Your opinion again please

[MIKE JG]

What are the most important things or features that you guys look for in addon scenery? Be it freeware or payware, what are the things that you really like to see in a scenery set?

We are working on a great scenery project for you guys to enjoy and I'd like to make it as nice as possible without creating a slideshow on your sim.

Personally I am a "realism" type of simmer. The more realistic, the better for me. That means accurately modeled structures, accurately textured models with realistic placement. Also means a realistic looking afcad file to go along with it as well as night lighting and effects.

But that's just me. I'd like to hear some other's opinions on the subject. Do you want lots of eye candy or just the basics?

[bitburgeaglekeeper]

I look for realism yet use ability, the AFCAD file should reflect the airport and time period modeled (ie if your working on a F-16 package for Hahn their should not be airliner gates or a modern passenger terminal) on the scenery side I want the airport to look realistic with the proper shaped buildings and placement but I'm willing to trade off custom textures and a highly detailed building for frame rates.

[ricktk]

I think some 'eye candy" is necessary. Not alot by any means, just enough to give the place a lived in look. A few objects on the flight line, etc.

The bldgs should be of the general shape and color that are really there, but they do not have to be exact. I, for one, will never fly to most of these places, and I am not going to dig up pictures, if that is possible, to find out where a designer has goofed. Then again, flight simmers whom have been there would probably object to that. However, flight line bldgs should be more accurate then those further away.

I also like scenery designers whom categorize their bgl files, so that the user can elliminate some if they do not like them or for frame rate purposes. Setting objects at different scenery densities helps alot also.

[Ford Friendly]

This is a great question and as such, my answer is quite nuanced.

For me, scenery falls into a couple of categories - that which I will visit frequently, that which I may visit "half of frequently - whatever that is", and that which I will likely only visit when testing/installing.

Obviously, the first category has the most demands in terms of accuracy, frame rate performance and traffic flow. Let's take those 1 by 1.
Accuracy.
1. Buildings - default buildings are to be avoided as otherwise they become too commonplace and familiar. I have not been on the flightline or inside the fences of more than 5 airfields with any frequency so building shape and texture accuracy should basically match what I can see in satellite pictures or the first 5 results of a simple Yahoo search. For example, retro-era RAF buildings by UKMIL are "very pretty", but their accuracy and level of detail are probably wasted on me for the most part. Including boundary-defining fencing is a waste of frames - see additional comments in #3 landclassing.

2. Afcad - I wouldn't know if taxiway A were mislabelled as Z if you paid me. And I could care less for the most part. So taxiway signs are noted but no more than my own streetsign - it's there, but I would only miss it if it weren't - after maybe 3 weeks. OTOH, I do insist on runway length and alignment accuracy - to within 50 feet and +/- .5 degrees. I can see that kind of thing in satellite pictures and it affects ATC, takeoff/landing rolls, etc. Likewise, I have to have taxiways and major parking pads corectly placed and sized. Comms - couldn't care less if the freq was off from the real world or not. ILS approaches - needs to make AI aircraft flow quiskly and not through features that they shouldn't fly through - think the Honolulu or LOWI situations.

3. Landclassing - often overlooked but I find myself having to manually fix this more and more. Exclusion rectangles and ensuring that runways and taxiways are atop grass, not photos/images representing neighborhoods, crops or waterways where they shouldn't be. Also, somewhat detailed and relatively accurate vehicle networks on/nearby the airport facility. Another thing I find myself doing with increasing frequency, manually correcting/adding forested areas around airports when satellite views show them obviously present. These are used for sound deadening and airport boundary marking in the real world - heck, in FSX, I can't see "boundary fencing" unless I'm practically atop it but I can see a treeline 500 yards away easily. OTOH, fencing separating terminal areas from a parking spot might be appreciated depending upon the likelihood of my parking in that area.

4. Misc. I hate absolutely dark bases at night but wouldn't recognize accurate lighting if given a set of pictures. I'm beginning to avoid single-season photoscenery as it looks so out of place in the other seasons.

5. WRT what others have already said.
- I absolutely agree with the idea of multiple object bgls so that I can disable those that are frame-rate killers and/or otherwise unimportant to me - especially FS9-style trees. Since I run FSX, I need to remove/replace these.
- I disagree with the idea of setting different scenery densities. I'd prefer it to all be seen at normal density and I'll manually disable each individually at my discretion.
- Flightline building accuracy - somewhat addressed already, but specifically, if I can see a large hangar at location X in a satellite pic, and I expect to see big planes (rather than Mooneys) around, a large hangar building needs to be at/neat location X. But for the most part, I wouldn't know or care where the fire station is. It's nice to see, but it just needs to be somewhere.

This doesn't fit anywhere above. I hate adjusting sliders. I set and forget them 99% of the time. If a scenery requires me to make a slider adjustment just to enjoy it, I disable as much as necessary to get flyable where my sliders are already set and then decide if it's going to stay on my system at that point. That said, I've removed quite a bit of nice scenery that just had too high a price to use - on my previous computer system. Now, I remove far more because I don't like it visually.
- Statics. Please, no static aircraft, especially not static aircraft atop what should be a usable parking spot or buried in an all-encompassing bgl. Vehicles - can be nice at a small obscure airport. Usually somewhat resented in a low-frame-rate area if I can't disable them.

Far too much verbiage here. Hope the comments give you a few ideas to consider.

[theoklahomaaviator]

If you look at Tinker AFB, Hill AFB, or Lemoore NAS by John Stinstrom those all hold features that I find appealing in a FS9 scenery. I probably fly from John's NAS Lemoore more than any other airbase in FS. I live not not to far from Tinker and comparing with the times I have been there in real life, his scenery is pretty spot on or at least enough for me to thoroughly enjoy it. Everything from the night lighting, to the small details like squadron specific labeled hangers buildings and control towers to the touch of yellow/green support vehicles. Just look at any of his latest sceneries and you'll find the qualities I'm after. Hope this helps,
-Adam

EDIT: oh and I'm not a fan of photo real ground textures ex. grass/tarmac... etc. but depending on the quality of the textures I don't mind it on objects such as buildings as long as they are not to out of place/standoutish... photo real is very difficult to accomplish with great results.

[MIKE JG]

Thanks gents for your comments thus far. Not to worry, John Stinstrom is part of the "we" that I mentioned above.

Ford, if you know how to decompile/recompile a scenery bgl file you can change the location, elevation, heading and density settings of individual object models to whatever you want.

Oh and BTW, if we include a couple static models, they will be AI models not scenery, that way you can easily get rid of them if you want.

We're all about user friendliness.

[Jumpshot724]

MILITARY BASES:

Accurate buildings/placement, accurate AFCAD, open hangars, groud equipment


Generally for military bases, Im happy with realistic buildings but always strive for that hard to reach "100% accurate" mark






COMMERCIAL:

Accurate building/placement, JETBRIDGES (where applicable)


For commercal airports, I settle for anything that adds jetbridges. I HATE flying into default airports with not gates and just a "block" building. What I hate probably even more is the "high detail" default airports with a serious deficiency in the real amount of gates/jetbridges

[Stevo]

Hi

I've been reading some of the above and I think you've asked a very ambiguous question and one you probably wont get that much from. Everyone has different opinions of what they want in a scenery and everyone can't be pleased its impossible. I've asked a similar question before

Over at ukmil (of course we really only do UK airfield) I have numerous request for scenery to be as accurate as possible ie will this building be put in will that building be included, can you put this or that in, The doors where like this, the camo was this colour, etc, etc which is fine with me as I'm a pure modeler, both real life and using my PC and FS as a tool for my first hobby which is researching WW2/cold war airfields, the flying part of FS doesn't really interest me be honest.

But it doesn't matter how much or how little you put in to a scenery some will always complain or comment about it being either too detailed or not enough detail (you've missed this building out or why is this building 10 foot out of place, even when you think you've balanced it out between what is wanted, whats needed and what to leave out.

Some users prefer flying and AI, how accurate an airfield is is secondary. Some like it the other way round, these are usually people who know the airfield, live close by or where stationed their at some point in their RAF life's, so for them it's a trip down memory lane then some like both accurate Airfields and AI.

Ford Friendly's comment

For example, retro-era RAF buildings by UKMIL are "very pretty", but their accuracy and level of detail are probably wasted on me for the most part

is a good example of peoples differing opinion, if my buildings where simple with a texture that represented something that looked like an RAF building then Ford Friendly would be happy with them, as he said he doesn't know what they really look like anyway so it make no difference. It would be great for me if everyone was like that because I wouldn't have to take as much time to make them look realistic, but everyone isnt like that, other users would complain about the simplicity if I did that and want and expect that little bit extra detail which is fine with me.

The day I release a scenery and don't get a compliant or comment about something, I'll be very happy. LOL

My personal feeling about the above question is I think any airfield, be it Military or Civil should look at least 90% like the real thing otherwise what's the point!! we all might as well put up with what Microsoft gave us. With PC's being as fast as they are today putting detail into a scenery is easy, my 3.4Ghz P4 with 2Gb ram manages my FS9 Leuchars scenery at 28FPS (locked at 30) with no AI and all other sliders maxed out, down to about 18-20 with AI be it ukmils or MAIW. FSX is a different story to get the best out of it the airfields must (MUST) be scratch built for it, not a FS9 port over. The way FSX works, RE textures, draw calls and such like means an FS9 scenery can suck the life out of FSX.

So in conclusion my decision to the similar question I asked was to make the scenery fully customizable, have the complexity slider choice but also the ability to have fencing/vehicles in seperate BGLs so the user can remove them if they wish. As for the amount of detail of an airfeild, I put in as much as I feel I like!! LOL

Ford, if you know how to decompile/recompile a scenery bgl file you can change the location, elevation, heading and density settings of individual object models to whatever you want.

I'd be careful with that statement Mike, many developers don't like their work to be decompiled, me included, payware even more and does go against many License agreements. If it's done behind closed doors then theres nothing we can do, but don't make it public and don't re-release anything that is altered as it would just be really annoying for me as a developer and the time I've put in to my sceneries is then just wasted.

Sorry that was a bit long, LOL

Stevo

[Ford Friendly]

Addendum to and clarification of my previous comments

I don't complain about anyone's scenery, at least I don't think I do. I do, sometimes publicly - often privately - comment about the decisions a designer made about certain things. But I respect designers choices while reserving the right to comment about those choices, to modify any scenery on my system or to remove it entirely. Such modifications are why I haven't made submissions to places like avsim.

Steve's response to both my earlier comment and to Mike JG's technical advice concerning decompilation of a bgl illustrate the "trouble" one has with the issue of FSn scenery preferences. One size rarely fits all perfectly. A designer has the option to add as much detail as he wants to his design - including options to allow some customization by the user. A user only has the option to use or not use what has been provided; he can't ADD to what isn't already there without becoming a designer himself.

John Hinson's afx_udye.zip file includes this comment in the avsim file listing descirption:
"Microsoft have provided only a runway at this airport, and have given it the wrong ICAO code (UG0Y) and placed it at the wrong altitude. These files will correct these issues and allow you and your "AI" traffic to land, taxi, park and take off in a realistic manner. "

Obviously, this is important - afcad altitude must align to the underlying mesh - especially to minimize plateau's in FSX. Aligning with the underlying landclass, as I mentioned previously, is definitely a "does it fit into the landscape" issue not always addressed by designers though it should be. Also, correcting MS's more obvious "mistakes" is usually a good thing.

Now, consider the zvartnots2008.zip file recently made available on avsim. Take a look at these pictures and you can see this is a near-payware quality offering in terms of textures, building construction and level of detailing.

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?L ... eID=223852

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?L ... eID=223851

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?L ... eID=223850

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?L ... eID=223853

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?L ... eID=223854

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?L ... eID=223855

I installed this into FSX though it's designed for FS9 and am 90% pleased with it (the 10% problem being the issue of how FS9 trees look in FSX - which is not the designer's fault). I probably spent a half hour tooling around in a car looking at the details and appreciating them.

The chance of me flying there again and actually enjoying the scenery is probably less than 1 in 1000. If I do visit it again, it's likely that I'll spend 5 minutes or so enjoying the quality again, finally recognize it as something I've closely examined already, and move on.

Why do I mention this scenery then? Because my reaction to this scenery illustrates the difference between my level of appreciation for a designer's work and my preferences. I just want a seldom-visited-by-me scenery "to work".

OTOH, a side benefit of my installation of this scenery was that it inspired me to take a look at another Armenia scenery - the John Hinson one mentioned above (which is basically just an afcad). A less well-designed scenery probably wouldn't have elicited that response.

FWIW, I decided that John Hinson's afcad one didn't work for me though I usually like his work. The "problems" with it relate to lack of alignment with Google Earth and some parking assignments. 30 minutes in AFX extending & realigning the runway and redrawing some taxiways, apronways and parking stands "fixed" the problems for me - I still consider it his afcad for the most part. While I'm unlikely to visit THAT location again either, if I do, I know that I have a customized-for-me afcad that works well for AI now. But I'll still be unsatisfied because I didn't add any buildings or other objects.

[Stevo]

I don't complain about anyone's scenery, at least I don't think I do. I do, sometimes publicly - often privately - comment about the decisions a designer made about certain things. But I respect designers choices while reserving the right to comment about those choices, to modify any scenery on my system or to remove it entirely. Such modifications are why I haven't made submissions to places like avsim.

Hi FF,

I hope you don't think I was saying you where complaining FF, Quite the contrary. I totally understand what you mean by what you say. From my own experiences there are a fair number of complainer in the FS world my above post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

I used your comment as an example of the vast differences in FS users, some want it 99% detailed, other don't.

Nowt more

Stevo

[Ford Friendly]

Steve, no problem. Like you I was merely illustrating something - the difference between commenting and complaining.

[Stevo]

But I respect designers choices while reserving the right to comment about those choices, to modify any scenery on my system or to remove it entirely.

Please remember though that any scenery/addon/aircraft on your system still belongs to the designer, whether it be pay or freeware and if any license agreement is supplied with it, it must be followed if not you should not use the scenery.

Stevo