Posts by Ian C

    I've got to a similar stage - i.e. successfully made one 10' x 10' area of scenery in southern England (roughly 18 km x 12 km at this latitude). I'm using a resolution of -1 in FSET and levels 9, 11, 12, 13 & 14 for the whole area (as opposed to different areas for different levels). FSET seems to take a couple of hours to produce the .bmp images and geonconvert takes about 30 mins to do its job. I had previously created a small test area a few km away and, like the OP, I copied the new larger area into the same folder as the smaller area, choosing to replace files with the same name. When I selected "Location" in FS2 I could see the new larger area but not the old smaller one.


    Reading this thread it seems that I might be able to solve the problem by putting the different areas in different folders. I've noticed that many of the geoconverted files have another companion file with the same name, except for "_mask" at the end. What is the purpose of these mask files? Do I need them? Could I dump all tiles in the same folder if I got rid of the mask files? These mask files don't seem to exist in the default FS2 or DLC scenery.


    Many thanks BTW to all who have made the this possible - whoever wrote the Wiki, whoever produced the video I watched & the help tools I used.

    Hi overloaded. Yes I have used the pause key to do that, but I think it's the randomness and quietness of balloon flight that appeals to me - never being quite sure where you're going to end up. Also the fact that you can land it in odd places - a bit like a helicopter. Of all the current aircraft the ASG 29 glider is the best for viewing scenery in my opinion, but I imagine it would be great to lean over the basket of a balloon and look down with no intervening glass.

    Ian ,

    For now just try flying the gliders over some of our big cities - San Francisco, New York ($$DLC), Denver, LA, etc. You can start at 5000 feet or so, trim it up so you are going as slow as you can, move your view (Hit "1") outside the aircraft, and just enjoy the view. Not quite the same but similar in view in VR.


    OK, many thanks for the suggestion - I'll try that.

    Thanks for your reply and yes - I'm sure you're right - none of this is going to happen any time soon (though the hot air balloon itself would presumably be easy to simulate). In the absence of real-world weather I would have to set the direction and strength myself using some weather data site. Not ideal - but better than nothing.


    I take your point about needing a completely new sim engine to offer Google Earth style 3D scenery - and the fact that it might not look as good in VR. I have downloaded Google Earth VR but unfortunately I can't get any of it work beyond the introductory tour. In the intro tour the 3D effects look pretty good to me, though obviously not quite as well defined as on a flat screen. The other problem is that you don't quite have the sense of vastness and scale that you get with Aerofly VR. I guess that comes from haze and other atmospheric effects, as well as being in a believable cockpit. It tends to look a bit like a model village viewed from 6 feet high. (Shades of the Father Ted scene with Dougal and the plastic cows!)

    Hi - I'm new to the forum but not to flight simulation. I was simply wondering if there is much demand for a hot air balloon in Aerofly? Combined with real world winds this is something that would greatly appeal to me. I like the idea of drifting randomly and never being quite sure where I'm going to end up.


    Until quite recently I satisfied this urge for ballooning on GeoFS - but once you've experienced Aerofly VR it's difficult to go back to a 2D screen, and GeoFS isn't playable in VR of course. Ideally I would like a VR ballooning experience over Google Earth style 3D objects. (GeoFS uses Google Earth scenery but they haven't managed to import the 3D objects which GE now has around most major towns and cities.) How does Google Earth produce these 3D effects? Is some sort of algorithm applied to the 2D image? If so, wouldn't it be quicker/easier than making the 3D objects and placing them individually? They look amazing on a flat screen, but would they look as good in VR? I appreciate that they would only look good if generated from very high resolution images, but a hot air ballon can't cover ground very quickly anyway, so I'd be satisfied with limited areas.