Alaska & NW Canada scenery recommendations please

DanKH · Post by **DanKH** » 20 Apr 2007, 14:17

I told you so didn't I?

Paul K · Post by **Paul K** » 20 Apr 2007, 17:13

Curses! This limbo between having FS9 but knowing full well I'll get FSX one day is becoming a pain.

It would be silly to shell out for something that'll eventually become obsolete. Then again, that UT scenery looks terrific; just what I need in fact. And we are back to exchange rates where five bob really is half a dollar.

And compatibility concerns didn't stop me buying Alphasim's Hampden and Catalina, all of Plane Design's output and the Aerosoft DHC2, did it ?

And I'd spend more down the pub of an evening than that scenery's going to set me back...

I'm convincing myself here, slowly.

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 20 Apr 2007, 18:54

I'm still buying scenery for FS9 because I KNOW I'm not going to use FSX...I will take some persuading to even use FSXI or FSXII. I'm very fond of what I've got and will just continue to use it with increasing frame rates as I make the odd equipment upgrade.

I draw the line at UT though...I don't actually want that :think:

You would be well advised in that area to buy absolutely EVERYTHING that Holger Sandmann has ever produced (BTW quite a lot of it is freeware)...At least he has made fixes for most things that UT FUBARs. Alaska Cinematic parts 1 and 2 are also available if you like Photo Scenery that is vastly superior to any other that has been produced

Paul K · Post by **Paul K** » 20 Apr 2007, 21:06

Thanks Peter. You say you wouldn't buy UT...is that because you don't like it for some reason, or simply have no inclination to own it anyway ?

So far I've installed Raimondo Taburet's Alaska mesh ( actually the first 3rd party mesh I've ever tried for FS ) and took some screen shots with it enabled and disabled. Its makes some very noticeable differences around PARC, so I'm very pleased with it. :dance:

I assume that if I did buy UT's scenery, it would just lay over this new mesh, yes ?

Motormouse · Post by **Motormouse** » 20 Apr 2007, 21:34

Can't help but promote the little outfit of which I'm a 'founder member'

http://www.avsim.com/bfu/ (look under 'scenery')

and I'd also recommend a look here

http://www.timberwolfaviation.com/downloads/index.php

and there's some nice freeware fsgenesis mesh too

If you get Misty Fjords, there's some add-on's here

http://www.mistymoorings.com/

and if you really want to cover Alaska, look here

http://walhalla.mine.nu/fs2004/alaska.php

ttfn

Pete

Post by **DaveB** » 20 Apr 2007, 21:44

Paul..

I'd advise against overlaying mesh as you can end up with some very odd things happening :shock:

It's worth noting that while the Alaska Cinematic scenery is the doggies gonads, it comes in 2 parts.. each of which is over $22. UT Canada/Alaska is $29 and covers a vastly bigger area (although NOT in photoreal detail). In case you're feeling totally flush.. Alaska Cinematic can be used with UT Canada/Alaska.. patches are available from the Georender site

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Paul K · Post by **Paul K** » 20 Apr 2007, 22:41

Dave, are you saying that if I bought the UT scenery, I'd have to disable my new Alaska mesh ?

My understanding is that the mesh provides the model of the terrain in terms of contours, while the scenery, or landclass or whatever, lies on top to provide the mesh with its textures. Shouldn't that scenery conform to whatever mesh lies 'beneath' it , be it the default mesh or this new one of mine?

Sorry if I'm being simplistic in my assumptions.

Post by **DaveB** » 21 Apr 2007, 00:43

Hiya Paul..

Being simplistic.. no, not at all

If you're clever about this sort of thing (and I'm not particularly).. you should be able to get away with murder.. almost. A lot, however, depends on the scenery you're using in conjunction with the mesh. One mesh may say that area 'A' is at such and such elevation and if the airfield you want to fly into is built to the same standard.. no problemo. IF mesh 2 is expected to be at any elevation different to the airfield you are flying into.. you will either not see it (or some of it) or you will land through it. At the best end of the scale.. all will work fine and you will land on solid bits. The same may not apply to any AI you have working that particular field.
As an example.. I have one pc (this one as it happens) that has lived through a lot of trial and error. Any unwanted bits have been removed (he says) but... I get AI aircraft taxiing past me that I can't see or.. I can see the tail or.. I see half the AI aircraft going past me. Ground textures 'tearing' is another anoying problem.. and one that you don't find out about until you land :crying:

All things considered.. if you put something, a scenery object/mesh/terrain e t c ABOVE another.. you SHOULD be able to get away with it. Unfortunately.. this aint always the case and is often NOT the case :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Paul K · Post by **Paul K** » 21 Apr 2007, 02:12

Thanks Dave; I'm a novice at all this, and such info is very useful indeed.

From what you say there, it seems that an airfield doesn't rely on the mesh it sits on to determine its height above sea level, but instead that height is determined in some other way. Consequently, if an airfield is at 500 ft asl, and the mesh is mistakenly 506 ft asl, not only will there appear be a lot of belly landings, but much belly taxying and belly parking too. :k:

I've flown around the Juneau area of Glacier Bay v2 and haven't seen any conflicts between it and the new mesh so far, but maybe I've just been lucky. A full 'aerial survey' of the area may reveal problems. :think:

nigelb · Post by **nigelb** » 21 Apr 2007, 07:28

Paul K wrote:From what you say there, it seems that an airfield doesn't rely on the mesh it sits on to determine its height above sea level, but instead that height is determined in some other way. Consequently, if an airfield is at 500 ft asl, and the mesh is mistakenly 506 ft asl, not only will there appear be a lot of belly landings, but much belly taxying and belly parking too. :k:

I think I remember having that problem with one of my add-on airports and I fixed the problem by changing the elevation using AFCAD. I think this works as long as the difference is not too large and for example, it should correct the 6ft error in your example. (clear as mud, huh)

If I remember correctly, I had a problem with a parking apron in one corner of the airport and fixed that with AFCAD. Anyway, it is worth a shot seeing what you can do in AFCAD, backing up your original for the usual reaasons.

I am sure someone with more knowledge will add to this or correct it if my memory has failed me.