UH-72A Lakota

Previews, discussions and support for projects by John Young.
User avatar
clickclickdoh
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 1566
Joined: 03 Mar 2009, 03:04

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by clickclickdoh »

Those aren't in an object library. Those are custom objects John Young mad UKe that embedded in the scenery filled themselves


Let me get with John and see if he is okay with me compiling so.e of his objects into a single fsx/p3d library to make life easier on users of those sim versions

User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2813
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by John Young »

That's fine with me Brent. Let me know if you need the model files.

John

User avatar
jimrodger
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1201
Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 13:34
Version: FS9
Location: EGQK (RIP)

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by jimrodger »

Cheers guys, saves me pulling out what hair I have left trying to find them ..

mant thanks

Jim
"When all else fails, and your AI doesn't show up...... check the AI slider.......DOH!!!!"

geoffj
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 30
Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 09:27
Version: FSX
Location: Wiltshire, UK

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by geoffj »

Hi John,

I am relatively new to FSX, only slowly building for the last 5 months. I recently installed the Lakota package and on taking a look around Laupheim I noticed some trees and default buildings on taxiways. On checking the file EHTL_ADEX_JY.bgl with ADE I see that the airport properties all relate to Fort Polk KPOE rather than to EHTL Laupheim. I downloaded the package again yesterday just to check and it is the case with the current download file. I am not sure if this would result in the EHTL_ADEX_JY_CVX.bgl file not displaying exclusions correctly or is it more likely that there is a problem with my FSX installation given that there are no previous reports of this that I can see on the forum?

many thanks, Geoff

User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2813
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by John Young »

We produced the Lakota package 3 years ago and unfortunately, Brent, who made the Laupheim scenery is not on the FS scene at present. However, I've just checked the scenery and there are indeed 4 trees on the edge of the small apron on the north side of the airfield. I couldn't see any stray default buildings.

I can't easily try and correct the scenery myself because the paths to objects are all set to the installation in my old PC which is packed away. However, the trees can be removed by reducing the autogen density to "Normal".

Best I can suggest at the moment.

John

geoffj
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 30
Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 09:27
Version: FSX
Location: Wiltshire, UK

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by geoffj »

Hi John,

Many thanks for your reply, all understood. On my system I have found that the effect of the ETHL.ADEX.JY.BGL file having the properties of KPOE, except for the altitude, is that FSX only displays Brent's original scenery at ETHL, and KPOE ends up as 2 airports at different altitudes and does not display correctly.

By removing the three "_JY" files from ETHL and making ADE exclude and airfield ground polys for Brent's original ETHL files, both ETHL and KPOE now display as expected. The only thing missing is whatever was in the ETHL_ADEX_JY_OBJ.BGL file.

The images show the before and after views at ETHL looking west from just south of the 27 threshold. I still need to remove the strange "ice taxiway" visible in the foreground and add some FSX trees to make it less sterile, but just surprised that no FSX users have reported encountering this before.

Many thanks for all your work for the fltsim community and very much looking forward to the S-92.

All the best, Geoff
Attachments
2020-5-28_22-10-16-968.jpg
2020-5-28_23-18-29-888.jpg

User avatar
John Young
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 2813
Joined: 12 Jul 2008, 15:15

Re: UH-72A Lakota

Post by John Young »

The ETHL_ADEX_JY_OBJ.bgl file contains an exclude area and some trees.

John

Post Reply