NZFF

Hi

Is there a way of enlarging the current wind turbine that get placed in Wellington as part of the Topo scenery? - It supposes to be used as a VFR reference but is so small that you only see it when you are on top of it.

I guess I could place another one on top using RWY12 or similar, but I am hopeless when it comes to anything development around FS.

Many thanks - Ran


PS. I am using FS2004, free 75m Mesh and landclass, and the Red Baron Topo.

Ummm ... don't quote me on this, but I think the turbine is from Heath Wells' Wellington Autogen update for Robin Corns (freeware) photoreal Wellington (phew!). I have it as a seperate .bgl file and the scale is already set at 1.20; can fiddle around with it and see what results. Stay tuned.

ZK-LGD wrote:

QUOTE(ZK-LGD @ Sep 3 2007, 10:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ummm ... don't quote me on this, but I think the turbine is from Heath Wells' Wellington Autogen update for Robin Corns (freeware) photoreal Wellington (phew!). I have it as a seperate .bgl file and the scale is already set at 1.20; can fiddle around with it and see what results. Stay tuned.

cheers - I use Robin's Real NZ Wellington and so removed the any freeware wellington scenery and objects such as heath's Brooklyn wind turbine. The Red Baron topo addes its own turrbines around NZ, including in Brooklyn, and these are quite small - I will be happy adding a second, larger one back on top of the existing one so any help would be appreciated.

Regard - Ran

Hi Ran

I think the size should reflect the real size of the turbine.

To create a bigger one you need to download the Scenery SDK. Then what you need to do is first create an exclude in xml and then call the windturbine object from the xml. Then you need to compile the xml via tye BGLCOMP compiler. I suggest you have a play with the scenery SDK. Once you get your head around how things work it isn't that hard.

Cheers,
Christian

Christian wrote:

QUOTE(Christian @ Sep 4 2007, 11:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the size should reflect the real size of the turbine.

Hi Christian, I agree that the size of most objects should reflect their real world counterparts, to maintain perspective and balance. In the case of the wind turbine, at least for me, it's getting lost on the screen. Now if I was able to project my scenery on the living room wall, than that's another story. (I have plans for that, I am just figuring out what to do with the wife and kids... - just kidding.

as another example, the two antena towers at Titahi Bay may be true to life in size in the simulator, but they end up so narrow, they flicker in and out of view untill you are very close.

Don't get me wrong, I love the topo scenery and it has certainly improved the way NZ shows up in FS. I just would have liked some objects to stand up more. I'll have a play with the SDK and see what I can do.

Cheers - Ran

ranm wrote:

QUOTE(ranm @ Sep 5 2007, 06:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Christian, I agree that the size of most objects should reflect their real world counterparts, to maintain perspective and balance. In the case of the wind turbine, at least for me, it's getting lost on the screen. Now if I was able to project my scenery on the living room wall, than that's another story. (I have plans for that, I am just figuring out what to do with the wife and kids... - just kidding.

as another example, the two antena towers at Titahi Bay may be true to life in size in the simulator, but they end up so narrow, they flicker in and out of view untill you are very close.

Don't get me wrong, I love the topo scenery and it has certainly improved the way NZ shows up in FS. I just would have liked some objects to stand up more. I'll have a play with the SDK and see what I can do.

Cheers - Ran

I agree, I don't love the flicker either, but that's how FS works unfortunately.

Actually ... it really is only 31.5m tall, afterall.

Try the attachement (below); the height is correct (to within 1.5m).

ZK-LGD wrote:

QUOTE(ZK-LGD @ Sep 7 2007, 07:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try the attachement (below); the height is correct (to within 1.5m).

That's great! - works a treat.

Many thanks - Ran