Jump to content

chasordod

Members
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,301 profile views

chasordod's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)

17

Reputation

  1. Many thanks, John, for all your efforts in clarifying the situation. It’s seems a bit of a muddle. Hopefully the real update V1.03 will appear at some point. I have added Seafront’s Solent coverage which looks great, and will look forward to their product for the Southwest, the latter being my local area. 🙂 Best wishes, Charles
  2. Oops - meant v 1.02 in my post above
  3. Seems to have reverted to v 1.2 now on Central, with update details removed. Correct I think.
  4. Hi John, Nick for your further efforts - clearly something amiss with this update. Also, John, thanks for your tip on the Seafront product - I have one of their products, but not that for the South East. Think I’m tempted. Best wishes, Charles
  5. Thanks Nick and John. Explains why I see no difference in those areas I'm familiar with. Perhaps the design team can enlighten us. Charles
  6. Hi Nick, In my case I have installed v 1.03 for MSFS. I still find I have static ships with static wakes around the Solent and IOW, however. Would be interested to know what has been updated.
  7. Hopefully, it removes the static boats. 😀
  8. Many thanks for the kmz file, John. I am sure many of us will find it most helpful.
  9. For me, this is a bit of a compromise. First, I wanted a wanted an airfield with more detail within and around the airfield boundaries and found one on the marketplace. It has a compatibility issue with some photogrammetry objects in this update causing most such buildings in the area not to display. Second, like Carlos, I find the terrain colour difference between default and photogrammetry areas a bit of an immersion killer. There is more terrain texture detail and more accurate tree cover with photogrammetry on, however. On balance, for me, in this location, I prefer photogrammetry off. I greatly enjoy the other photogrammetry areas in this update, particularly those covering the three major cities.
  10. Hello Carlos, I'm guessing that you have another vendor's Queenstown airfield installed over the Asobo one and you have photogrammetry enabled. I have the same and find that turning off photogrammetry here gives a much better result for both missing objects and terrain colour variation. For me, the photogrammetry here does not add a lot, anyway. Charles
  11. Hi Iain, The "not connected to the internet message" popped up for me yesterday some 70% through the process - I believe it's just due to overloaded servers. I tried again late evening hoping European demand had slowed and the update restarted where it left off and finished within the hour. Anyway, good luck with yours. Charles
  12. Hi Doug, Had a bit of time on a wet afternoon and managed to find the single bgl file that is causing the problem my end. It is plc_legacy.bgl. Just disabling this file allows me to load with grasses enabled, but with dynamic lights unchecked, much as you see. I am guessing it's a placement file for some legacy objects. I must be missing some of these, but the bulk of the scenery is there and looking very fine. Hope this will be of some help to Finni. Charles
  13. Couple more checks, NZ North Island version of airfield is fine, version of Orbx NZGS for P3Dv4 works perfectly and, on the face of it, the file structures of Orbx versions for both simulations look identical.
  14. Good morning Doug, I have tried again this morning, with dynamic lights and all grass options unchecked, and have verified that the appropriate bgls are amended to bgl.off. The loading bar now gets to 2%, still indicating loading objects, and sim still crashes. Something my end doesn't like the early stages of loading this particular airfield. Works fine in my P3Dv4 setup. Not an easy one, this. Is there any pattern to which objects load early? Charles
×
×
  • Create New...