Rhumbaflappy scenery thread...

[rhumbaflappy]

I stated I didn't know if SDC's european scenery would work with the mesh and watermasking.. but it seems OK.

There's a big difference between saying it won't and "I don't know"....

Regarding the above screenshots. I cannot reproduce that effect on my computer. Latitude, longitude, heading elevation? I notice that info not included on your screenshots.

I don't recognize that watermasking or mesh from those screenshots. Either it's not my mesh or not my watermasking, or not both. My views from that island group are quite different.

Dick

 

[Morton]

My PTO is exactly the same Keltic, so far. My ETO is ok.
As i understand from the above, since there after all is a lot of work wich has to be done before we can use the new watermask/shores together with all our installed bases, the best (only) solution is to use the new DEM5,7,8 mesh together with our present waterflattning. The new ones have to be put in construction folder for a while.

Morton :ernae:

Just read Dick's answer.

Either it's not my mesh or not my watermasking, or not both. My views from that island group are quite different.

A bit worrying. What are we doing wrong Keltic?

 

[p14u2nv]

Rami I have a question regarding your posted scenery cfg file. Besides my add on scenery, which of course adds a new area for each one, my initial area entries are not the same as what you posted. Is your cfg file set in stone so to speak? I compared what I have to what you posted and mine is way off as far as layer entries are concerned. My setup, graphics wise, looks good but I am wondering if mine is wrong and could it look even better than it is now. I have installed DEM4km, LOD5, LOD7, LOD8 and removed the stock shorelines...here's what I have listed;

[General]
Title=CFS2 World
Description=CFS 2 Scenery data
Cache_Size=1500M
Clean_on_Exit=TRUE

[Area.001]
Title=Default Scenery
Local=scenery
Active=TRUE
Layer=11
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.002]
Title=Terrain
Local=Scenedb\world
Active=TRUE
Texture_ID=1
Layer=1
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.003]
Title=CFS1 Library
Local=SCENEDB\library
Active=TRUE
Layer=13
Remote=
Required=FALSE

[Area.004]
Title=Airport Facilities Data
Local=Scenedb\AFDFiles
Active=TRUE
Layer=14
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.005]
Title=Scenery Ships
Local=Scenedb\Ships
Active=TRUE
Layer=15
Remote=
Required=FALSE

[Area.006]
Title=Aircraft Weapons
Local=Scenedb\weapons
Active=TRUE
Layer=16
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.007]
Title=Vehicles
Local=Scenedb\veh
Active=TRUE
Layer=17
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.008]
Title=Effects
Local=Scenedb\fx
Active=TRUE
Layer=18
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.009]
Title=Runways
Local=Scenedb\runways
Active=TRUE
Layer=19
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.010]
Title=Buildings
Local=Scenedb\inf
Active=TRUE
Layer=20
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.011]
Title=FS2000_props
Local=Scenedb\fs2kprop
Active=TRUE
Layer=21
Required=TRUE
Remote=

[Area.012]
Title=LOD7
Local=..\MyCFS2Scenery\LOD7
Remote=
Active=TRUE
Required=FALSE
Layer=4

[Area.013]
Title=AtollTruk
Local=..\MyCFS2Scenery\Truk\AtollTruk
Remote=
Active=TRUE
Required=FALSE
Layer=10

[Area.014]
Title=TrukIslands
Local=..\MyCFS2Scenery\Truk\TrukIslands\scenery
Remote=
Active=TRUE
Required=FALSE
Layer=9

This list continues on to [Area.21] with other scenery add ons. I haven't received any "can not locate scenery xx " error messages.

Btw, anyone else please feel free to critique as I am learning this aspect of CFS2...beyond merely adding aircraft/scenery I mean. Like I said earlier my scenery looks pretty good IMHO, just like FS9 actually (with mesh/terrain installed).

Thanks very much for any comments and or help gentleman,

P14

 

[p14u2nv]

Kelticheart I am in the same situation as my fps has leveled out at 20 and I can't see how based on what I read too. I have my CFS2 on a 3 year old Toshiba lapper with a 1.7 Intel chip, 128 embedded graphics and 2 gigs of ram. I get consistent fps at 20. I have it set to maximum of 20 so as not to waste resources on 30-40+ fps. Although I am trying to be careful and limit my time so as not to over stress the graphics...it is a laptop after all. The only difference between your setup and mine is that I have removed all stock coast lines which at this point I wish I hadn't. That level of accuracy is fine without the beaches however in my mind your setup looks so much better with the stock files re-installed. Granted I had my installation showing coastlines wandering all over with many filled with water between said coastlines and land masses. I suspect that maybe I might not have had my levels for the stock files set correctly in the add on scenery inside CFS2. But from what I read what you have is not supposed to happen or am I wrong thinking that? From what you have was not supposed to be possible based on a few posts I read. Is that correct?

I did post about this and was told that for the sake of accuracy remove the stock and live with it as is due to accurate representation of all pacific land masses NOT having beaches anyway basically or add the stock back and have wandering coastlines. Now I see what you have and am now scratching my head...

Nice job btw, although my land masses look a tad more detailed with vegetation. I want the beaches back but to conform to the coastlines as you have as IMHO it looks so much better to me. I am more concerned with accurate aircraft operation and flight characteristics than super accurate looking scenery...I mean this is a combat sim after all. Site seeing is best left to FSX or FS9 or FS8 etc...IMHO of course although your scenery looks great!

 

[Rami]

p14u2nv,

I found that I needed to add the LOD 8 mesh on top (after) the 7 mesh, but you may use whatever suits your needs.

 

[p14u2nv]

Ok thanks much Rami...S~

 

[Morton]

Rhumbaflappy wrote:

I don't recognize that watermasking or mesh from those screenshots. Either it's not my mesh or not my watermasking, or not both. My views from that island group are quite different.

I'm just curious Dick, can you post a picture of how this (Palau Islands, Arakabesan strip) looks on your comp?


Thanks for your immensly important CFS2 work.:ernae:
Morton

 

[rhumbaflappy]

I can reproduce Kelticheart's scenery exactly now.

He is using the "blablabla9.bgl" files. Microsoft's LOD9 mesh files... that are misplaced as well. I have advised to get rid of them if you are using my mesh and watermasking. They are misplaced, as are the default watermasks and beaches, roads, and runways, and GSL....

You can't have it both ways.

Either give up the default files or don't use the new files. If you want the beaches and roads and polys to all fit the defaults then just use the defaults. Do not mix them.

The new files are a base set to preceed newer scenery to yet be developed. These sets would use LOD5-sized scenery similar to what is in FS9 and FSX.

SDC's stuff is working because he used FS9 scenery as a base, and that paticular area's FS9 scenery conforms to the SRTM/LandSat7 data that is generally acepted as being properly located. So it does match the mesh fairly well.

The default stuff was made before that SRTM/LandSat7 data was freely available. The Aces team used what they could get quickly into the sim. At that time CFS2 was produced as an inbetween experiment for FS2002. They were rushed to get it done. That's why much of the world is unfinished. If CFS3 had stuck to the FS format, it would already be compatible with FS2002, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The mesh and masking would have been much improved, as would the tools to make it.

What I'm slowly trying to do is to replace all the default terrain and airfields ( including GSL ) and come up with a set of files that would be in CFS2 if it were made today.

Beaches will come last on my todo list. Our only tool to make them is Ground2K, and that tool isn't that good. That's why I don't really want to use it. Most of the world doesn't have wide pretty beaches on their coastlines.

Down the road, I'll try to make a tool that will convert lines to CFS2 beaches and roads that will work right. Before then, I want to replace the default masking at a better detailed level, move the runways to their right positions, move/replace the default GSL, and correct the default missions to those locations if needed.

Then we have a new base sim to work with.

I've identified 32 LOD5 areas that have default runways... and I need better masking and better placement of the runways, as most of them are misplaced.

Something else I've had confirmed is that the mesh may not be correct in a few areas like Rabaul. A huge volcano now sits on the old airfield... so we might need a flatten there. Iwo Jima has also undergone some shape-shifting over time.

Oddly, Rami's original post on this thread spells out exactly what needs to be done to use the new masking and mesh. So either follow Rami's instructions, or don't use the new stuff.

Dick

 

[merlin2]

CFS2 default scenery dimensions

HI all, I guess I have to answer my own question!
The CFS2 default scenery shorelines extend
E120-W150, N45-S22.5; that includes Japan, Celebes, Hawaii, North Australia, and everything in between.
Is this also the extent of the default detailed elevation?
thanks

 

[kelticheart]

I can reproduce Kelticheart's scenery exactly now.

He is using the "blablabla9.bgl" files. Microsoft's LOD9 mesh files... that are misplaced as well. I have advised to get rid of them if you are using my mesh and watermasking. They are misplaced, as are the default watermasks and beaches, roads, and runways, and GSL....

You can't have it both ways.

Either give up the default files or don't use the new files. If you want the beaches and roads and polys to all fit the defaults then just use the defaults. Do not mix them......
Dick

Oh, Lord! Was I supposed to get rid of all the stock LOD9 as well?

I am sorry, I got confused with the LOD7 instructions, which stated the stock LOD9 would have not interfered.

At any rate: I am not complaining!

I love the way CFS2 looks now and, as I said, I did not notice performance degradation with the LOD8 in place. I even tried switching them on and off through the scenery library just for the heck of it, but the fps remain more or less the same.

I repeat: the PTO beachlines are not that bad. I have seen worse over the years of continous attempts at improving CFS2. My previous reply was an attempt to tell people things aren't that bad after all: the mesh works and the watermasks work as well, didn't I post another screenie that shows how nice Arakabesan looks after putting back all the pac?????.bgl's?

My apologies, Dick if I conveyed the idea I was criticizing your superlative work. I feel like I have not thanked you enough, instead, for such an overall "eye-candy" improvement!

I am still sight-seeing around the Pacific, I still have the stock shorelines in place and I even tried Stiz's Pacific converted FS9 textures, as I saw in an earlier thread Bearcat241 did. There are a few roads and rivers which look strange, but CFS2 is a combat flight sim, usually one watches his six rather than looking at the scenery!

To me is a stunningly beautiful Pacific scenery, I should say WORLD scenery, believe me!

Cheers!
KH :ernae: