Wednesday evening session discussion thread.

[MariuszXC]

@MariusXC: If you need any more help with the scenery, simply post a message - I can help you !

EDIT: CANCEL most of below message. I tried with markerboard.ac instead of .xml and scenery update was accepted
So the text below is mostly outdated, except the search for a better object for rwy markings and generic question, if it is better to submit such changes directly into scenery or to create own scenery.

--- original message follows ---

Thank you, in fact, I run into an obstacle.
I added two standard hangars, few windsocks and a couple of GA planes and gliders - all using standard existing models.


Then I proceeded to add runway side markings. Here I had two problems:
1. I did not find a model which I could use to place markings similar to what is seen on Google Maps:


2. so I opted for using marker boards instead:

but when I submitted my work via 'massive insertion' form on FG Scenery, all lines placing markerboard.xml were rejected. It seems, that this model is not present in standard database?

So my question is, how to proceed. My modifications will probably appear in new scenery update, except runway markings.
Is there a standard model of short white stripes I can use? Is creating own scenery a better option and is it not an overkill for this case?

[sfr]

hi MariuszXC,

there is a very similar model in the database: Generic Rectangular Groundmarker
maybe it fits your purpose. You can find it at EDMK.

bye, sfr

[MariuszXC]

Thank you sfr, I succeeded with markerboard.ac instead of .xml

[TheEagle]

all lines placing markerboard.xml were rejected.

That's because that model does not have an .xml file, see it's model informaton !

And if we do that trip next week already, it would be better if you put your models in a custom scenery, because I don't know when the scenery is rebuilt !

[D-ECHO]

All object requests have been validated and should be available ~tomorrow.

[Ysop]

A bit of time away and already nice things happening for our Wednesdays!

So this time Tatry region 18:00 UTC? Or too early for anyone?

[TheEagle]

Or too early for anyone?

It may be too early for me, but don't wait for me, please !

[MariuszXC]

All object requests have been validated and should be available ~tomorrow.

Great news, thank you.

In the meantime I started to assemble a custom scenery, but run into a limitation I don't know how to solve.
I started to add RWY numbers:


I dropped objects using ufo, wrote dumped OBJECT_SHARED lines to .stg file in my scenery and loaded that for testing. My changes appeared, but then, looking from a different angle, I noticed, that objects might use some adjustment.
Here is the problem: I can not pick these objects for adjusting (moving) using ufo. Does it mean, that once objects are inside stg file they can not be selected/moved/etc.?
Modifying object headings by editing stg directly is easy enough, but moving is a different matter altogether...

Suggestions? Am I better off redoing this number from scratch?

[TheEagle]

@MariusXC: I experienced the same problem making the Himalaya scenery - the probably simplest workaround is to place the object again, make the adjustments on the newly placed object and overwrite the line corresponding to that object in the STG file.

[MariuszXC]

Scenery is done, although with some rough edges.

For example, I have no idea how to make FG respect my parking list in groundnet.

Anyway, have a look: https://github.com/MariuszXC/EPNT-custom-scenery and if you have ideas for further enhancements, contributions are welcome.

[TheEagle]

For example, I have no idea how to make FG respect my parking list in groundnet.

I don't understand this - do you mean they are not ordered, or don't the parkings appear in FGLauncher at all ?

[MariuszXC]

They do not appear at all. Instead I see two 'old' parking places. Did you see 10? (5 on each side of shorter runway).

[Volador]

Anyway, have a look: https://github.com/MariuszXC/EPNT-custom-scenery and if you have ideas for further enhancements, contributions are welcome.

nice work Marius. I did notice it's possible to trip over the runway numbers, I don't know if there is a way to make them non solid or sit flat

[TheEagle]

nice work Marius. I did notice it's possible to trip over the runway numbers, I don't know if there is a way to make them non solid or sit flat

Do you mean you crashed in them ? <enable-hot>false</enable-hot> in the model's XML file should help. If not … maybe add a negative offset of a few inches ?

[MariuszXC]

I did notice it's possible to trip over the runway numbers, I don't know if there is a way to make them non solid or sit flat

Yes, I noticed that too. Taxiing over them will certainly rock the plane.
I can place these objects either directly with Band-ba.ac, or via Band.xml.
Currently I opted for .ac, because xml defines rendering "animations" (material emissivity or some such) and the lines looked artificially bright on this airfield, however, no matter if it was .ac or .xml, I had the same problem with objects not sitting completely flat. I do not like this solution, but do not have a better idea either. I will give it another try with .xml, adding the <enable-hot>false TheEagle suggested. As for negative offset.. wouldn't it make them disappear under the field surface?

I noticed one strange thing: when tuning the heading and location after initial object placement, the object would start to partially disappear under the surface it was placed at. I had to apply very slight elevation adjustments to keep them wholy visible. No idea why, perhaps the 'ground' surface is not flat?