|
|
Post by johnhinson on May 20, 2021 10:55:29 GMT -5
It should be borne in mind that (as far as I know) FS9 Landclass doesn't work in FSX, and this scenery is for both products.
I didn't have any issues with any airports in FS9, even with 1967 levels of traffic, but it is a different kettle of fish in FSX. Only the very large and busy airports seem to suffer - KJFK, EGLL, EHAM and maybe a few others can get a bit jerky at times, especially when you turn to taxi towards AI aircraft. This scenery is no worse than the default airport in that respect. I didn't think the Landclass had a significant effect, but maybe . . .
In all cases I blame the hesitancy on my pretty low-spec graphics card. But it seems silly to schedule AI traffic and then eliminate it by reducing levels, so I prefer to grin and bear it.
As far as I am concerned, the scenery is great!
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Dennis the menace on May 20, 2021 13:19:49 GMT -5
I created landclass for the entire state of California in a few hours by using LWMViewer. It is so much faster than trying to use Ground2K4 (which I only use for very small landclass files, like airport surrounds). LWMViewer allows you to set the size of the area that you want to change with each click on a map tile. No need to create an overhead .bmp or to establish contact points as with Ground2K4.
|
|
|
|
Post by jsaus on May 20, 2021 14:27:18 GMT -5
I noticed nobody has the black and white runway signs / boards whatever they are that I have in my install of this scenery?
|
|
|
|
Post by Defender on May 20, 2021 15:17:40 GMT -5
They're set only to appear at extremely dense scenery complexity to preserve frame rates. They seem to have been intended as runway marker boards and featured at all major UK airports late 50's to early 60's.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on May 20, 2021 15:26:16 GMT -5
And they are not in my pictures since they were added after that point.  |
|
|
|
Post by jsaus on May 20, 2021 16:28:16 GMT -5
They're set only to appear at extremely dense scenery complexity to preserve frame rates. They seem to have been intended as runway marker boards and featured at all major UK airports late 50's to early 60's. Bill Ah ok. Just wondered as I thought I had a special copy of something.   |
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on May 20, 2021 18:31:05 GMT -5
You are all special here. |
|
|
|
Post by jsaus on May 20, 2021 23:17:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on May 30, 2021 20:06:44 GMT -5
Hi all,
A minor update has been uploaded. The posts on the Oceanic blast fences no longer flash, and the fences themselves are see through. Same download link.
|
|
|
|
Post by cj241101 on Jun 28, 2021 5:46:27 GMT -5
One problem I have experienced using the FS9 1962 EGLL scenery which I think/hope I may have resolved. Have been adding various AI airlines to EGLL, finding certain aircraft not showing up, mostly 707's as far as I can tell. I use 3 versions of the 707, the AI B707-300-400, the AI B707-320/320B and the B707-3AI. Airlines which use the AI B707-300-400 are the ones that haven't been showing up. Using AIFP to check the minimum parking radius I noticed this version has a different parking radius (91.86ft) to the other versions which have 78.74ft. I don't think this is a figure I have changed at any time in the past, can't imagine why I would need to have done so. My conclusion was that EGLL 1962 parking spots don't accommodate aircraft this size. I tried to change the parking radius then save via AIFP but it wouldn't save the number until I eventually realised (I'm a bit slow...) that I needed to change the model radius instead. Changing this from 28m to 24m (as per the other 707 versions) also changed the parking radius for all the other airlines which I was then able to save. So the missing 707's (BOAC, Pan Am, Air India, El Al, TWA) have been restored.
So my only question really is, what are the largest parking spots available in EGLL 1962? My AI TU-104 has a model radius greater than the 707-300-400 at 30m and is also not showing up. Same solution as before and it now appears.
I'm not brave enough to tackle ADE to amend parking spots which, from replies to my earlier post, seems full of pitfalls. Any other solutions/comments always welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defender on Jun 28, 2021 9:01:20 GMT -5
Hi CJ,
The ADE layout was built around Tom's 1962 AI release and each parking spot is given a specific radius and parking codes to help ensure that aircraft types and airlines park in the appropriate place. We were not aware that some 707's had a radius of 28M so we worked on 24M for them. So you're correct to change them all to 24M, and the DC-8's as well if needed.
We did know that the TU-104 had a 30M radius but it does not feature in the 1962 schedules so there is no provision made for it. If you want to add it then your choice is either to change the parking radius to 24M or change a gate to 30.1M. If the latter then best to use P26, P27 or P28 as they are not allocated to any other airline.
If you have ADE and are happy to recompile the airport bgl you can easily access the parking lists by clicking on Lists, then Parking and editing the gate you want. The parking code for Aeroflot is AFL. You need to change the Traffic file of course to add a flight plan for it.
Thanks for the feedback.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jun 28, 2021 10:52:09 GMT -5
All my AI 707-420's (in the AI B707-320 folder) use model.vt and that has a radius of 24 m (78.7 ft). So you must either be using a different plane, or have not updated file #8 for quite a while (it was set in 2010). The Tu-104 was set at 23m in 2011.
|
|
|
|
Post by cj241101 on Jun 28, 2021 13:44:00 GMT -5
Thanks Tom. The CalClassic AI files I downloaded in 2016 so I'm not sure why the AI TU-104 I have had a model radius of 30m. Anyway I've changed that to 24m and it now appears when it should. The problem 707 was titled "AI B707-300-400" which I downloaded on 22nd June 2018 - not sure where from - however, I STILL have the download. Installed it into FS9 with a different file name and a fictitious entry in the .cfg file, added it to an existing flight plan, checked the model radius and, yes, it was 24m NOT 28m, so where my radius of 28m came from I have absolutely no idea. This version only has "model=" or "model=v" options (corrected from "model=vt" 29th June 1010).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jun 28, 2021 19:43:07 GMT -5
Well, as long as they are 24 and 23 m all is fine now. I have uploaded the final "release version" of the 1962 scenery, same link above. It has dotted lines on the south road, slightly better handling of autogen, and a few other minor updates. If I hear no complaints, this will be the version uploaded to the web. |
|
|
|
Post by cj241101 on Jul 7, 2021 13:21:54 GMT -5
Well I continue to be impressed. A long time ago (27 Oct 1968 to be precise) I was visiting LHR with a friend and we found an old viewing terrace which overlooked the long haul aircraft open. I had no idea this existed and it was the only time I visited when it was open. A couple of years ago I posted a question on the FB Heathrow Classic Movements asking for info about this viewing area. Most replies seemed to question its existence, but a couple of photos surfaced eventually. So it was wonderful when I found it in the 1962 Heathrow scenery. Some screenshots and the real photos. imgur.com/S6ZUs5himgur.com/4EkyZkjimgur.com/bCE7LeCimgur.com/5ZwdT0G |
|
