New TongassX shots

If they are manually placing those autogen trees, why can't they simply scale them down? In this pic I've posted, check out the school bus in comparison to the tree. It's over-the-top.

It does look good, but I see a lot of default objects in there that are way out of scale with each other. My opinions of this project will change depending on whether it's payware and how much they charge. If it's freeware, it gets two huge thumbs up so far!
 
Looks great!

Makes me harken back to my sim bush flyin days. It gives some cool bush flying mission ideas too :)
 
Cool...Just pack it up and e mail it to me please.......:d





I see what you mean about the size of the trees......:faint:
 
tigisfat said:
If they are manually placing those autogen trees, why can't they simply scale them down? In this pic I've posted, check out the school bus in comparison to the tree. It's over-the-top.

It does look good, but I see a lot of default objects in there that are way out of scale with each other. My opinions of this project will change depending on whether it's payware and how much they charge. If it's freeware, it gets two huge thumbs up so far!
Click to expand...

It's not freeware, they did a version for FS9 and this is the FSX version. Maybe Bill (plum island) can answer about objects. As for the trees, while I agree with the bus /tree point of view, the sitka spruce does get that big and is the state tree.

Funny, in earlier shots, I thought the trees were to small, oh well.
 
Hi guys,

interesting points about the tree sizes. I'm doing the autogen annotations for all of Tongass X and I'm using types that are about 1/2 the height of the default conifers and often place even smaller trees closer to the houses.

However, as Michael has pointed out correctly, conifers grow very tall in the milder parts of Alaska. For example, have a look at this photo of Tenakee Hot Springs in relation to the trees vs. buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/3165123.jpg

What isn't all that realistic about the FSX trees is that the width scales linearly with height, meaning taller trees look too wide at the base. On the other hand this translates into covering more ground per tree, which helps with the fact that even FSX doesn't nearly allow for a realistic density of trees per acre.

For the buildings and structures we use a combination of custom objects, default objects, and autogen buildings (I'll ask our Beta testers to keep an eye our for scale issues or other obvious mismatches). If we were to make and place each building by hand we'd not be "just" one year behind with the planned release :whistle:

Cheers, Holger
 
LOL... I know its not Freeware.....And it will be mine when released...:applause:


I flew the FS9 version all the time...
 
Yep, I concur with the big tree lovers. Anyone who thinks those are out of scale hasn't seen a real one. There are quite a few up on the mountain down the street from my house, and though they're nowhere near as large as some of their Alaskan cousins, they're absolutely massive. They look perfectly in-scale to me.
 
I am still waiting for Fscargo. I know you guys sold a ton of downloads and figured a FSX version would have been released years ago.
 
Holger Sandmann said:
Hi guys,

interesting points about the tree sizes. I'm doing the autogen annotations for all of Tongass X and I'm using types that are about 1/2 the height of the default conifers and often place even smaller trees closer to the houses.

However, as Michael has pointed out correctly, conifers grow very tall in the milder parts of Alaska. For example, have a look at this photo of Tenakee Hot Springs in relation to the trees vs. buildings: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/3165123.jpg

What isn't all that realistic about the FSX trees is that the width scales linearly with height, meaning taller trees look too wide at the base. On the other hand this translates into covering more ground per tree, which helps with the fact that even FSX doesn't nearly allow for a realistic density of trees per acre.

For the buildings and structures we use a combination of custom objects, default objects, and autogen buildings (I'll ask our Beta testers to keep an eye our for scale issues or other obvious mismatches). If we were to make and place each building by hand we'd not be "just" one year behind with the planned release :whistle:

Cheers, Holger
Click to expand...

God, Tenakee Hot Springs looks like an awesome place to live! Beautiful work Holger. :ernae:
 
I'm seriously impressed with that scenery. The way the different tree types are mixed in the Port Alexander shot looks incredible. Will be hard to fly FTX after this is out!
 
Holger, good to see you posting on the SOH boards. Your work, be it FS9 or FSX, B.C./Alaska or the Swiss Allps (or even your thoughtful tutorial on how to set up AI floatplanes) has made the FS community a much more enriched place for us all. Many thanks and regards,

expat
 
JIMJAM said:
I am still waiting for Fscargo. I know you guys sold a ton of downloads and figured a FSX version would have been released years ago.
Click to expand...

A 'ton' of downloads would most certainly have attracted the designer in working more feverishly to get an FSX version published :applause:

Unfortunately that's far beyond the reality of FS add-on business. In fact Maurizio was not really interested in continuing with it because of the meager proceeds (remember this work of love only costs 15 Euros/19 Dollars and took 3 years to develop).

But due to my incessant pokes and pleas, he's now made a working version for FSX that runs on our private FS machines.
We're not releasing it yet howver because we want to sell a TON of them.... and to do that it has to be more interesting than the previous version. So we're working on making it more interesting..... could well take another year - but with ACE stopped and FS11 off the drawing board, we have all the time in the world :focus:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top