myself. But if ATC will take a year, while helicopter will only take a month, I think it will be a clever strategy for IPACS to develop the helicopter first, because it can ease our anxiety and impatience waiting for the bigger things.

    Previously I had no complaint about the lack of helicopter, but when I saw Torsten's words about how easy it is to do the helicopter, I sort of lost control...

    I have to join in..

    Yes Yes. Please Very Much!!

    Well performing Heli is firmly stuck on top of my wishlist for months. Right above force feedback support:)

    Yeah, we all have different priorities, don't we? :p

    I totally agree that the regular plane is more important than the helicopter.

    But we already have 18 fixed wing aircrafts, but not a single rotorcraft in AFS2. That makes too much unbalance for aircraft lineup.

    Yes you can enjoy the scenery with the regular plane, but for such a great scenery as the NYC DLC, which is almost an exact replica of the real city, a helicopter makes a big difference. In real life you can't do a guided tour of NYC in a fixed wing aircraft, hovering over each landmarks. The ultra realism of NYC DLC is actually an overkill for fixed wing aircraft.

    I also agree ATC is more important than the helicopter, but the developers have clearly stated about the difficulty of doing ATC, so it will still be along way ahead. But from Torsten's word, the helicopter is easy to do. It's sort of already there, but they just think it's very low on demand.

    Please consider this: If ATC will take a year to develop, and a helicopter will only take a month, are you willing to see the helicopter going first?

    You make it sound as if it is impossible to enjoy the scenery when flying a regular plane... ;) which isn't the case, of course. Most simmers (by far) fly planes instead of heli's. I myself never ever fly heli's and still enjoy the scenery. If I wanted to enjoy the scenery up close and slow I might even prefer a trike over an heli. ;)

    BTW If you'd asked me what I'd prefer, a heli or ATC, I'd say... WEATHER! LOL Imho a full blown weather system would totally transform this sim. So as you see, it is all very subjective and personal.

    I have been waiting every day for a helicopter for AFS2, but I keep saying this to myself: They are busy, they have a very small team, they might not be familiar with helicopter as it's totally different flight physics...those excuses make me calm down and be patient.

    Now you say it's not that much work, the flight model is already there, only the demand is low...now I just can't help but collapse.

    The interview is here, very worth reading:

    https://www.helisimmer.com/interview/inte…er-tosten-hans/

    What interested me and surprised me most is when they talked about helicopter. Torsten said: "we already have the physics engine for helicopters for our R/C model simulator, so in theory we can upgrade this engine a little, which would allow us to simulate large helicopters. If the physics in the small scale are ‘right’, its not that much work to get it right for bigger helicopters. "

    I am so happy to read about that, but then I almost cried when I read his following words: "Its just that demand for helicopters is a lot lower compared to the other features that have been requested, so we are putting a lower priority on helicopters for now."

    Oh no! I have been reading every post in the Steam Aerofly forum, and there is so much demand for helicopters: http://steamcommunity.com/app/434030/dis…=1&q=helicopter

    I just can't understand why you should think helicopter is low on demand for AFS2. Everybody loves helicopter, but there are more reasons for us to ask for a helicopter for AFS2, because your most beautiful and realistic scenery is best suited for helicopter flying. It's the heli simmer's dream come true, and you are not seeing this... Oh no, oh no!

    Think of your magnificent New York DLC, think of your Switzerland DLC, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Innsbruck...can you find a better flight sim for a helicopter to fly in? You are not seeing the beauty of yourself, and you are wasting it. I feel heartbroken.

    Should I also add that you already have 18 air crafts covering major categories from civilian to military, from GA to Airliner, from propeller driven to jet, with helicopter as the only missing part? Please, please!

    Thank you Jeff! I have done everything as you have said: reboot, close every app and every unusable process in the task manager, but it still crashes.

    Make sure that you don't have anything running in the background that could chew up resources. I've tested geoconvert with up to 200nm x200nm running the conversion on a PC with 16GB and it has yet to crash. Also, if you are anticipating a large run be sure to reboot your PC just before. That should help.

    I am considering an upgrade to 32GB of ram to overcome the crash I often encountered with GeoConvert. With 16GB of ram, I have to stay under something like 50nmx50nm for one region, otherwise it will crash during the conversion. So do you still have crash with 32GB of ram?

    Also I never experienced any crash when I am using FSET to convert the map into FSX scenery, so there might be room of optimization for GeoConvert.

    I made two adjacent geoconvert sceneries of Sydney immediately touching each other (the latitude of the southern border of one is the same as that of northern border of the other. I have attached the coordinates below). There appears a thin black line in exactly the same location of the border. It is especially obvious below 1000 feet. This is not to be confused with the abnormal stripes we mentioned earlier, which can also be seen ahead of the black line in my pic attached.

    I have to make a lot of adjacent regions and join them into a very large region because one large region will crash my computer. Now this thin black line makes this process more difficult. I will try making regions overlapping each other to see if can eliminate the black line.

    Thank you Rodeo for the advice!