Posts by Fabs79

Quote from ZoSoChile

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.

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. Blender is free and has many advanced features almost comparable to 3DS max but IPACS still doesn't support it with an export tool. My suggestion would be to create a tool that can read polygons from Google Earth kml files and assign an elevation to the polygon. In the freeware tool SBuilderX for FSX and P3D IIRC you could even assign an elevation to each edge of a Flatten polygon to create a sloped mesh. The next priority should be the possibility to create an exclude polygon that removes every default object in a given area so you can put your own objects on it. I'm tired of putting hours of work into a small scenery only to see default trees sticking out of the roof of my buildings and the only way to amend this is to delete a vegetation file with 100 sqkm worth of trees and completely rebuild the vegetation from scratch. It's a shame that the simulator with the most modern, best performing engine doesn't provide tools to do the most basic things in scenery development, tools which FSX had 13 years ago. Maybe the top freeware developers here on this forum could start a petition to IPACS to focus on providing these tools so that more people can create content for this platform, and I'm convinced that more content will spark more user interest in Aerofly and help improve sales. IMHO this should get priority over the next ten pages of the A320 FMC. ORBX effectively canceling their development of True Earth GB South for Aerofly should ring the alarm bells at IPACS. For me it's the beginning of the demise of a great platform and if they don't do something about it soon it won't go well.

End of rant!

Looks good, did you solve the issue with the floating objects?

Thanks, now that you say it it´s pretty obvious and just simple math. But I just didn´t think of this.

Quote from brunnobellic

I now what you mean , I'm having problems with my Samos scenery too and , all the Hight is set to true with the ground and clutter but still they flout .

I saw that many of the Fscloudport airports seem to suffer from the same problem. lanzarote has floating buildings and static aircraft everywhere

Quote from ZoSoChile

I would like to re address this issue with the simulator. I too find a need for a fix or update to the system that allows height adjustments to the XREF objects provided from IPACS. This is necessary for Tom's issue, and for custom Airport Runways, Aprons that manipulate the Elevation.

I have to say I'm slowly getting increasingly frustrated by Aerofly and IPACS. There is a fledgling community of freeware developers that invest their precious time to help create more content for Aerofly, sometimes in Payware quality. In the end this is what will help boost interest and hopefully sales for this platform in the future. Yet IPACS still doesn't provide the most basic of tools to help support those developers. No possibility to flatten terrain or remove default features as a base for your own scenery, no easy way to edit default airports and populate them with your own content, export tools only for massively expensive modeling programs only professional cgi artists could (legally) afford, no easy way to give a scenery priority over another, .... If this doesn't change soon I'll probably give up on scenery design for Aerofly and see what I can do in P3D. With tools like SBuilder X, ADE and Instant Scenery it's easy to get your creations into the simulator and I'll at least know that I won't run into a dead end after hours of work which forces me to ditch my work altogether.

Quote from Trespassers

BTW: I'm not sure how this new hardware is supposed to differentiate from long proven brands like CH Products, I'd have been interested if they had brought in force feedback, but they apparently don't.

I'm not really interested in the yoke but tee throttle quadrant looks interesting. It combines the functions of two Saitek throttle quadrants, the Saitek trim wheel, Autopilot and Annunciator Panel which together cost more than 220 bucks. And it has a gear and Flaps lever. The thing is that the Annunciator probably won't work in Aerofly because they'd need an interface to read data from the simulator

Quote from ZoSoChile

Hey, I didn't know any better! I've never owned any super expensive flight gear. Only force feedback steering wheel, which was in the $250 price range.

If by force feedback you mean random vibrations then 220 $ could be a realistic price. If you mean control loading with realistic reactions to aerodynamic forces, wind and trim inputs then I know nothing below 1000 $

Hi, I was wondering if there is a way to get the exact center coordinates of an osm data area I downloaded from openstreetmap? If I draw a rectangle to define which area to download in osm I only see the coordinates of the corners of the rectangle but for modeling purposes I'd like to have the center coordinates as well.

Best regards,

Fabian

Quote from slipstream

Do we have any life in Orbx Netherlands?

If you mean moving traffic, then no. Only a few selected airports and their surroundings in Southern Florida.

Strange, I have the Yoko, too, but axis assignment works just like for any other hardware. Try deleting axis assignments for elevator and aileron (select the axis and press del multiple times) until you have a blank entry, then select the axis again and move your yoke. Should work.

Quote from Jetjockey10

The R-22 was fine and fun to fly right up to the last big update. Now it acts like the control cables have been crossed or something similar. Unfortunately this falls on deaf ears. 😕😬🙃

Did I miss something? Didn't some people complain that the R22 became too easy to fly after the least update? Or has there been another update I'm not aware of?

I'm in. Add outside temperature and we'd at least have a basic weather system.

Quote from Jetjockey10

Maybe the three users that own 3dMax can make a few pro bono tracks for the general users.

It's sad that on the one hand IPACS actively encourages freeware design but doesn't provide tools to make it easier. There still isn't an export tool for Blender, which is a very powerful modeling tool and it's completely free. 3DS Max is so expensive that only a few people who work professionally with it could possibly afford it. I'd love to try to create a small airport, but I don't see how I could export easily a ground poly made in Blender into AFS 2.

Another thing that keeps me from doing more is that there is no way to easily remove default trees or buildings and put your own scenery on top of the default. In P3D the order of the scenery library defines which scenery gets priority over the other and you can easily create exclusion zones where everything is removed and you can start your own project from scratch. So until we have tools like this freeware development is much harder and limited than it could be.

Thanks, I'll report back when I made some progress. The hardest part will be where the wings are attached to the fuselage, I'll have to see if I can get that right. I'm a total newbie to 3D modeling but it's a good opportunity to practice some techniques.

Cheers Fabian

Quote from Jetjockey10

This is yet another of GSCSavannah's creative repaints. I asked for this one to see if we could dress up the Lear45 to masquerade as a new Phenom 300 on the Embraer delivery ramp. This was to be part of the Apollo 50 scenery pack, but, it arrived a little late. I was hoping for an actual static Phenom 300 so we could add a bunch of them to the scenery but, my request could not be worked in to the existing work schedules. Maybe one day we will be surprised with some updated static aircraft, you know those that we see at our local airports.

Meanwhile, should this one appeal to the Lear Lovers, jump over to Higgy's Flight-sim.org site and grab one for yourself. Personally, I think it is an outstanding addition to our repaints. Thanks GACSavannah.

What kind of model do you need for the Phenom 300? A high res high poly true to life Payware quality model for a close up view or a rough low poly model for some static aircraft to be placed in a more remote part of the scenery? If you don't set your expectations too high I can give it a shot, the Phenom with its tube like shape seems manageable to model. For me texturing is the most time consuming and tedious part of 3D modeling, but I could try to apply some basic texture layout that a skilled repainter could use as a template

Quote from nickhod

The name of my main file is C208. Answers on a postcard!

Will do a separate post when I have something more to show.

A C208 would be fantastic. Couldbe a good aircraft for the recently released Lukla scenery, too.

I'd also guess a Tecnam but not sure which one

Same with screen door effect. I never noticed it on my Oculus Rift while others say it's terrible. Then again, my eyes are nothing the best

Quote from ZoSoChile

I've recently been flying XPlane 11 in VR and I did all the setting adjustments and tweaks to boost performance. At first it was nice to fly with different lighting, clouds, moving traffic, etc. But the moment I got to anywhere populated my computer was struggling to achieving just 20-25 fps. You can just forget flying Downtown London because that was around 8 to 10 fps . This to me is a 1st world problem

It really makes me appreciate that Aerofly can actually provide a quality VR experience. I honestly don't want go back to anything else (VR wise)

If other sims can't perform with current headsets, then they might not stand a chance with Higher Resolution headsets in the future. Here's to hoping other sims can optimize and improve to the Aerofly standard.

That's exactly what I think when I occasionally fire up Prepar3d V4 sometimes. Although it's got many features that I sorely miss in AFS2, like real weather, dynamic water AI traffic and much more, VR performance is terrible. After half an hour of screen tearing, micro stutters and frequent reload pauses for 15 seconds I always think "Even though I have all those great features I can't enjoy them because of the performance issues" and go back to Aerofly despite it's many shortcomings. I still use P3D for Bush flying and float plane operations in remote areas because there performance is still okay, with fps between 30 and 45 which is not great but acceptable. But as soon as I visit a complex airport or urban area it's a sideshow. For the same reason I never got into Xplane, I tried the demo but VR performance was not better than P3D and one badly performing tweak requiring simulator is enough for me.

Thank you for your help, I'll have a look at the files when I have the time. I haven't used ScenProc much, but I'll try to learn how to use the method you're referring to. What I'm doing for San Francisco is not a great project, just some buildings to improve my modeling skills whenever I have some spare time. Modeling is quite fun to do, it's the texturing work that can be tedious at times especially when you don't have good reference photos from all sides and have to guess how a building might look.