PDA

View Full Version : Can someone make a scenery for Dover Cliffs?



Spilot69
October 20th, 2009, 18:02
I find it hard to believe that MS didnt include Dover Cliffs of England. I searched all over and could find no scenery for FSX. Is someone willing to create this?

daytonite_andy
October 21st, 2009, 05:08
I have UTX Europe (http://www.scenerysolutions.com/ut_fsx_eur.html) and Horizon Simulations South East England (http://www.horizonsimulation.co.uk/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=2) and this is what I see. I even have Dover harbour.

I believe the textures are from Horizon and the mesh from UTX Europe (I may be wrong...)

Bjoern
October 21st, 2009, 12:09
I believe the textures are from Horizon and the mesh from UTX Europe (I may be wrong...)

UTX Europe doesn't have any mesh data.

Might be the default mesh, since the Cliffs of Dover are a well known POI and thus ACES might have used more accurate elevation data for that area.

IanP
October 21st, 2009, 12:59
They're not in the right place - as you can see from the roll-over of green at the top of the cliffs.

The only realistic cliffs I have seen so far, and they were phenomenally good, were in the CoBoy Normandy sceneries for FS9. They covered the French side of the same cliffs really very nicely indeed, but unfortunately he quit FS development altogether. I believe due to an distinct lack of sales of his sceneries.

Nick C
October 21st, 2009, 14:01
The Horizon VFR scenery includes mesh.

spatialpro
October 21st, 2009, 14:32
I'd be more than willing to have a go at this, if people are patient...

It would be daytime VFR scenery only, with a new mesh.

It won't be my priority, as I have other things on the boil, but given time and encouragement... who knows!

Spilot69
October 21st, 2009, 20:58
That would be amazing! I would love to fly by those cliffs in a spitfire!

T6flyer
October 22nd, 2009, 04:49
The real thing....taken recently on my way to France in a Broussard.

Martin

d0mokun
October 22nd, 2009, 06:37
"There'll be Broussards over, the white cliffs of Dover"..

Two more of my own photos for inspiration.

peter12213
October 22nd, 2009, 16:34
Those shots above are what we need, I starting to think though with the current fsx sim we use it just isn't possible, we need an FS11 lol I'm starting to think!
Ohh yeah and I need a new pc like a decent quad core to run it!

Wozza
October 22nd, 2009, 19:30
IF only they looked this good :)
<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Cx6V0QAVEU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

BananaBob
October 22nd, 2009, 19:44
An edit I did, what seems a long time ago now, with the cliffs. :ernae:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6875/doverchase.jpg

empeck
October 23rd, 2009, 00:15
It's impossible to make a good looking cliffs with FS terrain. I like what guys from OBD did in Over Flanders Fields for CFS3. Dover cliffs are 3d object carefully placed, and textured to match scenery textures.

spatialpro
October 23rd, 2009, 04:29
Indeed, a 3D object placed over a good mesh is the only real way to get a vertical or near-vertical cliff to look right. My personnal favorite is Lord Howe Island, where the 3D models and mesh are blended very well indeed.

Unfortunately I don't have the time [at present] to make such a 3D model (I'd also need horizontal photos of the cliffs taken from the sea). What I can do is improve upon the existing products by using the finest resolution DSM and orthophotos I can. The result will still look "wrong", but hopefully still "better" than what is otherwise available.

If people are still interested in that, please express yourselves. I can't do it soon, but if you express an interest I will get around to it... and we'll see how it looks.

Andy

jdhaenens
October 23rd, 2009, 05:15
I looked at doing this very thing a while back and ran up against the exhorbidant costs from the Ordinance Survey folks for high resolution mesh. Now that Asterdem is done, I'll take another look there.

spatialpro
October 23rd, 2009, 05:22
I looked at doing this very thing a while back and ran up against the exhorbidant costs from the Ordinance Survey folks for high resolution mesh. Now that Asterdem is done, I'll take another look there.

OS DTMs are expensive, but they are also improving slowly (less of the terrible contour stepping artifacts of years past). Despite this they have a long way to catch up with the wonderful NED. Overall OS isn't the way to go and I'll be using something different here... ;)

I'm a big follower of the Free Our Data (http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/) campaign... as I believe we should really be handing out for free geospatial data that the taxpayer has already paid for... just like the USGS (and USDA in the case of NAIP etc.) in conjunction with State geospatial clearinghouses.... but I'll get off my [large] soapbox now! ;)

http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/freeourdata.gif (http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/)

Wozza
October 23rd, 2009, 08:26
Hi
Any of you scenery mesh ppl tried fsterrain by Martin Wright?
http://www.mnwright.btinternet.co.uk/programs/fstrn.htm
Prob wont work in fsx but it did work in fs9.What I liked about it was you could convert the data into a gray scale pic and hand edit it to raise or lower the data then import back into the program
Wozza

CrisGer
October 23rd, 2009, 10:01
wow, this would be nice indeed. I have missed those cliffs in FSX. They are so remarkable a feature of that part of the coast, and saw a lot of the action. There are remarkable preserved bunkers inside them too.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6050/whitecliffsofdover.jpg

IanP
October 23rd, 2009, 10:23
It is possible, but very hard.

As I said, CoBoy (who has since left the hobby/industry) did it in FS9 by modelling them and then blending them (not entirely successfully, but still well) to the mesh. Take a look at the Etretat scenery here: http://coboydesign.online.fr/

peter12213
October 23rd, 2009, 18:05
An edit I did, what seems a long time ago now, with the cliffs. :ernae:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6875/doverchase.jpg

Thats amazing Bob really staggering realistic shot, even if its doctored it looks amazing mate! :medals:

Guys while you are right they did see a lot of action it was a rare occurance that dogfights happed like the shot above normally the germans attacked our shipping in the English channel and wre shot down by flak and not fighter intercept. Normaly the RAF would be scrambled and intercept over land as many pilots were lost in the sea in the early days, so we tended to fight overland as so to save the lives of our pilots (Remember in the early 40's not many pilots could swim!), and they couldn't light there pipes at sea aswell lol!

IanP
October 24th, 2009, 01:48
The fights were normally at over 10,000' as well, with the Spitfire pilots trying to peer through misted up windscreens to find an enemy that kept vanishing into the cloud. It's not until you hear about the ratio of fighters to bombers that the Luftwaffe hierarchy insisted on that you understand why so many German bomber stayed parked on their bases. Four fighters for every bomber? Fighters (Bf109) to protect fighters (Bf110) because they had proven so vulnerable when used incorrectly?

It's interesting to note that the most successful user of the Bf110, which when used correctly was absolutely devastating, was the United States... Only they called their Bf110s "P-38 Lightning". ;)

That's a very well done image, though, Bob. :)

Bjoern
October 24th, 2009, 11:06
It's interesting to note that the most successful user of the Bf110, which when used correctly was absolutely devastating, was the United States... Only they called their Bf110s "P-38 Lightning". ;)

The Bf-110 was totally useless as a fighter, but rig it with bombs or a radar and it'll be well worth the production cost.

Also, bear in mind that the Bf-110 was conceived at a time at which military planners were drooling all over those new and fancy bombers which could outrun fighters and would "always get through".
Just like the RAF paid heavily for that attitude in their early raids on northern Germany, the Luftwaffe paid for their missed planning from Poland all to the BoB.

IanP
October 24th, 2009, 11:28
The Bf110 was not a bad fighter, it was an interceptor seriously misused as a dogfighter. Use it to "bounce" an enemy formation, or allow it to fly in, blast, then run, and it was lethal. Try and dogfight with it, it had lost before it started because it couldn't turn as tightly or change speed as quickly. In other words, exactly the same as the vast majority of WW2 twin engined fighters.

By the time the Lightning was in full scale production, that lesson had been learned and the US tactics reflected that - Lightnings used height to generate speed, blasted their opponent with a hard volley, then zoom climbed back to altitude. Had the Luftwaffe not tried to treat the Bf110 like a Bf109, then it would have been a lot more successful. The German High Command also made the very stupid mistake of trying to tie the fighters to the bombers, thus taking away every advantage they could get.

The same happened on both sides. Politics and power games between various branches and officers caused battles to be won or lost far more than the equipment and skill of the actual combatants did.

Bjoern
October 24th, 2009, 12:13
The same happened on both sides. Politics and power games between various branches and officers caused battles to be won or lost far more than the equipment and skill of the actual combatants did.

Well, the Reich had the problem that the biggest idiots weren't in the officer ranks but right atop of the food and decision chain.

You can easily get rid of an idiotic general, but try getting rid of that idiot running the whole country and military...

IanP
October 24th, 2009, 13:13
We didn't get rid of the idiotic General (or Air Vice Marshal, anyway). We got rid of Park and Dowding, who knew what they were doing, instead, then replaced them with Leigh-Mallory who made every mistake that everyone else had avoided and continued to do so for the rest of the war. But he was friends with Bomber Command, who didn't like Dowding and Park because they had proven The Bomber Will Always Get Through to be false...

Argh! Politics! Or Argh! Politicians! for that matter.

Bjoern
October 25th, 2009, 14:56
I would have given anything to peeve Bomber Command off enough at that time, so that Butcherhouse Harris would've never ever gotten his way...

History really is a S.O.B. at times.

spatialpro
October 27th, 2009, 08:47
OK, I experimented making scenery of the White Cliffs of Dover using the best DEM and orthophotos I could lay my hands on. These resulted in a 1m mesh and 7cm textures (i.e. maximum for FSX). The results are shown here. They are an improvement on VFR GenX and work especially well anywhere the cliffs aren't near-vertical (first shot), but anywhere the cliff is near-vertical there is no substitute for a blended 3D object. No surprises there!!

Any thoughts/opinions/abuse...??

cheers

Andy

http://photos.classicbritishfiles.com/hosted/images/wmzzndhhddidxzmfnqhh.jpg

http://photos.classicbritishfiles.com/hosted/images/5z5iyrotwyzayyitjlig.jpg

http://photos.classicbritishfiles.com/hosted/images/d2jvhatqejmx4yyzkdm2.jpg

GBrutus
October 27th, 2009, 09:12
Bloody hell, those cliffs look amazing! Nice work.

Willy
October 27th, 2009, 09:26
I always thought it amazing that MS could get the Dover cliffs in CFS 1, but nothing else in the FS series.

Roger
October 27th, 2009, 09:56
Wow! You're definately onto something there Andy:applause:

spatialpro
October 27th, 2009, 10:41
Thanks for your appreciative comments guys. There is little doubt this is better than other existing scenery, but (besides the first shot) the screenshots highlight the inherent limitations of simply drapping imagery over terrain. You can increase the resolution as much as you like (with a big penalty in file size BTW, this short stretch of coast weighs in at ~250Mb, now multiply that for the whole of the UK!), but ultimately vertical cliffs require the 3D object approach...

Dangerous Beans
October 27th, 2009, 10:50
Looking really good Airtrooper.
IMO it would be OK to use a bit of artistic licence at the spots where it has problems and make them a little less vertical than they should be IRL.

Henry
October 27th, 2009, 11:35
i have never seen them from the air untill yesterday
Andy they look great!
H:guinness:

jdhaenens
October 27th, 2009, 11:51
Looking good! Once you color match with the surroundings and do the blend/water mask, I think it will look great! You should be able to do some manual retouching on the areas where the green is bleeding over the verticals.

I looked at the Asterdem mesh and made it into a 3dsMax model, but it wasn't too vertical at all and it looked like it would take a career to move all the points to look right.

Your work is outstanding!

Jim

spatialpro
October 27th, 2009, 13:59
Ah Jim, you win the prize for spotting I hadn't done any blending/masking!! :medals:

I did think about spending the extra time to do that at the start, but then I remembered the 80/20 rule and told myself "this is just an experiment". :stop: If I were going to take it any further I'd go back and do the blending/masking (and retouching)...

I've got to ask myself, is there enough demand to justify the work, vs other projects I have on the boil...?

spatialpro
October 27th, 2009, 14:06
Jim,

Wouldn't retouching still cause a problem....

I could retouch at 7cm sample spacing and make sure the green grass is dead-on the edge of the cliff, not drapped over it... but what about when others are flying with a 1m scenery setting (or another combination of mesh vs. texture resolution).... then green grass could still get drapped over the edge, I reckon. Am I correct???

Of course, I could recommend "this scenery is designed for 1m mesh and 7cm texture resolution", but then not everyone will have a PC capable of that and I'd like to be accomodating...

Many thanks

Andy

LouP
October 27th, 2009, 14:52
I always thought it amazing that MS could get the Dover cliffs in CFS 1, but nothing else in the FS series.

I have to agree with Willy here. Why do the cliffs look so dam good in CFS and that was the last time they looked good?

LouP

spotlope
October 27th, 2009, 17:07
Andy, it looks fantastic. On the texture resolution, you could probably get away with considerably lower res images. In fact, 30cm/px would be adequate, or even 60cm, given the fact that the cliffs are made to be flown over rather than rolled upon. Once you're even 1000' in the air, the 7cm res is wasted detail. The more important factor is the high-res mesh, which I think you've hit spot-on. It looks almost as though the waves breaking on the beach are forming a little ridge line in the mesh... do my eyes deceive me? You'll probably want to flatten that out. Once the blend and water masks are in place, this will be a very nice little addon. :ernae:

jdhaenens
October 27th, 2009, 18:08
Andy,

When the sharp edges roll over, You'll still have a line defining verticality, which, from a distance will still look fine. Take a look at it on your machine with your mesh complexity lower. It really does look like it would only take a few tweaks to get where you want to be.

Cheers

robcap
October 27th, 2009, 22:32
It's an amazing piece of work.
Then you need to add Dover harbour, Dover castle, the radar station, heck, maybe even the Battle of Britain memorial ;-)

Cheers, Rob

IanP
October 28th, 2009, 08:36
It does indeed look excellent. However the cliffs are not, in fact, vertical. The fact that the chalk is so soft (and thus increasing the gap between Britain and France at quite a rate!) means that there are always chunks missing in various places. I'm not referring to a few metres square, either. I was watching a TV programme a short while ago discussing the chalk cliffs and that during a storm, it's not unusual for hundreds of cubic metres of chalk to fall away in uneven chunks.

What you've done there looks pretty close to what they were showing in close up shots... Except without the green bleed from the textures, obviously. :d

huub vink
October 28th, 2009, 12:30
Larry, I think the cliffs in your screenies look really amazingly good! I would really appreciate it if you could finish them.

Below some pictures from "the other side", which I took on my holiday 2 years ago. Perhaps they can be of some help.

The first picture shows the Dover Cliffs seen from Cap blanc nez.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/P9100001s.jpg

Below Cap blanc nez seen fromcap gris nez

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/P9100009s.jpg

Below two pictures which show the structure of the cliffs at the French side. I presume this is similar at the British side.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/P9120063s.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/P9120069s.jpg

The last picture is taken a bit further South. It shows the cliffs North of Treport harbour. As you can see the cliffs can be quite "vertical" also.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/P9130138s.jpg

Thanks for all your efforts!

Huub

BananaBob
October 28th, 2009, 12:43
Man that's really looking good, great work! The screenshot possibilities around that area are endless. :applause::ernae:

spatialpro
October 28th, 2009, 13:01
Ian,

You raise an interesting, and timely point! It just so happens I spent today surveying coastal landslides with GPS (not Dover though)!

My fieldwork and what you wrote also made me think about something else... The difference in time (approx. 1 year in this case) between the acquisition of the DEM and the acquisition of the orthophoto means that there is a mismatch to start with, simply due to erosion. This is of course in addition to the vertical/non-vertical issue.

Andy

letsgetrowdy
October 28th, 2009, 13:13
look amazing!
will this be compatible with default scenery though???

Mathias
October 28th, 2009, 13:40
The Bf110 was not a bad fighter, it was an interceptor seriously misused as a dogfighter. Use it to "bounce" an enemy formation, or allow it to fly in, blast, then run, and it was lethal. Try and dogfight with it, it had lost before it started because it couldn't turn as tightly or change speed as quickly. In other words, exactly the same as the vast majority of WW2 twin engined fighters.

.

Hmm, the Bf110 was much better than the post war legends tell.
During the BoB it was easy enough to shoot up an aircraft that was chained to limp with the bomber at 180 knots when you have the height and speed advantage. Infact every fighter is a sitting duck when used like that.
The loss per sortie rate of the Bf110 during the BoB was not higher than those of the single engined Bf109 frontline units.
The pilots themself considered their Bf110 an equal match against the Hurry at low altitudes and actually advantaged at higher altitudes. Mind you Britains icon Patt Pattle fell victim to a Bf 110 in a dogfight.
The reading "Bf109 protecting the Bf110 protectors" isn't quite right, either.
The Bf110 playd an important tactical role in that it formed a defense circle tie enemy fighters which could choose to go behind the Bf109 risking to get caught by a Bf110 or engaging the defense circle with low chance of getting a success. The reason why it was withdrawn from the BoB was because it was needed against the British bombers who began to attack German homeland at night, a task that the Bf109 was not able to fullfill.
Later in the med when the Bf110 saw it's last duty as a fighter it was holding it's own shooting down Hurricanes and P-38.
bottom line, sure not the ideal fighter but by far not as bad as often stated.

spatialpro
October 28th, 2009, 13:53
Thanks for all the great comments, plus the great questions.


will this be compatible with default scenery though???

Another good one! Strictly speaking, no, as it is photoscenery. But being pragmatic, YES, as either A) one could use just the high-res mesh alone; or B) the photoscenery is just a narrow strip and if correctly blended (!) it would work OK with the default FSX scenery (or UTX etc.)...

I hope that helps?

Andy

Bjoern
October 28th, 2009, 14:36
The reason why it was withdrawn from the BoB was because it was needed against the British bombers who began to attack German homeland at night, a task that the Bf109 was not able to fullfill.

Actually it was ("Wilde Sau"), but the larger Bf-110 was more effective, especially when fitted with radar.

Mathias
October 28th, 2009, 14:44
Actually it was ("Wilde Sau")

C'mon Björn, that was much later in a totally different environment.

jdhaenens
October 28th, 2009, 17:22
Keep on plugging, Andy and don't hesitate to ask if you need help!

Cheers!

Jim

Bjoern
October 29th, 2009, 09:52
C'mon Björn, that was much later in a totally different environment.

No, it wasn't.


Am Anfang experimentierte man mit dem von General der Nachtjagd Josef Kammhuber entwickelten Nachtjagdverfahren „Wilde Sau“.

Okay, it's only Wikipedia, but believe me, I've read it in the same canon at more than one other source.

IanP
October 29th, 2009, 10:01
So it had nothing to do with Goering's order that the Bf109s had to protect the Bf110s due to them having such a high casualty rate when used?

Hmm. Methinks there might be a distinct difference between German and Allied Historians on that one.

Bjoern
October 29th, 2009, 10:19
So it had nothing to do with Goering's order that the Bf109s had to protect the Bf110s due to them having such a high casualty rate when used?

I only know about the order to stick close to the bombers.

Mathias
October 29th, 2009, 10:24
No, it wasn't.



Okay, it's only Wikipedia, but believe me, I've read it in the same canon at more than one other source.

I was refering to initial trials of IV./(N) JG 2 by late '39/early'40 where the Bf109 was widestly without success.
The next try with the Bf109 as a nightfighter was by summer 1941, again without much success.

"Wilde Sau" was introduced by July/August 1943 by Hajo Herrmann's JG 300 which was according to my sources quite a bit after the BoB, and yes, in a considereably different environment with greatly improved communication and radar technology.

IanP
October 29th, 2009, 10:26
You presumably know about the instruction that there had to be three fighters for every bomber, after one day of particularly bad losses for the Luftwaffe?

According to all three of the BoB histories I've read recently, that was followed up by a raid where Bf110s were used to escort Dorniers, but they were operating at the edge of range and left the gunners behind to save weight. The Bf110s, in spite of forming a defensive circle, lost more aircraft than the bombers that they failed to protect did. Goering supposedly ordered that the Bf110s (his pet project) would only operate in future provided they had single engine fighters as a close escort themselves.

Had the Luftwaffe brought their full weight to bear on the RAF 11 Group airfields, none of them would have survived. With the requirements for fighters to escort bombers, fighters to escort fighters and the ongoing infighting within the Luftwaffe leadership, however, most of the bombers rarely flew because insufficient fighters were available to operate alongside them.

Mathias
October 29th, 2009, 10:27
So it had nothing to do with Goering's order that the Bf109s had to protect the Bf110s due to them having such a high casualty rate when used?

Hmm. Methinks there might be a distinct difference between German and Allied Historians on that one.


I think it's not about German or aliied historians but more about old and new researchers and beloved myths.
Not everybody who writes a book about a historical theme can be considered a historian.

Mathias
October 29th, 2009, 10:31
You presumably know about the instruction that there had to be three fighters for every bomber, after one day of particularly bad losses for the Luftwaffe?

According to all three of the BoB histories I've read recently, that was followed up by a raid where Bf110s were used to escort Dorniers, but they were operating at the edge of range and left the gunners behind to save weight. The Bf110s, in spite of forming a defensive circle, lost more aircraft than the bombers that they failed to protect did. Goering supposedly ordered that the Bf110s (his pet project) would only operate in future provided they had single engine fighters as a close escort themselves.

Had the Luftwaffe brought their full weight to bear on the RAF 11 Group airfields, none of them would have survived. With the requirements for fighters to escort bombers, fighters to escort fighters and the ongoing infighting within the Luftwaffe leadership, however, most of the bombers rarely flew because insufficient fighters were available to operate alongside them.

Yes, as I said, not the ideal fighter but yet they made the best of the situation developing the forementioned tactics. No prove though that the Bf110 was a total failure as often quoted.
And yes, the Bf110 had black days during the BoB, but so had the Bf109.

spatialpro
October 30th, 2009, 03:43
Okay, IF I were to make this scenery, where do people regard the "White Cliffs of Dover" start and end (east-west)??! Please be as specific as possible, as every extra bit of cliff would increase the filesize dramatically...

Helldiver
October 30th, 2009, 04:17
Vera Lynn's singing, "There'll be Bluebirds over the White Cliffs of Dover" symbolized all the Great Britain was gong through during the Battle of Britain and the subsequent raids, for all Americans.
The visions of Hurricanes and Spitfires dogfighting the awful Hun comes to mind. Anyone that remembers World War II can remember that song. "When Jimmy can go to sleep in his own litle room again" brought tears to all the women.
I can hardly wait until Andy releases it.


Therell be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of Dover
Tomorrow
Just you wait and see
I'll never forget the people I met
Braving those angry skies
I remember well as the shadows fell
The light of hope in their eyes
And though I'm far away
I still can hear them say
Bombs up...
But when the dawn comes up
Therell be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of Dover
Tomorrow
Just you wait and see
Therell be love and laughter
And peace ever after
Tomorrow
When the world is free
The shepherd will tend his sheep
The valley will bloom again
And Jimmy will go to sleep
In his own little room again
Therell be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of Dover
Tomorrow
Just you wait and see
Therell be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of Dover
Tomorrow
Just you wait and see...

spatialpro
October 30th, 2009, 05:57
I can hardly wait until Andy releases it.

Wooo now... hold on, IF I decide to do this as a project! I've got a lot of other FSX projects on the boil, some working with other people who I don't want to let down (and who may be reading this thread!), so this project comes further down my list of priorities. I must focus!!

Having said that, I am very excited about it and if I do go for it I'll get it done as soon as I can.

I sound dreadfully non-commital don't I??!! My apologies... :)

Focus Andy, focus...! ;)

IanP
October 30th, 2009, 06:49
Ignoring the fact that "Bluebirds" live in North America and the song was written by a citizen of the United States for a US audience for a moment, the "White Cliffs of Dover" technically stretch all the way along the South coast of Britain, as the chalk bed that they are part of incorporates large areas of the Isle of Wight, amongst other places.

This cropped up not too long ago on the telly again when we caught a new episode of the BBC's series "Coast" where they were discussing the South Downs and they are very similar to the cliffs at the tip of Kent indeed. When you look across the Channel at the North coast of Normandy, in particular, you can see why.

I'd suggest, if you do it, that you pick a start and end point as close as possible to Dover without it being blatantly obvious. Most people around the world won't care. Those who do know them intimately will just be glad to have them, so I don't think you'd get any complaints at all.

Helldiver
October 30th, 2009, 10:55
Well Andy from Dorset, you look forward to many years ahead of you while I'm glad to get another month or two
IanP, you got no romance in your soul. Be it British or the United States, that song brought a lot of hope when it looked the darkest for both countries and the Japs were beating the hell out of us at Bataan and Corregidor.

spatialpro
October 30th, 2009, 11:09
My sincere apologies if I've unwittingly caused any offense :redface:

mickrick
October 30th, 2009, 11:40
Great video:monkies:

mickrick
October 30th, 2009, 11:49
You can purchase Scenery from Horizon.com for all of England and Wales in Photographic Detail (They are now doing Scotland Scenery)Its Very good I have flown over my Home town and I can even make out the house where I was Born

Helldiver
October 30th, 2009, 13:28
Back here in America we are having a recession In other words jobs and money is very scarce. To pay $40.95 for a patch of U.K is a bit too much. I only paid $35 for all of FSX.
Andy, there was no offense.

calypsos
October 30th, 2009, 14:09
I bit the bullet (over 6 months) and purchased all 3 Horizon UK volumes and a new HD to put them on. They now form my entire FS world pretty much. Although I am not UK based any more, I can sll fly totally VFR with the Mk1 Eyeball for hours just using some old low altitude charts I 'forgot to hand back' when I left the RAF years ago.

With free and payware UK2000 scenery it gives me all I want, I was never sold on MS default terrain anyway. Expensive yes, but for the hours I use it, well worth it.

Bjoern
October 31st, 2009, 12:49
I was refering to initial trials of IV./(N) JG 2 by late '39/early'40 where the Bf109 was widestly without success.
The next try with the Bf109 as a nightfighter was by summer 1941, again without much success.

And the Bf-110 was so much better?