Shouldn't be this hard
Shouldn't be this hard
Previously, with SBuilder for FS9 I could do a simple poly that would cover the rectangular area for default airports so that I could design a better looking area on which to place the rwy, etc. However with SBuilderX that appears to no longer be the case. I've tried 2 different projects in which I needed to do that, set the altitudes using both meters, feet and simply "0" and nothing shows. What's the secret to something that should be relatively simple?
-
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:11 pm
Re: Shouldn't be this hard
You might need 2 polys. 1st. a poly of type of Exclude_All_Terrain_Items.
2nd, your AirportBackground poly of type AB_Flatten_MaskClassMap_ExcludeAutoGen. This 2nd poly will need an altitude assigned, which should be the same as the airport background altitude in FSX. Right-click on the edge of the poly, choose set altitude, and set the right elevation. To get the correct elevation for the AB ( airport asckground ) use a utility like TCalcX to get the exact number from the sim by slewing over the AB... nto the runway or the apron, but the default AB area itself. The upper surfaces of runways and aprons in FS are slightly raised.
The AB will give the right info for the flatten for both the AB and the runways... otherwise you are going to put a runway on top of a runway... Don't rely on decompilers to give the right altitude. Decompilers don't always get it right. For example, Airport Design Editor lists the airport elevation at 299.01 meters... this is close, but not exact. The default runway is also 299.01 when decompiled by BglAnalyzeX. But the runway tops are 299.008026123047 using TCalcX ( which gets the info from the sim via simconnect ).
TCalcX:
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attach ... 1160261531
Using TCalcX, you can learn a bit about how elevations work in the sim. For example at C59, the AB vector is at 299.0087890625 meters, and the top of the runway and taxiways/aprons are at 299.008026123047 meters. The runway transition to the AB is abrupt in change, while the taxiwayss are sloped, as the taxiway "pulls up" the AB slightly.
If I use the AB elevation as 299.0087890625 meters, and compile my new AB, the new AB reads as exactly the same elevation I entered in SBuilderX, and exactly the same as the default, as read by TCalcX. So I would say TCalcX is right on the money.
Dick
2nd, your AirportBackground poly of type AB_Flatten_MaskClassMap_ExcludeAutoGen. This 2nd poly will need an altitude assigned, which should be the same as the airport background altitude in FSX. Right-click on the edge of the poly, choose set altitude, and set the right elevation. To get the correct elevation for the AB ( airport asckground ) use a utility like TCalcX to get the exact number from the sim by slewing over the AB... nto the runway or the apron, but the default AB area itself. The upper surfaces of runways and aprons in FS are slightly raised.
The AB will give the right info for the flatten for both the AB and the runways... otherwise you are going to put a runway on top of a runway... Don't rely on decompilers to give the right altitude. Decompilers don't always get it right. For example, Airport Design Editor lists the airport elevation at 299.01 meters... this is close, but not exact. The default runway is also 299.01 when decompiled by BglAnalyzeX. But the runway tops are 299.008026123047 using TCalcX ( which gets the info from the sim via simconnect ).
TCalcX:
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attach ... 1160261531
Using TCalcX, you can learn a bit about how elevations work in the sim. For example at C59, the AB vector is at 299.0087890625 meters, and the top of the runway and taxiways/aprons are at 299.008026123047 meters. The runway transition to the AB is abrupt in change, while the taxiwayss are sloped, as the taxiway "pulls up" the AB slightly.
If I use the AB elevation as 299.0087890625 meters, and compile my new AB, the new AB reads as exactly the same elevation I entered in SBuilderX, and exactly the same as the default, as read by TCalcX. So I would say TCalcX is right on the money.
Dick
Dick