Default CFS2 Airfields

[rhumbaflappy]

Hi all.

Has anyone researched the true locations, size, heading, and elevations of the default CFS2 airfields.

I've started relocating them to their real-world positions, but some areas ( like Koror and Arakabesan ) appear to be ficticious. I've done about 15 airfields, and I haven't found one located correctly or elevated correctly.

Just looking to save some time.

Dick

 

[bearcat241]

Thanks for the effort Dick. I can't help with your question, but i do have one of my own. I certainly don't want to be a wet blanket for your bold ambition here, but eventually our installing this project will require re-writing every mission and campaign involving stock fields as either targets or the Player's operational post, right? I mean, if a targeted stock base location changes dramatically, then so does the designated infrastructure or parked aircraft i'm supposed to hit there. Likewise, if i'm operating from a stock base, i'll have to change my first and last waypoint, the airfield ID and the airfield name in every mission file of a campaign favorite.

Sorry man, but is this where we're heading?

 

[Fibber]

bearcat

The last part doesn't make sense. If the airfield location is wrong it will be moved but the identifier # and the name will stay the same.
I think this is the problem that I am experiencing with Chinhae in Korea.

 

[merlin2]

corrected airfield locations

It seems to me that all we need to do is to indicate clearly which scenery we are using for a mission, the default, or the corrrected Rhumbaflappy version; users can then choose what they like. Some will opt to stick with the old, some will want to experiment with the new, and some will flip flop.

Certainly the new scenery is a vast improvement in the ETO, but I have redone 4 airfields so far to correctly position them for NSEW and for altitude.

I think that overall the more accurate we can be the better--that's because for me at least the fantasy of the game is connected with the reality of the history.

Best

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Thanks for the effort Dick. I can't help with your question, but i do have one of my own. I certainly don't want to be a wet blanket for your bold ambition here, but eventually our installing this project will require re-writing every mission and campaign involving stock fields as either targets or the Player's operational post, right? I mean, if a targeted stock base location changes dramatically, then so does the designated infrastructure or parked aircraft i'm supposed to hit there. Likewise, if i'm operating from a stock base, i'll have to change my first and last waypoint, the airfield ID and the airfield name in every mission file of a campaign favorite.

Sorry man, but is this where we're heading?

Yes, and the default GSL will need to be altered as well.


It doesn't make sense to correct the mesh and watermasking, if half the airfields are now hanging out in the Pacific. So, the airfields need redesign. That also forces a rewite of the default GSL.

And, new missions and campaigns would need to be written. I'm not sure the default missions were located or researched any better than the landmasses and mesh in the originals. But it shouldn't be impossible to rewrite them.

I am a little shocked that no one seems to have noticed the default airfields were mislocated... and some apparently fantasized. We've got a lot of WW2 buffs here.

Meanwile, I've been bogged down in Palau because of the poor SRTM watermasking, and the difficulty in locating some airfields there that never existed.

I agree with Merlin... either we just use CFS2 as a shoot-em-up, or we try to add some historical, and geographic reality to the sim. Flight Simulator is no different. Some simmers could care less about terrain or geographic reality or the location and appearance of airports.

Dick

 

[bearcat241]

You're right Merlin...i meant to say airfield ID's location info in the mis files...and the names need no change.

Quote:
I am a little shocked that no one seems to have noticed the default airfields were mislocated... and some apparently fantasized. We've got a lot of WW2 buffs here.

I agree with Merlin... either we just use CFS2 as a shoot-em-up, or we try to add some historical, and geographic reality to the sim. Flight Simulator is no different. Some simmers could care less about terrain or geographic reality or the location and appearance of airports.

While i can certainly see your thinking here...massive changes in mesh and watermasking can definitely necessitate base location changes too. But i'll have to admit that i'm from the old "shoot 'em up" flock. For combat sim action, in terms of geography, my historical authenticity quotient is low to mid-range and reasonable approximations are fine with me. As long as an airfield is well structured in inf layout, a reasonable approximation in location is good enough. That's where Martin's GSL tools and MB's inf addon features come in handy for me to "decorate" a site as i prefer. On the other hand, i'm a lot more fastidious about locations in FS world, where visual accuracy really counts the most since its all about touring the sights.

Just speaking my mind here, so keep up the work and fight the good fight...i can meet you somewhere in the middle.

 

[Fibber]

I vote for Rhumbaflappy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with Merlins idea of identification.

 

[Ettico]

Rhumbaflappy, I think what you're doing is great. As soon as I get a cable link, I plan to download your new world order, put it in a separate install, and start rebuilding the CFS2 world from there. I just hope someone figures out how to plop down new VTP1 all over it. That would be hog heaven.

But I still plan to keep the old CFS2 world too, because everything I've collected over the years is based on it.

I'm not that much of a stickler for historical accuracy myself, but I do like nice scenery. I'm quite capable of building an entirely fictional campaign that uses airfields that are misplaced or didn't really exist, and fight battles that were never really fought. As long as the campaign has the right "ambience" (can't think of a better word), I'm happy with it. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with having stuff in the right place either.

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Hi Ettico.

By all means we need to have installs based on default terrain, or much of the addons for bases and missions won't fit right.

I am a believer in "close enough". But I think we can have a much more accurate sim than the default.

Sometime over the next year, I hope to work on a VTP1 line generator, that will take line data from SBuilder and make shorelines and roads directly. But that is a ways off. For now, SDC's tools and Ground2K are all we have.

Dick

 

[Skipsan]

Go rhumba Go:typing: I'm pulling for ya:woot::woot:

Skipsan

 

[Pen32Win]

Someone has notice that many of the stock dromes are not as/where they should be, Me. I've known this for years.

I've redone Port Moresby, Wewak, Cape Glocester and have several others in the works. (Tsili Tsili, Hollandia.....) Part of the problem beyond the poor placement of the stock LW masking is that the modern coastlines are sometimes very different from the way they were in the '40's. This has caused me to have to "adjust" things more than once.

The LW mask/land mass at Kavieng is so bad (There's about 1/2 the landmass there was) that there is no way to correct the problem without rebuilding the entire island from the water up.

Another prime example is Sand Island. The shape is all wrong for 1942.
This is reflected in both the stock CFS2 and new stuff.

As for the rest of PNG/NB, Gasmata is close but the layout is not, Lae and Salamaua are pretty close. Alexishafen/Danip needs a rebuild, once again the coastlines are wrong for the period. The Rabaul Complex needs major work. Buka-NB is a Non-Field, the closest thing to it was Jacquinot Bay. Namatanai is in the right location but I haven't looking into it in detail. EDIT: I forgot Buna, which is Buna - Old Strip, other than the GSL it's pretty good. Buna-New Strip was never completed by the Japanese and never used by the Allies.

As for Koror and Arakabesan.

Koror (Oreor) was not heavily defended during the war. This island based most of the Japanese civilians and laborers from Korea and Okinawa who lived and farmed there. There was no airfield.

Arakabesan is connected to Koror by a causeway. Two seaplane bases were constructed there.

 

[bearcat241]

Rgr that Pen...see Dick, there's always somebody out there on point. :ernae:

I vote for Rhumbaflappy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with Merlins idea of identification.

Fibber, i'm not starting a debate or opposition campaign here, just an honest discussion on 'where do we go from here', OK? I'm not here to discourage Dick or detract from his work, i just wanted to air my concerns about existing missions in what i thought was a complementary manner, without any ulterior motives. I don't want this thread to go to the dark side because ppl think i'm trying to stir up something.

 

[merlin2]

Rhumbaflappy: can you come up with a suitable name that we can use when referring to your world scenery as a group; I mean the LOD5,LOD7,LOD8 and Watermask group; maybe RL-SCENERY or something, so that we can easily refer to the that group in discussion and in README files for uploads.

thanks

 

[Fibber]

Bear

That thought never crossed my mind! It was just that I thought Rhumba needed some encouagement ( and I would like what he proposes. ) Maybe some of these accurate bases could be put into a folder to be added, and subtracted, as desired through the SceneryDB function. I don't know if it is possible, as it is above my comprehension of compiling these folders.:wave:

 

[bobhegf]

Fellows this is what I have done to clean off my CFS2 map.
1. Go to [PREFS] and then go to the bottom. Type in UseGSL=emptygsl.This clears out all the stock infrastructure.
2.Now you need to clean out all the stock runways.To do this I went to the scenedb folder opened it and found the file labled runways. Now before I opened the runways file I made a folder called allrunways.This folder is to be used to store the allrunways bgl file in.I then opened the runways folder an found the allrunways bgl file and moved it to the allrunways folder and then closed that folder and placed it in the runways folder.This clears out all the stock runways in CFS2.
3. HOW DO I GET THE STOCK RUNWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE BACK?
A.To get the stock infrastructure back just type in a simi-colon infront of the UseGSL =empty.gsl.
B.To get the runways back just open the runway folder and pull out the allrunways file you made and stored the allrunways folder.Put the allrunways file back in the runways folder and you will have all the stock runways showing up in CFS2

OK, so it is not high tec. but it is easy and fast.:typing:

 

[dvslats]

Though I do not have the credentials of the scenery designer folk, I would like to add a little comment....as with anything new, especially something with the magnitude of rhumbaflappy's work, it tends to turn things on their ear. My feathers got ruffled when I saw the the stock bases out of wack, with his new mesh, but the more I fly using it, the harder it is to go back to the stock. I guess what I'm trying to say here is if there is a will, there's a way. Things always seem to get solved with new ideas and work arounds by all the fine members here. It keeps that grey matter in the ol' cranium lively. Not to mention this sim. I get the feeling it wil evolve. That's a good thing! It got me reading up on scenery tools again..not sure what will happen there..he hee but I hope you see my point. :focus:

 

[merlin2]

Bobhegf:
wouldn't it be easier in the long run to have two installs;
one a regular, and one a RhumbaFlappy?

merlin2

 

[bobhegf]

I have a stock CFS2 set up but I only use it to replace things I screw up in my main install for the CFS2 PTO.:typing:

 

[Jean Bomber]

Bobhegf:
wouldn't it be easier in the long run to have two installs;
one a regular, and one a RhumbaFlappy?

merlin2

It's an idea at the begin cause this scenery rework will take some years ,island by island, a lot of work... but very exciting,if we have some ambitions with the cfs2 sceneries when you think about the result that could be done in some places when we'll mix all the improvements mesh LCWCclass and masks ,roads railways shoreline(new vtp1 lines are possible with no limitations) vtp1 polys ,a historical accurate airbase or port integrated inside with a MR's blended mask ,a gsl(not to heavy) ,a good mission ,some good MLod planes and ships........:Banane36: .......I think we could feel the right "ambiance" that we search for .
The fps depends a lot of the quantity and quality of the objects and planes that we use in the missions and gsl,the mesh LCWC class mask poly affects a few this level ,all that's it's welcome .
In the scenery design today it's a step similar as for the plane design to built them as multilod but today we could not accept a plane for cfs2 if she's not multilod ....
i've in project to add my part for the PTO to finish the work on Truk and the islands around in the LOD5 ,about the misplaced airbases ,the roads and the shorelines ,I've the maps ,the g2k source files some LC WC class are already done etc..but i can't give any previous for the release before I hope to complete and upload for the next weeks the Afnor scenery part I ,the Rock etc .....

JP

 

[PSULLYKEYS]

Rhumba, thanks for the reality! I'd rather have correct locations and scenery that matches world reality. This presents an opportunity to update existing airfields, missions etc.

I understand this may not be for everyone. I also will also keep versions of the old, and see how progress goes.

I prefer choices, and you've given us a great one!