Scenery Design Project

[Kevin Firth 114]

yea they are great, but as we know the no of sales was inexplicably somewhat crippled by both lack of compatibility (old story no need to explore further!) and the choice of locations. I never understood the logic behind trying to produce vfr airfields around arguably some of the most restricted and heavily controlled airspace (ie London) in the world! Great for hardcore vatsim flyers but not really the best for just get in and fly scenery explorers :s I think thats why Southampton did immeasurably better, it appealed to a wider audience and wasnt so restrictive on that assessment there are still commercial opportunities for UK airields out there, the bad thing for us UK pilots is that the US commercial opportunities are just more lucrative

Perhaps we should form a freeware design collective to do some UK GA airfields, with everyone contributing a smaller element to the whole so noone has to do it all? We could start off with a really small airfield to prove the concept? anyone interested in exploring this further? I'm up for it but until my daughter is grown up and I'm retired I dont have enough time to do it all!!

[ddavid 149]

Sounds like a possibility, Kevin, but...

1. Compatibility: 3 versions? Default, 5 m mesh (Gen-X) and FTX England/Wales/Scotland/N. Ireland?

2. Scenery object library: Default objects or specially designed bgl's?

3. Collaboration with others, like Tony Meredith, etc?

Let's choose an airfield and try it...

Cheers - Dai.

[Kevin Firth 114]

Dai, we are now a team ...my thoughts on those were...

1. if its organised properly we could do all 3, depending on what people who are participating are using. Personally Im only using P3D2 and I wouldnt do a default option....does anyone run default only??? Each option would need a mesh blend and a colour match base image so multiple compatibility is just a matter of appropriate skills, planning and organisation...

2. bespoke models definitely, detail and complexity dependent on peoples skills and ability- its easy to knock up relatively sinple sketchup models and I dont think we'd get far aiming for OrbX level detail straight away Simple but bespoke can give a great impression without being too hard to achieve. That said, some models will be more difficult than others, so a good end result will require sound planning so the more difficult models are done by ppl with the required skills We can use default models in some small places if they fit well? Maybe some nice devs would permit us to use some of their library objects if we promise its not for sale and not in competition with them?

3. definitely, if TonyM etc were willing to be part of a collective that would be awesome

Perhaps we could start with something very small? Anyone else up for joining in?

Cheers K

[Kevin Firth 114]

How about a rendition of UK10 Plockton as its in the new earthsims area, is very small, and has a few nice simple structures that we could het to grips with? *wonders*

[ddavid 149]

We'll have to move the house in the middle of the pitch!

Do we have a contact, locally, who could take some photo's for the building textures? Maybe there's the local flying club...

And Iain from ScotFlight might have an input, too.

Sounds like a project, Kevin.

Cheers - Dai.

[Kevin Firth 114]

hmmm I forgot about scotflight :/ I wouldnt want to reinvent the wheel anywhere and if there was a P3D2 version of scotflight in the wings imminently Id look somewhere else...Tony is already doing something up that way, we should discreetly enquire whats going on there?

[britfrog 180]

firstly I am all for joining/helping any group developing for fsx .

however there is currently no point doing anything for P3d for 2 reasons

a) it is not anywhere near as good,or as commonly used  or as solid as fsx using dx10,, unless you intend to use small a/c only

b) by the time you get close to finishing a product P3D will be 64 bit so it will be all change  ie tea breaks over back on your heads all that work would have been for nothing

 

whatever you create will have to be very good, just doing what france vfr (and many others) do, using a lot of default buildings  IMHO is not interesting, the average simmer expects more for his money now . default stuff is all very well for freeware but the level of detail the average clients expects if he is dipping into his wallet, is now much higher, the bar has been moved forever.

 

I had only recently come across Scotflight but for me personally  it is not very interesting for my kind of simming,

 

it is all to easy to fall into a trap in this game and take a few peoples opinions as being representative of the simming market as a whole, I think this may in some case be the problem ES are suffering as an example. You have to look at what the big devs are making and copy them, there is not enough interest in the fringe areas to make anything financially viable unless you are a one man band.

 

For this reason I think you will see a few well known names disappearing in the near future, there is not enough profit in scenery manufacture to support a multi person, labour intensive, time consuming,  business with professional buildings this is why people like ftx farm out  much of their work , let the small dev's take the financial risk to produce something. using your knowhow and technology and then you market it for them, aerosoft do the same , very little is made in-house per se.

 

 

 

[Kevin Firth 114]

BF you miss my point mate, I dont intend to create anything and sell it, only to satisfy my own (and anyone who feels similarly) needs and desires. Maybe anything wont be up to pro standards nowadays but if ppl want to diss it they won't have paid anything and can freely choose not to use it

On 2 points I massively disagree:

1. P3D2 is more stable and aesthetically pleasing in every way, (for me at least). The type of small airfields I'm thinking of wont ever take tubeliners anyway so the fact some well known quality products arent available yet means zero to me

2. I agree with your hypothesis as to appearance of a 64 bit P3D platform, but I think bgl compatibility will be unchanged and so anything we do will largely still be conpatible

Even if it isnt this is something I'll do for fun not profit so even if its useless come 64bit I'll have had fun in the meantime.

So would you like to join the team Nigel? K

PS Mods I know this has deviated sonewhat from the original thread so feel free to move the last bits to a new one if you like

[britfrog 180]

kevin count me in, howwever you have to appreciate one thing I found a textbook on brain surgery and discovered that was 100 times easier than gmax  or whatever it is called, that is used for  scenery design

my knowledge of airfield design is pretty close to zero if -10 counts as being close to zero

 

however i would really love to learn how to make a box so if someone has the patience to figureatively hold my hand and guide me with a hammer i am willing to learn

[Kevin Firth 114]

Enthusiasm that'll take you far! Don't mind helping you out, dare say wielding that hammer might be fun as well

Now we are three who will make it four? K

[jaydor 345]

What's this then, a Mutley's version of OZx?

 

Membership creating airfields?  Is that what you are aiming for?

[flybytes 34]

Enthusiasm that'll take you far! Don't mind helping you out, dare say wielding that hammer might be fun as well

Now we are three who will make it four? K

 

Kevin, I am interested, I may be useful for the animated bits of scenery such as radar antennae, but like yourself my free time for such a project would likely be limited.

 

Also, positioning the objects would be easy using Google Earth, assuming that the objects are visible, otherwise a problem - some of the GE images are more than 15-years old - unless permission granted to take a handheld GPS to each object.

 

The way the objects look would require using publically available photos or someone who lives locally to go and photo them.

 

I think the main issue would be keeping project members together for the time it takes to finish each airport & move on to the next.

 

Ray.

[brett 2,283]

All good points Ray but you never know until you try.

[Kevin Firth 114]

Kevin, I am interested, I may be useful for the animated bits of scenery such as radar antennae, but like yourself my free time for such a project would likely be limited.

Fab, I have no exp in animations so that would be a tremendously useful skillset thanks

Also, positioning the objects would be easy using Google Earth, assuming that the objects are visible, otherwise a problem - some of the GE images are more than 15-years old - unless permission granted to take a handheld GPS to each object.

Im sure we can get pretty close to reality without needing micrometet precision?

The way the objects look would require using publically available photos or someone who lives locally to go and photo them.

Yes, texture preparation will be a key area. ive some exp with photoshop so we can try to use open source material as much as possible, and supplement with on site imagery if feasible or otherwise fall back on best guess repeated or manufactured textures (if its good enough for spme devs its good enough for me!)

I think the main issue would be keeping project members together for the time it takes to finish each airport & move on to the next.

I agree, but it is totally voluntary. If people wish to dip in and out I'm ok with that, it just needs managing Even if we didn't ever finish a project, but we each learned or taught someone else one thing I'd consider that a success

[Kevin Firth 114]

What's this then, a Mutley's version of OZx?

Membership creating airfields? Is that what you are aiming for?

Something like that James yes between us maybe we can spread the workload of scenery creation, learn some new skills and have a bit of fun along the way? Would you be up for that as well?

[Christopher Low 63]

Kevin,

 

I could probably help with the AFD files. I have zero experience of 3D modelling or animations, but I have created and/or modified hundreds of AFD files for my own personal use (and also during the UK2000 VFR Airfields Volume 1 Version 2 upgrade project).

[flybytes 34]

It would be interesting to have feedback from a team member of a current or past freeware scenery group - 'Airfield Construction Group' springs to mind, their RAF's Marham & Coningsby are excellent.

 

Kevin, you are correct, perhaps the journey may be more fun & educational than actually achieving the goal.

 

Ray.

 

[Kevin Firth 114]

thanks Chris, that would be really appreciated, if you want to learn something new I'm sure everyone will be willing to share their knowledge ...i have no idea over and above the basics regarding AFD's so theres something I can learn from you! K