Hole in one?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Hi simmers,



When buying payware sceneries, does that also mean that the different
mistakes in the default MS sceneries have been taken care of? For instance,
I have been cruising around a little in the Yukon area and found some
airfields virtually lying in a "hole". So you better make that hole in one
to survive your landing. Examples? Take a look at Mayo (CYMA) and Dawson
(CYDA). I refuse to believe this is this looks like it is out there.
(Haven't been there myself though).. I know there are more of these
"mistakes", so I was wondering if payware improves it all.



Loek

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <d58qo6$hpf$02$1@news.t-online.com>, lbn.mulder@t-online.de
says...
> Hi simmers,
>
>
>
> When buying payware sceneries, does that also mean that the different
> mistakes in the default MS sceneries have been taken care of? For instance,
> I have been cruising around a little in the Yukon area and found some
> airfields virtually lying in a "hole". So you better make that hole in one
> to survive your landing. Examples? Take a look at Mayo (CYMA) and Dawson
> (CYDA). I refuse to believe this is this looks like it is out there.
> (Haven't been there myself though).. I know there are more of these
> "mistakes", so I was wondering if payware improves it all.

Nope, unfortunately it doesn't mean that at all. With my favorite add-
on mesh, of the 26 airports in the Yukon, 8 are in sinkholes which make
landing impossible (I should start flying helocopters), 2 are on top of
plateaus, and one has a lake running thru the middle. Airports are
defined differently than terrain, and it isn't simple to fix them
without replacing a lot of MS files, as opposed to scenery, which one
can just add on.

There are a lot of reasons why the MS default stuff is wrong. MS
requires that fields be level, and many rural grass or gravel strips
have a significant slope in reality. Also, some MS airports in the
outback are clearly in the wrong place -- eg, roads going to the apt
stop a mile away. But there is a claim that MS also has the altitude of
many apts wrong. In the Yukon, every one I've checked is exactly at the
altitude shown on the Transport Canada sectional charts, and I have
difficulty believing that, for example, Carcross is really 300' higher
than the sectional shows. I have a feeling there is something more
complex going on here, but I don't yet know enough about airport
representation in FS to understand it.

I've thought about looking at some aerial photos of the Yukon to see how
many of MS's apts are misplaced. If I ever take a vacation up there,
I'm taking my GPS with me to do some checking!

/Chris

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Chris Thomas" <CThomas@mminternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1ce1c5b7a90c56c6989688@news.mminternet.com...
> In article <d58qo6$hpf$02$1@news.t-online.com>, lbn.mulder@t-online.de
> says...
>> Hi simmers,
>>
>>
>>
>> When buying payware sceneries, does that also mean that the different
>> mistakes in the default MS sceneries have been taken care of? For
>> instance,
>> I have been cruising around a little in the Yukon area and found some
>> airfields virtually lying in a "hole". So you better make that hole in
>> one
>> to survive your landing. Examples? Take a look at Mayo (CYMA) and Dawson
>> (CYDA). I refuse to believe this is this looks like it is out there.
>> (Haven't been there myself though).. I know there are more of these
>> "mistakes", so I was wondering if payware improves it all.
>
> Nope, unfortunately it doesn't mean that at all. With my favorite add-
> on mesh, of the 26 airports in the Yukon, 8 are in sinkholes which make
> landing impossible (I should start flying helocopters), 2 are on top of
> plateaus, and one has a lake running thru the middle. Airports are
> defined differently than terrain, and it isn't simple to fix them
> without replacing a lot of MS files, as opposed to scenery, which one
> can just add on.
>
> There are a lot of reasons why the MS default stuff is wrong. MS
> requires that fields be level, and many rural grass or gravel strips
> have a significant slope in reality. Also, some MS airports in the
> outback are clearly in the wrong place -- eg, roads going to the apt
> stop a mile away. But there is a claim that MS also has the altitude of
> many apts wrong. In the Yukon, every one I've checked is exactly at the
> altitude shown on the Transport Canada sectional charts, and I have
> difficulty believing that, for example, Carcross is really 300' higher
> than the sectional shows. I have a feeling there is something more
> complex going on here, but I don't yet know enough about airport
> representation in FS to understand it.
>
> I've thought about looking at some aerial photos of the Yukon to see how
> many of MS's apts are misplaced. If I ever take a vacation up there,
> I'm taking my GPS with me to do some checking!
>
> /Chris

Thanks Chris,

Looks like you really did some investigating already! But your answer is
very clear.
Let me know when you go to the Yukon! I may join you as I feel I have not
seen enough of Canada during my stay there... Long time ago! Take care,

Loek

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In article <d5b3th$42i$02$1@news.t-online.com>, lbn.mulder@t-online.de
says...
> Thanks Chris,
>
> Looks like you really did some investigating already! But your answer is
> very clear.
> Let me know when you go to the Yukon! I may join you as I feel I have not
> seen enough of Canada during my stay there... Long time ago! Take care,
>

Loek,

Some of us are discussing if/how to fix the Yukon issues in the
FSGenesis forum (portal.fsgenesis.net) -- see the discussion titled
KLAS. There's some agreement that the problems are due to faulty
location data. The question is whether better data is available short
of actually going to the Yukon. If you haven't looked into FSGenesis,
they are one of the better sources of mesh (terrain elevation) for many
parts of the world, and integrate well with several of the other
players.

The fundamental problem is MS FS started with a fantasy world --
apporximate shapes, approximate locations, etc. -- supplimented by a
couple dozen aerial photographs of major cities, and capped by auto-gen,
which is the completely artificial generation of building, trees, etc,
based on little more than "this is a city center - add some high rise
buildings ...". Everything (mostly) fit, it was just low resolution and
very rounded, due to course mesh. It looked good, but it wasn't even
close to being true to life.

When high resolution elevation data became available (largely from the
space shuttle), people started generating mesh and adding it into FS.
This led to led to incredibly nice, even breath-taking, terrain, but
also to the discovery that a lot of the MS features (eg, airports,
lakes, rivers, ...) were far enough from reality that they looked really
bad and didn't fit the accurate mesh -- things were much easier in MS's
original pretend world. Now the question is, with a realistic amount of
effort, can one make things fit better.

/Chris