The freeware scenery will include the immediate airport area only, although these screenshots show the updated Wellington photoreal in the distance, which won't be included.
There will be a FS2004 version early next year.











100% ad-free











Alex wrote:QUOTE (Alex @ Dec 13 2007, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just a quick Q; what is depicted in that last shot?
Alex
I think that's the NZ Meteorological Service Paraparaumu Observatory.
toprob wrote:QUOTE (toprob @ Dec 13 2007, 11:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think that's the NZ Meteorological Service Paraparaumu Observatory.
Okido, thanks.![]()
Alex


Kelburn wrote:QUOTE (Kelburn @ Dec 14 2007, 09:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Will the AFCAD be needed or are there runway satellite textures below (if so are they included or do those come with RealNZ NZWN - By this I mean the phototextures for the ground within the airport boundaries).
By the way there are no centre lines but just one long centre line
The base for Paraparaumu is a high resolution (about 12cm/pixel) aerial image, which defines most of the airport. There are some 'features' with this technique: (for 'features', read limitations....)
One of these is that where possible the facilities are defined by the aerial photo only, rather than an AFCAD-type layer. Runways are an exception -- they are default FSX runways, as there is no official way to define photoreal runways.
One result is that none of the taxiways or parking areas are 'hard' -- they'll kick up dust when you taxi over them. Another is that the runways can't be realistic.
I was very tempted to use old FS2002-style ground polygons to cover the AFCAD elements (which you normally can't make disappear) with photoreal elements, but in this particular scenery I'm trying to keep away from any obsolete techniques. That's not to say that I'll always work this way -- I've been using FS2002 ground polys for NZAA, for example.
P.S. there are three things which contribute to the freeware status of this:
1) It was meant to be included with Real NZ Wellington, but was not completed in time;
2) The aerial image of the airport is used on the condition that it won't be sold;
3) The whole thing is an experiment in full FSX compatibility, which limits it a bit.Last edited by toprob on Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
toprob wrote:QUOTE (toprob @ Dec 14 2007, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I was very tempted to use old FS2002-style ground polygons to cover the AFCAD elements (which you normally can't make disappear) with photoreal elements, but in this particular scenery I'm trying to keep away from any obsolete techniques. That's not to say that I'll always work this way -- I've been using FS2002 ground polys for NZAA, for example.
I assume you're talking about GMAX textured ground polys? Is that way of doing things obsolete now? What are developers using it it's place to do 'solid' custom ground textures? I'd like to be able to extend a little on the generic AFCAD runway textures and was going to go down the GMAX/FS2002 SDK road, but if there's something better I'll use that instead.
Just curious.
greaneyr wrote:QUOTE (greaneyr @ Dec 14 2007, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I assume you're talking about GMAX textured ground polys? Is that way of doing things obsolete now? What are developers using it it's place to do 'solid' custom ground textures? I'd like to be able to extend a little on the generic AFCAD runway textures and was going to go down the GMAX/FS2002 SDK road, but if there's something better I'll use that instead.
Just curious.
The 'new' way is to use the same system which produces large-scale ground textures -- the same type of textures which are displayed at 4.8m/px in FS2004, but at a much higher resolution. This is good in some ways -- for instance, it is mesh-hugging -- but it doesn't allow any way to place photoreal elements over the top of AFCAD-style elements.
The FS2002-style polys are still useable, although not with the nice blending which worked in FS2004. However I don't think they work in DX10, and the objective here was to create full FSX compatibility.NZ255 wrote:QUOTE (NZ255 @ Dec 14 2007, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hate to be a pain (and don't know how hard it is to change) but runway 11/29 doesn't actually take up the whole width of the apron. Half of it is taxiway. See here (the upper right "Caution" box on the first page)
Thanks, the AFCAD certainly needs some tidying up -- I always put that off till the last.
toprob- NZFF Pro
- Topic author
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:56 pm
- Posts: 6711
- Location: Upper Hutt
toprob wrote:QUOTE (toprob @ Dec 14 2007, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The 'new' way is to use the same system which produces large-scale ground textures -- the same type of textures which are displayed at 4.8m/px in FS2004, but at a much higher resolution. This is good in some ways -- for instance, it is mesh-hugging -- but it doesn't allow any way to place photoreal elements over the top of AFCAD-style elements.
So what does that mean as far as simming goes? That an aircraft bumps around like it does on grass, and kicks up dust?
greaneyr wrote:QUOTE (greaneyr @ Dec 14 2007, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So what does that mean as far as simming goes? That an aircraft bumps around like it does on grass, and kicks up dust?
In the case of Paraparaumu, yes, but normally you'd put down taxiways and aprons over the top of the photo. That's way MS did with the new Acceleration scenery, and it looks ok on huge areas like Edwards AFB, but because it covers up much of the interesting photo at NZPP, I decided not to do that.

)
Return to Godzone 'Real New Zealand' Scenery Support
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests