Posts by ussiowa

    Call me ignorant but I cannot see a link that will get me to files relating to the Missouri placed at Ford Island.

    There is no such link indeed. There is a link to a 3D object that can be used to be placed there if you know how to place it. That is all that is available I'm afraid, unless someone wants to do it for you (I don't know how to). The link will place the Iowa in San Pedro.

    Thanks for the help, I'll try that next time I get a chance (computer is not at my house).

    Let's try the first task: ^^

    "downloaded (scenery)" = orthophoto/photo (lanscape) ----------> ...... scenery\images

    "downloaded (aircraft repaint)" = "applied surface" :S ----------> C:\Users\ ...... \Documents\Aerofly FS 2\aircraft\as an example: dr400

    Thanks for the help, I'll try that next time I get a chance (computer is not at my house).

    Yep you can use the Iowa we have, except of course the location has to be changed. They are sister ships, so indeed mostly a number difference (63 for the Missouri, 61 for the Iowa). There are others small differences, but I doubt anyone will spot them as they are little details really, and very hard to spot from a fly over.

    The Iowa model we have however is a 1940's version, which would not be realistic for either ship (or the other two for that matter) as their museum shape is more of the 1980 configuration. But again unless you're a specialist, not easy to know the difference, although that one is more prevalent in a fly over if one knows what to look for. Just nitpicking because I can ^^

    Another interesting story is that when I first got FS2 I was looking for the Iowa of course on the ortho photos, and I couldn't find it in Suisun bay where it was mothballed for many years, nor could I find it in San Pedro where it was a museum.

    Finally I happened to find it in Richmond where it was parked a few months for refurbishment, which gives me a very close date as for when the ortho photos were taken (early 2012).

    Nice, very interesting.

    Could you elaborate a bit on how it works?

    So I'm flying in VR, do I need to press the playback button? Wouldn't that take me instantly to some playback?

    When does it start recording?

    If I fly for an hour let's say, how far back has the playback been saved?

    When I playback, how do I position the camera, like you did for example in your video? How do I position the playback camera in general?

    Can it be a follow camera, or back in cockpit?

    Do I get the playback in the VR goggles, or on the monitor? Or both?


    :DI'm as confused as ever, if not more. This ought not to be so difficult.

    How ironic that even though I've used FS2 for years and I've even helped create scenery (Apollo 50 team for example) I still can't figure this out.

    I have files that I have downloaded (scenery, aircraft repaint) that I gave up on figuring out how to install them. I tried a few times, didn't work, gave up.

    Looks to me like we could use the already existing towers that we have in catalog, and we just add a few objects at various heights. Maybe a random add.

    I think with 5-6 objects all of this can be replicated:

    - A single parabolic dish

    - A cluster of two single monopoles (although probably hard to see as you fly by)

    - A cluster of 3 bars in a triangle

    - A cluster of 6 bars in a triangle

    - A cluster of 12 bars in an hexagon

    - ...

    You get the idea. I can create such object real quick if we know how to spread them on towers, any idea on dimensions?

    To expand on what Antoine is asking:

    - At minima it would be nice to have a clear document (wiki) on the structure of folders for FS2. For scenery, aircrafts, repaints, etc..

    Structure of all three folders: C: game folder, C: game add-on folder; User expansion folder

    What folders are expected (scenery, elevation, image, aircraft, TMC, TMD, etc..), where (which one are not supposed to be interfered with)

    Which one are flexible (like I can have a USA folder and subfolders for each state, etc..)

    What content (type and file extension type) is expected in each folder. So that we can double check things are in the right place and of the right format. Also so that we know what to expect of files or issues, where to look for an elevation issue for example etc..

    A structural graphic with colors (like red for mandatory structure, green for optional, etc..) would probably be the simplest and clearest.

    I've seen some info here and there, some conflicting info, some dated info which we don't know if still true or not. A wiki would be great, I'm willing to help compile all the info and create a document for the wiki.

    You go into preference, extension or something similar (I have an older mac version, so different), then install, or point to the rmz folder somehow. That should take care of it.

    Nothing to fix on the model I linked I assume, it was on the model you had, there were transparent polygons and such. New model looks fine I think.

    I don't know how to go from sketchup to model converter, someone may chime in. All I know is you have to get rid of "alpha channels" in model converter.

    Apply texture on both sides, there is a plugin:

    Of course this is for a sketchup a stand alone software, if you're using the web version I don't know how that works.

    You can download standalone from here:

    Sketchup make 2017, that should work (I don't know because I use older versions)

    Here is a crude model, and based on old version of it, so it would need work:


    Here is a greater model, that probably would work perfect. It may need a bit of ground work, but nothing extensive:


    It even has the water tower which is not present on the FS2 ortho ground, but there on google.

    Nothing to buy. Get sketchup, import model, fix it, make sure you apply texture on both sides of each face, use the converters and tools from the SDK (on PC) learn how to position in FS2 (I don't know how to but lots of people do) and done.

    I cannot do what you ask, but here is one easy solution:

    Get the 3D model you're using (fix it, BTW), extend it by modeling the ground around the church also all the way to where it blends with the hill. Then drop that model on top of the mountain, everything that is modeled flat will then be flat. Better and easier solution than "flattening" the existing ground.

    Again I cannot do as I cannot convert, nor do I have the model to start with anyway.

    See example below. That was then dropped onto the scenery, height adjusted (Apollo 50), and the edges blend nicely as the model edges "disappear" below the actual ortho ground.

    If I'm not mistaken weight painting has nothing to do with visible colors on the model, it's a method of designating how much a certain vertex within a 3D model will be influenced by an action or modifier. I've seen videos where people used it to simulate how skin moves when muscles and bones beneath are moving, the vertices reacted differently (some followed the movement more than others like stiff or soft tissue) depending on which "weight" is assigned to them and the weight is shown by different colors in the modeling view. It's been awhile since I last used sketchup but I can't remember an option like that.

    I see, so yes you're right, I don't know of anything like that in Sketchup, so no "weight painting". That said, sketchup is highly customizable through addons in Ruby, so knowing what is required, it probably would be possible (I don't know how difficult) to get there.

    Assuming this is true about Sketchup. Not holding you to it because I know you use 3DSMax for your work.

    I've attempted this in Sketchup but was unsuccessful. This was awhile ago, and I easily just moved on to other things.

    If anybody knows how to do this in Sketchup, it would be greatly appreciated if you could share your workflow with the Aerofly Community.

    Flattening Ground Mesh is a HUGE desire for alot of user in this SIM.

    Not sure what you guys are talking about, but if I understand I can try to help, I know sketchup.

    Antoines post states that the ground poly's vertices must be painted black to appear transparent in Aerofly, which means that the 3D software you use needs to have a vertex coloring or weight painting mode. I highly doubt that the free sketchup version has this advanced feature, maybe the Payware version does.

    End of rant!

    OK Mr Rant :) Sketchup does support edge (vertex) material and coloring, on all versions since the beginning. If by "weight painting" you mean thickness of lines, it's not great but it can be done too.

    So that at least won't be an issue. now is the "black" in sketchup identified as black for aerofly, not sure, seems to work on buildings.


    My experience is also that with Sketchup it is not possible to create an airport ground or to flatten a ground.



    "create an airport ground", I don't know. "flatten a ground" I'm not sure what you mean. Can I flatten things in sketchup, yes for sure, I can flatten all kind of things, all kind of ways, from vertical projection to unfolding. But I'm not sure in this case what we would be starting from.

    Trains should actually be easier. First they can be set on fixed path and timing, like back and forth between two end stations and that is already realistic, whereas cars not so much (not that anyone not following them would notice, but just saying, some people will check just for the sake of it.)

    Then I'm sure we could come up with some some coding of sequences, when one train passes another (double line), etc... So a fairly elaborate network that behaves pretty realistically can be achieved with reasonable work.

    My guess would be to code some of the network elements, and then code some of the trains, and the whole thing would behave pretty well by itself with quite a few complex happenings on the network, and the ability to provide for different requirements (Europe, USA, Japan, etc..) with the same engine.

    Cars are an entirely different subject, they pass each other, there are crossings with many possibilities, they are together at different speeds, the "AI" simulation coding would have to be much more complex.

    LOL if you can get up there with the F18 that is a very very low earth orbit, a.k.a. "duble V LEO"

    Well, we're working we what we have. Granted an U2 or SR 71 would have been great and more realistic (closer to real orbit) alas still waiting for one. I wonder who could help with that?:P;):saint:

    Or there are other options, like a real space shuttle with boosters, an x wing or tie fighter (but then people will complain they don't have tatooine or hoth).

    I'll take anything.

    OK, sounds great, lots of toys to play with I see.

    I wish I were more motivated to dive into TMDs. Maybe I'll find the motivation somewhere.

    I like the dudududududu vehicles, or maybe just an X wing or tie fighter.

    Yeah, what's up with that? I mean thrust vectoring is totally doable in Aerofly, that is one of it's strengths. So hovering a jet is not that difficult from an aerofly physics perspective. Works similar to your landing gear tilting... now just add a engine onto the gear and you have thrust vectoring. Any external developers wanna give it a try? :)

    LOL because first it sounds like you're saying thrust vectoring is one of the f35's strength (I know you meant FS2), well it's got to have one at least.

    As you know, thrust vectoring is not the answer, just a very small part of it. That part is easy if you say so. But to hover and fly a plane on thrust vectoring, you need a flying computer, that reads multiple sensors and corrects thrust and vectoring all the time. Do we have THAT in FS2?

    If I have real physics and just pivot the engines, the likeliness of the plane flipping over is very very high, even more so with "real physics", it's an unstable system that can only be controlled through a flying calculator. I need to read accelerometers and gyros and change thrust and vectoring accordingly, and that "software" needs to be written too, on top of creating the rest of the plane.

    I'm not sure if you were joking, but if you were I like it.

    And I meant F35C, the navy version, so no thrust vectoring.