In the mobile version, the overlay is hidden if a controller is connected before ASFS2 starts - maybe this is the case in this case?
The Apollo 50 team has also upgraded the aircraft carrier USS Horten (model USS Nimitz) so that a F-18 can roll, take off and land on the flight deck (roll and take off already works , landing is still a problem, but more on this soon).
I set up the 4 catapult runways "C1", "C2", "C3" and "C4" as well as the runway "L" on the carrier like on the original.
But now there are altogether 20 positions for the selection to the start (4 positions per runway), which is nonsense however on a carrier. Only 5 positions (framed GREEN in the screenshot) are possible:
- starting position at catapult "C1"
- starting position at catapult "C2"
- starting position at catapult "C3"
- starting position at catapult "C4"
- landing approach to runway "L"
How can I hide the 15 positions not needed on a carrier (crossed out RED in the screenshot)?
PS: if everything fits, I will publish the tsc-file
I hide the two runways deliberately(!) because I like the original view more than the artificial runways (but that's just my opinion.). And this solves the problem of crossing decals, as a kind of workaround.
But of course it would be better if FSCloudPort has no problem with crossing runways even with visible decals.
You can overlay individual runways in FSCloudPort. The only thing that doesn't work at the moment is the display of the overlapping decals.
I always hide the runway decals anyway if I have good images of the airfields. That's why FSCloudPort allows me to use complex airfields.
The example shows EKRK (Denmark, Copenhagen Airport - Roskilde), once when selecting the runway and once as photo.
thank you very much for your answer. Too bad that there is nothing yet. I had thought that you already have relational positions with the airplanes, which one could use now also with ships directly.
The creation of a table is not necessary, because with the tool Geo Coordinates this can be calculated sufficiently exactly both in dependence of the direction and the degree of latitude. I must only pay attention to indicate the absolute distances in the annotation, so that everyone can calculate the absolute position data.
Heliports on earth and on buildings can be easily set up by entering the corresponding absolute coordinates into the tsc file as position. Basically this also works for ships.
However, the absolute position of a ship are bad as position for the heliport, if you rotate the ship in alignment and/or position it on a different latitude. In both cases it is necessary to recalculate each absolute position. It would be better to enter the direction and the distance relative to the basic positioning in the tsc file (see line 9 in the code).
Since I did not find anything in the Wiki and with the search function, I ask here the question whether and how this works.
For a better understanding I have attached a tsc-file as an example with the ship USNS Patuxent:
- line 9:
this is the position of the tsc-file
- line 20:
in this case is the center of the ship in the same position as the tsc-file so the absolute coordinates are no problem
- line 32:
on equator is the heliport 100 m east of the center of the ship
on 45 °N is the heliport only 71 m east of the centre of the ship
on both poles is the heliport in the center of the ship
<[file] <[tmsimulator_scenery_place] <[string8][type][object]> <[string8][sname][USNS Patuxent]> <[string8][lname][USNS Patuxent T-AO-201]> <[string8][icao]> <[string8][country][us]> <[string8][coordinate_system][lonlat]> <[vector2_float64][position][0.000000 0.000000]> <[float64][height]> <[float64][size]> <[vector2_float64][tower_position][0 0]> <[float64][tower_height]> <[bool][autoheight][false]> <[string8][lights]> <[list_tmsimulator_scenery_object][objects] <[tmsimulator_scenery_object][element] <[string8][type][object]> <[string8][geometry][usns_patuxent]> <[vector3_float64][position][0.000000 0.000000 0.0]> <[float64][orientation][0.0]> //ship-orientation: west ahead > > <[list_tmsimulator_scenery_object_animated][objects_animated] > <[list_tmsimulator_runway][runways] > <[list_tmsimulator_helipad][helipads] <[tmsimulator_helipad][element] <[string8][name][H1]> <[string8][type_name][building]> <[vector2_float64][position][0.000898 0.000000]> //heliport is 100 m east of ship-center <[float64][radius]> <[float64][heading][-90.0]> //heli-orientation: west ahead <[float64][height]> > > <[list_tmsimulator_startposition][start_positions] > <[list_tmsimulator_parking_position][parking_positions] > <[list_tmsimulator_view_position][view_positions] > > >
- line 9:
They are already sorted alphabetically but the list first includes the default aircraft and then the user aircraft. I think it's sorted by folder name not by the aircraft description name.
So the list is
A-Z default aircraft folders
+ A-Z user aircraft
Yes, both lists are sorted by the folders name.
If everyone would adhere to a common rule, this would also be unproblematic, but if the description is
- on the one hand „Boeing 787-800“ and
- on the other hand „787-800l
then the order of the displayed names is not identical to the listed order.
To remedy this, you could adjust all this manually, but then some of the updates no longer work or you have to adjust the names after each update again. That is too much effort for me.
I would also like it if you could form groups of airplanes, e.g. glider pilots, motor pilots, helicopters, etc.
Bye, Michael (III)
I think it is good that you inform us so promptly and I wish you good luck.
I just added a listing of the airports hierarchy plus a short explanation to the
Would you think this makes sense, or is it more confusing than enlightening...?
Kind regards, Michael
Moin Michael (II),
I think it's a good way you did it, thank you for that.
Does it make sense?
I think it's definitely better than it was before.
Of course, it's even better if the AFSF2-Wiki present the scope and content of the individual offer groups in a more detailed article.
My intention is to help the beginners to classify the many offers correctly. When I think of my start at the beginning of 2019, I would have wished for a helping guideline. Only after months of try and error I can now unterstand the different offers.
One will always be able to see it one way or the other, so that I consider your approach to be at least helpful.
I think it's good that Krysk1 provides many airfields with basic data.
But for new and inexperienced players, it's getting harder and harder to understand. I think it would be nice if IPAC could include information in its wiki that says
- there are different data sources and
- duplicates don't get along very well.
In the "order of the offered data" I see from simply to extensive:
- airfields of Krysk1 with basic data
- airfields on FSCloudPort with standard objects
- airfields on FSCloudPort with improved (standard objects)
- Airfields individually created on flight-sim.org
- Aerodromes operated by commercial operators
Bye, Michael (III)
Aerodromo do Cerval was easy because the terrain is flat and even. All objects (buildings, static airfields) are automatically set to the correct height.
This is different in Coruñja, where the elevation of the landscapes do not fit. But I can't adjust it, maybe someone does it occasionally.
Bye, Michael (III)
In the area that is going to do cultivation and photo scenery Michael in the Northwest of Spain, specifically the fifth tile that covers the south of Galicia and Northern Portugal, there is a large airfield called 'Cerval'.
- The elevation in this area are unfortunately not so well designed that you can roll well over the airfield, and I can't design elevations.
- I don't know the images yet, so I have aligned the buildings according to GoogleMaps.
Bye, Michael (III)
That's the way I see it:
- When looking at the outside in flight, a crew in a plane always looks better than an empty cockpit.
- With the interior views I would like to be able to choose in the settings whether I want to see more ePersons or not.
That's crazy as I did see them. I uploaded them using the forum upload function. I did place them on my webspace and linked to them making them to appear as "blocked images" now, but you can click on them. (Anyone an idea what could have gone wrong with the pix?)
Thanks and kind regards, Michael
Now I can see the booth jpg-files. 👍
That's great news Michael and thanks in advance for adding another airfield to this part of Spain.
If there is sufficient interest in this area I will look at making both scenery and cultivation what do you think?
Not forgetting of course I need to get back to both Finland and Germany projects too.
Kindest Regards, Michael.
Good Morning Michael (I),
I will gladly accompany your work with the images and cultivation also in Spain.
In Ireland I am finished with all airfields and in Northern Germany and Denmark I only have to design a few airfields. In Finland there is more to do.
My experience with creating airfields in FSCloudPort is meanwhile quite high, so that this also goes fast. In the meantime I always try to find the AIRPORTCHARTs to be as accurate as possible.
I will ask Phil to add some additional buildings (terminals, gates, shelters) to the catalog.
Bye, Michael (III)
Hello again Delfin,
I have modified my map and numbered the tiles. These tiles are fixed size in "AeroScenery" to make photo scenery. I follow the same tile size to make cultivation.
I'm still not clear is it ONLY cultivation you are after or both cultivation and photo scenery?
in Spain in FSCloudPort there are now 3 airfields in this area which can be taken into account for cultivation:
- LECO (Coruña) (Author: me)
- LEST (Santiago de Compostela) (Author: StrongSafety)
- LEVX (Vigo) (Author: me)
By tomorrow night, I plan to have the buildings ready as best I can.
In Coruña we still have problems with the elevation, let's see how this can be solved.
Bye, Michael (III)
I have no problem with my iPadPro 10,5“ (12.3.1, 370 from 512 GB free).
Thanks to everyone for this great teamwork. It's fun to discover the many little things.