Airports on plateaus

[hawkeye52]

Why are so many FS9 airports presented on plateaus, which in real life are are nonexistent? Examples are KTUS, KDMA, KOLS.

What is the simplest way to correct that?

- H52

[LouP]

Runways need to be flat in FS9 so if the airport is on a hill, then one side will wind up higher that the other. This was one of my most anticipated fixes for FS but now will probably never happen.

LouP

[hawkeye52]

Hi, Lou...
Lemme see if I understand... for the examples I gave, KTUS has a difference in height from one end of rwy 11L/29R to the other of 65 ft. Similarly, KOLS has a 116 ft. diff. and KDMA a 115 ft. diff. Thus they are, effectively, "on a hill". To overcome this, FS9 would have to either place these airports below (adjacent) ground level or above it, hence the plateau.

- H52

[Lionheart]

If you put in a new terrain addon that redoes the terrain mesh, then this will happen if they are alot different from the stock FS elevations. If you are happy with the terrain mesh, then go in and with AFCAD, readjust the airports to the terrain altitude.

Its alot of work, but if you like the terrain mesh, then thats what you need to do.

Easy way, is to delete the addon terrain mesh so the elevations return.



By the way, Sedona 'is' a Plateau airport. :d Like landing on an aircraft carrier.


Bill

[hawkeye52]

LionHeart, are you saying there may be an addon mesh that provides "true" terrain altitudes?

And if so, I can then adjust the airport heights so that I end up with a non-flat airfield?

- H52

[LouP]

Can't have a non-flat airfield without some special programing as was done at Lukla by Aerosoft. Your examples were correct. The airfield will stay at the "flat" altitude programmed while the land around it goes up and down.

LouP

[Firebar]

I saw a video somewhere of a runway that did follow the ground mesh. I assume however that this was textured into the scenery with any links laid over the top (cant remember id just the links minus any taxiways etc change altitudes.

[OBIO]

LionHeart, are you saying there may be an addon mesh that provides "true" terrain altitudes?

And if so, I can then adjust the airport heights so that I end up with a non-flat airfield?

- H52

Rhumbafloppy has done a world mesh using recent SRTM (Space Shuttle Radar Texture Mapping or something like that) that is very very nice. It is in the CFS2 library, as he built it with CFS2 in mind, but it works with FS2002, FS2004, FSX. The improvement from stock is HUGE! There are a lot of zips to down load, but is well worth the time to do so. I will dig through the library later and make a list of all the files you need to download for the complete world mesh.

OBIO

[hawkeye52]

OBIO, interesting!
Waiting to hear from Lionheart.
- H52

[Sidney Schwartz]

LionHeart, are you saying there may be an addon mesh that provides "true" terrain altitudes?

And if so, I can then adjust the airport heights so that I end up with a non-flat airfield?

Meshes differ in resolution, which translates to accuracy. The higher the resolution, the more accurate the terrain. Of course accuracy also depends on the quality of the data that is used to create the mesh. The default FS mesh is relatively low resolution. It's been my experience that installing a higher resultion mesh will actually result in more of a difference between the elevation of the default airports and the elevation of the surrounding terrain. In other words, you'll have even more aiports on plateaus, or in holes, than with the default mesh.

As for changing the elevation of the airport using AFCAD, it's been my experience that this doesn't work because FS9 will continue to read the runway elevation from the default airport data. For example, you have an airport with an elevation of 500' and want to lower it to 250'. You use AFCAD to change the airport elevation to 250' and save it. You now have two afcad files for that airport, the default and the modified. FS9 will use the modified afcad to determine the elevations of the taxiways and aprons, but will continue to read the runway elevation from the default afcad. The runway will appear to have been lowered, but when the plane is on the runway it will float above it at the default elevation of 500'.

Fixing this problem requires changing the runway elevation in the default FS9 scenery files. The easiest way I know of is to use a freeware program called JABBgl...

http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=SEARCH1&fname=jabbgl.zip

It's very easy to use. The only drawback is that if you have to reinstall FS9, any changes you made will be overwritten by the reinstall and you'd have to redo them. Jon "Scruffyduck" Masterson's free ADEX-9 also allows you to do the same thing, but uses a different method that should survive a reinstall of FS9.

Hope this is comprehensible. Nothing about FS scenery design is simple, at least not to me. :isadizzy:

[hawkeye52]

Yes, SS, absolutely comprehensible! Thank you for taking the time to write it.

My decision now is whether I want to start investing more time in correcting airports-of-interest -- likely to be an interminable undertaking -- or simply live with default FS9 placement.

- H52

[Tom Clayton]

Even with default mesh, there's still some airports that are either raised or lowered compared to the surrounding terrain. I just see it as a "quirk" and keep going. The problem with adjusting an airport to your specific terrain comes into play during multiplayer flights. You and your friend land at your adjusted airport and your friend either sinks into the ground or floats above you.

[Terry]

The best workaround I have found is to use Steve Greenwood's FSTflatten program to flatten a large area surrounding the airport to the to the airport height. Depending on the lay of the land this area may be slightly larger than the airport to several miles in diameter. No, it's not accurate but it sure does look better and it's quick and easy to do.

[Ashaman]

Runways need to be flat in FS9 so if the airport is on a hill, then one side will wind up higher that the other. This was one of my most anticipated fixes for FS but now will probably never happen.
LouP

This was a most anticipated fix already in FSX, before Microsoft messed up BADLY and fell back on the [for them] easy road, choosing to adopt depleted uranium heavy graphics to make the X look better than the 9, but paying the somewhat nicer graphics with atrocious performance... even on today's rigs... this begs the questions:

1) what kind of PC did the beta testers of M$ use to be able to use well a program that after 2 years still bogs down high performance PCs?

...and...

2) Did the people in M$ even bother with a beta testing that went beyond the ability to load the program successfully?

I fear we'll never get answers to these questions. :pop4:

[Alain_F355]

There are many bugs in placement of airports. I have also seen:

-Runway floats above the ground
-Lights and markings float above the runway
-Airfield in a crater, only possible to take off in stol aircraft
-Taxiway's that disappear into the ground

With this many airports it is impossible to beta test them all and to give them the detail they deserve. Many small airports are just a runway with a tower. Maybe it would be better to model 1 part of the world in high detail. For instance FS America.

About the performance of FSX, many games are designed with the PC of tomorrow in mind so they are not outdated by the time they get into the store. It can take several years to develop a game. Also the game designers don't have to buy there own rig so I expect they are using some of the hottest rigs money can buy.

[Daube]

This was a most anticipated fix already in FSX, before Microsoft messed up BADLY and fell back on the [for them] easy road, choosing to adopt depleted uranium heavy graphics to make the X look better than the 9, but paying the somewhat nicer graphics with atrocious performance... even on today's rigs... this begs the questions:

1) what kind of PC did the beta testers of M$ use to be able to use well a program that after 2 years still bogs down high performance PCs?

...and...

2) Did the people in M$ even bother with a beta testing that went beyond the ability to load the program successfully?

I fear we'll never get answers to these questions. :pop4:

Well, the runways need to be flat, but I have seen in FSX some runways that were following the terrain, and still being considerated as concrete surface. For example, the freeware "altiports" sceneries, that includes Courchevel. The runway is not flat.

And I believe this is possible also with FS9, but then it's not considered as concrete surface, more like mud, as if it were not a real runway.

[Ashaman]

Well, the runways need to be flat, but I have seen in FSX some runways that were following the terrain, and still being considerated as concrete surface. For example, the freeware "altiports" sceneries, that includes Courchevel. The runway is not flat.

And I believe this is possible also with FS9, but then it's not considered as concrete surface, more like mud, as if it were not a real runway.

I was talking DEFAULT. For non-default solutions, Lukla was made first for FS9, and its runway is most certainly NOT mud. Courchevel for FS9 as well. :rolleyes:

[Sidney Schwartz]

-- likely to be an interminable undertaking --
Yes, yes it is. Fiddling with FS scenery is like smoking crack, but at least it's cheaper. :rolleyes:

[hawkeye52]

I can believe that. But I'l ATTEMPT to limit my fiddling!!! :icon_lol:

- H52

[bpfowler]

Yes, yes it is. Fiddling with FS scenery is like smoking crack, but at least it's cheaper. :rolleyes:

that's pretty much what my wife thinks about FS in general.
thanks for the laugh, Sidney.

cheerio
brady

[Ashaman]

Yes, yes it is. Fiddling with FS scenery is like smoking crack, but at least it's cheaper. :rolleyes:

...and is not illegal and less damaging as well. :bump: