Posts by frui

    Here is the FSET map compared with the Swiss DLC.

    You can see the Geoconverter scenery overlaps with the Swiss DLC, but the stripes do not appear in the overlapping area or the Geoconverter scenery area that the Swiss DLC does not cover, but they appear in the Swiss DLC area that the Geoconverter scenery area does not cover.

    I made a scenery around Aosta of Italy, which is just south of Matterhorn, and adjacent to the Swiss DLC. The Geoconverter scenery looks great, but the adjacent Swill DLC becomes striped like a zebra. The stripes appear from cockpit and in the map.

    I downloaded from both the G and the B map services, and problem exists in both.

    I also tried different download resolution 0(50cm, and 1(1m), and the problem exists in both.

    The coordinates: 7.00 46.00, 8.00 45.50

    Level: 9, 11, 12, 13

    My Geoconverter scenery overlaps with Swiss DLC. I think this is the reason that causes the problem. But this needs to be addressed to, because we can't avoid overlapping with the existing DLC in the future.

    Looking forward to the solution. Thank you in advance.


    The conversion of the 50cm 36GB BMP files went through, when I just keep level 14 and deleted other levels in the TMC file. But when put into AFS2 user scenery folder to start, it's not shown. The sim still used the default senery.

    I then deleted only level 9, and kept level 11-14. The conversion succeeded. This time it was shown when the sim started.

    So I am still confused how this "level" works. Is a certain level (level 9?) absolutely necessary? Why does it not work if I only had level 14, since it's the level of the highest detail? Can the sim use level 14 on the ground, at 1000 feet, 5000 feet, 10000 feet, and other altitude? I think FSX work this way using only one level for all altitude.

    I am trying to make a Italian Alps scenery with GeoConverter.

    Coordinate: N46.00 E7.00, n45.50 E8.00.

    Download resolution: 0 (0.5m)

    Size of BMP files made with FSET: 36GB

    Computer memory: 16GB

    When I ran GeoConverter, it crashed in the middle of the conversion, and reported running out of memory.

    I reduced the level from 14 to 10, but it still crashes.

    Then I downloaded the BMP files with resolution 1 (1m) for the same coordinate. The download size is 9GB. And GeoConverter succeeded!

    So what's the limit of the scenery size? Is it the same limit for different download resolution? Say the limit is 10GB downloaded BMP files, regardless whether it's 05m or 1m resolution?

    I had the similar problem with Hartman and Asheroo with nothing in the image folder. Then I found out I have to put the right mark before the coordinates. For longitude west and altitude south, there should be "-" before the number. Thus the problem is solved.

    It's much easier to use the inf2tfw application to convert the inf files you have to tfw. When you have your image files and inf files from FSET, just drop them into the 'input_aerial_images' folder then run the inf2tfw application pointing it to that folder. Once the application converts the inf files to tfw and you have your TMC file completed, just run the geoconvert tool per the instructions. It should run correctly for you.

    Even though the tutorial is detailed, there are really only a couple of core steps needed to get your scenery.

    Got it. Thank you!

    Hi Rodeo, I am still confused. Is inf2tfw and tfw necessary? If not, how can I get image Area_...INF files? Just rename the AreaFSInfo--INF to Area_...INF? Thank you!

    That's great! Thank you Rodeo!

    Hi Sycosys: Can you explain how to download the .3m imagery? I can only download up to 1m. Thank you!

    I see what you are getting at with the source xmls. I'm using .3m imagery. I see the lat longs on the extents.

    Another question, are you importing multiple files for an area or do you mosaic them into a single large image and import that? if you had all the required files could you import a ~10gb imagery chunk (like something dozens of miles or more on a side)?

    I don't quite understand the concept of "level" in .TMC files.

    The tutorial says "You can manually add levels up to level 14, normally beginning at level 9. This is your resolution at different flight levels seen in the sim."

    I am confused because this is not the same as the resolution of the image made from FSET.

    For example, if I made an image from FSET with resolution of 50cm per pixel, it seems that I can assign it different levels from 9 to 14 in the .TMC file. Does this mean level 9 will look lower resolution and level 14 will look higher resolution despite the original resolution of 50cm? Or does it mean the priority of each level to be shown during the flight? For example, if there are 2 levels of different areas, only the high level of the overlapping areas will be shown?

    Thank you Taranakian! I am indeed thinking not just from the perspective of flight simulation alone, but from change of aesthetics because of technological development. We are entering into an age of "Simulacrum" as described by French philosopher Baudrillard. People are more and more obsessed with "the real" of multi dimensions.
    I forgot to mention VR, which is the same embodiment of this tendency, and Aerofly FS2 is also ahead of time in this regard.
    Next generation graphics + smooth framerate + photoreal scenery + Orbx + VR = Future.

    I spent an hour in FSW, and now I get a much stronger sense that IPACS is doing things right,and I am loving Aerofly more. I have been playing MS flight simulator since version 4, but there is no going back.

    There has been a long dispute in the simulation world: Quantity or quality.

    FSX/P3D/XP have the whole world, but generic scenery out of the box. Aerofly has only a few region, but very high detailed.

    Which is better? Which one to choose? All are right. FSX/P3D/XP are right to give a backbone for the 3rd party developer to fill in the blanks. IPACS is right to give a few seclected high quality region to start with, and then expand them gradually, which is especially a good strategy for a small team with limited resources and recognition.

    There has also been a dispute over generic or photoreal scenery. I think the answer is now more clear: photoreal wins, especially with 3d photo real buildings as seen in the Aerosoft NY DLC.

    Generic scenery is the natural product of the old age when computing power is weak and harddisk capacity is small. When computing power grows and HD storage increases many folds, the taste has changed.

    Especially as Google Earth is rolling out more and more high detailed world in stunning 3D, people are more and more accustomed to photoreal scenery, and can't go back to the monotonous generic world of the past.

    I have stronger sense of this change as I was playing FSW last night. It just looks so...FSX, the land, the buildings, the moutains...they all look so artificial. I am spoiled by Aerofly, and I simply can't go back.

    I think the ultimate future of flight simulation is to fly in the world of Google Earth 3D VR, but that will take time even though the data and infrastructure are already there. Before we reach that goal, we can have something between, and that is the road Aerofly FS 2 is going.

    Of course photoreal scenery is not enough. We need more autogens and better trees on top of that, but that is not unrealistic to achieve. And the cooperation with ORBX combines the best of both.

    Despite different voices, I really think you are on the right road. Keep up the good work, and many thanks!

    I am so happy about this improvement of trees, which are just so important for flight simulation. I do think trees used to be the weakest link of Aerofly FS2. They were even worse than that of FSX. Fortunately IPACS is fixing this. Just wish it better and better.