• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Question for all you PTO enthusists...

Rami

Rami

Administrator
Staff member
Okay guys,

It's decision time here. Because of the problems the new watermasking has caused in the Pacific, (through no fault of anyone, just a sign of progress :wiggle:) I'm left with three choices.

1) Use all of Rhumbaflappy's new files and wait for revisions to certain areas, and Gavinc's stock base updates.

2) Use his LOD mesh but not his new coastlines, thereby preserving 98% of all Pacific work (I think his old coastlines and flattens will still work, if I remember correctly).

3) Use entirely stock stuff.

I'm inclined to the second option, the only consequence being I won't be able to use the new (September, 2009) DEI fields.

If at some point things are adjusted to fix Rhumba's new files, I can always return for more work.

Just give me some feedback so we can decide how to proceed.
 
I use option number 2 with Rhumbaflappy's old coastlines. All the new Maskrider DEI airfields work fine. There is a double coastline in places but I don't think it looks too bad. The roads and rivers are also preserved with this option.
 
Number 2 sounds good.But, I somehow had the double coastlines as seen above a couple of months back. For me it was enough to make me go back to stock with pactex. Rhump's stuff is great. What about all the guys working on projects to work with the new stuff? Just curious, how did the ETO look?
 
Reply...

Mariereid,

In the ETO, Sander's stuff covers all of Europe to the Polish border, up to Norway, then down to Northern Africa. Now, Jean Bomber is doing from Casablanca to Tunis. The only issue lies in areas where Sander's mesh doesn't apply, such as from Tunis to Cairo, and from south of Trieste south and east rimming down the Eastern Mediterranean.

There were also problems in Finland and Poland. It drowned a couple of bases, especially Sander's Finnish set, but I was able to still use them and mitigate the damage for my Finnish reworks.

I experimented with taking away Sander's files in the ETO, the results were not highly satisfactory.

However, I also think it would be a good idea to do the same thing in Europe, that way Ravenna's Beirut scenery will fit, and I don't have to ask Achim to re-do twenty five or so bases in Norway and the Eastern Mediterranea.
 
One of our members offered a very valid counter-argument. I've keep the details confidential, but I'll post the note, because I feel it's worthwhile.

Rami,

I almost posted this in your thread asking for guidance on the PTO scenario, but thought it might be more politic to do it this way.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way forward is option 1, especially now that MR and Gavinc are working that way. It's the way I've started to build my PTO, and I really don't feel inclined to have to have another "build" for this theatre. I also feel that if we start having "half-hearted" compromises now, we're making our own future more complicated. Did you notice how many people (myself included) reported problems with their ETO installs when trying to set up Rhumbaflappy's mesh, and how many people complained about the very issues that Rhumbaflappy described in his readme files? And that was after publishing your own document on how to create an ETO install.

I also have to ask - just how much extra work would be involved if you chose to go with option 1 ? What else would need to be done in this case ? And might it be that that work is already underway ? Also, would it really be so easy for you to go back and rework stuff you've already completed if you did go with option 2, as you seem to imply ?

In short, would it not be better for all concerned if you were to coordinate your production with what the scenery makers and updaters are working on, rather than jumping in and making the situation more complicated, which would almost inevitably lead to more difficulties for the end-users ? As I used to have to say to most of the people I worked with - Keep It Simple S.....

Anonymous,

Believe me...I'm wrestling with this. The problem is it requires an almost complete re-do of all the bases in the coastal / river proximities, or a creation of coastlines to match the new basesm and I'm sure that's a long, painful task for those like Ardnt, Pen32win, MaskRider, Dog1, and others who have worked so hard on the Pacific.

If I go with option 2, the problem is I'll have to go back and adjust airbase layouts and other things once the new files have been created, depending on what exactly is altered. It's no big deal, I've certainly done that in Europe and the Mediterranean, and I'd have to do it once again for Barbarossa, Deep War, and Poland, not something I'd especially look forward to, frankly.

The other issue with the new files are that it causes problems in "far-flung" areas of Europe. Sander and Ajax's Finnish bases suffer badly from this, and Sander has long since departed the CFS2 scene. I managed to work around it, and the problems with the new stuff in Barbarossa / Deep War / Poland, have largely been solved for better or worse. For that matter, a few of Achim's bases in Norway are also affected.

With regards to Achim, bases from Tunis to Cairo have been affected and some require work, and there are also some minor issues in the coastal Balkans and with Ravenna's Beirut.

I deeply appreciate the feedback!
 
I am with No. 2 for now, so i can see the new Pearl and the mixed old and new bases that are really good, if the coast lines get restored for the new, then i will gladly switch over but i need beaches and coast. :)
 
for a temporary measure, how about Rhumba's mesh, stock coastlines, and my converted fs2002 flattens? That way you won't have double coastlines. My flattens also cover the major rivers and lakes, and they fit the stock coastlines well.
 
kdriver said:
I use option number 2 with Rhumbaflappy's old coastlines. All the new Maskrider DEI airfields work fine. There is a double coastline in places but I don't think it looks too bad. The roads and rivers are also preserved with this option.
Click to expand...

that could be corriged by some exclude bgls but I think that Chris has made this scenery to work without the stock coastlines ,to make the exclude bgls to work with the stock cfs2 coastlines Defarea program could do the job.
I think also that ,for the transition, separate cfs2 installs are needed :
an "old school" cfs2 PTO install
,with the stock coastlines airbases,the mesh with the flattens corrected with as Ettico use from fs2002 or with these done by Rhumba asia africa etc.. for use the old stuffs, missions, airfield ,sceneries etc....
and a new PTO CFS2
to experiment these new sceneries and this install will growing with the time ...I hope
icon28.gif


JP
 
Hmmm........maybe I will put my "rhump" install on hold for awhile. I just scewed up installing MR's DEI, anyway. It seems every week someone is making a major scenery improvement. I'm sure we will be flying over some kind of google earth, soon. We have been blessed with guys with great talent, that keep making cfs2 better. you guys will find a way to make it all work together. I hope you take it easy over the holidays, you all deserve a break. :salute::salute::salute:
 
Rather than force myself and people make two installs, I am inclined to wait and do what I can in the interim. I don't want to confuse people as to the complexities a scenery setup like that would entail.

At least we'll have Pearl Harbor to distract us while the SeaBees are deployed.
 
Guys,

I have five installs now and am getting ready for six just to cover Rami's rewrites of the MTO and ETO. I just do not have enough room for all of the planes and errors created when I go over 100 in an install.

The number of EXCELLENT aircraft out there, not to mention how many were used in reality from 1941 through 1945 in all theaters, we all have to have several installs.

CFS2 is more than a flight simulator war game, it is a hobby and all of us serious CFS2ers know that. Hobbies are done on a continual basis and are continually improved upon. (Well with the exception of my golfing hobby).

So, I have no problem with several installs.
I am seriously thinking about 2 installs per theater to cover all of the missions and campaigns available and coming up.

Okay, Rami wanted our 2 cents worth and I posted a dollar, sorry........
 
I also have multiple installs for Europe and the Mediterranean, divided by Early and Late.

However, I don't want to make more work for people by switching from one scenery set to another. I'd rather wait and let people design new stuff / fixes to augment Rhumba's new files.
 
Is this pic of Henderson Field what we are talking about? For the moment I am using two Rami installs, Pacific and ETO, and omitting Eurw seems to cure this problem in the Pacific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top