answered Exclusion Zones requiring a fix - please read this

[FlyAgi]

I recommend using WED instead of overlay editor. 

 

https://developer.x-plane.com/tools/worldeditor/

 

Further, I recommend not to just draw a single exclusion square because this will very likely remove objects/fascades which should still be visible. You should draw lots of small exclusion rectangles more accurately over the airport buildings, the result should look like what you can see in the picture below (Birmingham exclusion zones):

 

 

 

Regarding Birmingham: I just landed there and I fixed it already. I want to do this for all airports which need fixing so I made an exclusion layer containing exclusion zones for all airports in one layer. 

 

Scenery-Packs.ini should look like this:

 

X-Plane Landmarks – London
Global Airports 

Orbx_0_GB_South_TrueEarth_Exclusions
Orbx_A_GB_South_TrueEarth_Custom
Orbx_B_GB_South_TrueEarth_Overlay
Orbx_C_GB_South_TrueEarth_Mesh

 

Currently the fix layer includes just two aiports, EGLC and EGBB. If you tell me which airports needs fixing, I can add them in no time. The Birmingham fix took me about 5 minutes, including an X-Plane bootup for testing. The WED file is included in the package as well so you can optimize the layer if needed or add further airports to it. 

 

 

<< Download file removed by mods >>

 

[david broome]

People should be aware that exclusion zones take resources so try to use as few as possible for the effect you require.

Hopefully there will be an official fix for this either from Laminar or OrbX down the road.

[FlyAgi]

 

 

On 10/16/2018 at 2:32 PM, david broome said:

People should be aware that exclusion zones take resources so try to use as few as possible for the effect you require.

 

Of course, everything takes resources - but the X-Plane scenery system does not load up all contents found in a package but only those that are needed in the regional tiles currently loaded into the sim. Otherwise the Global Airports scenery layer, containing ALL the worldwide X-Plane airports including all their exclusions, would break performance completely and Laminar would have handled this differently. Further, using multiple small rectangles is a suggestion by Laminar staff (don't know exactly who said this) for solving the problems occuring when just drawing single rectangles. I'm using the exclusion zone method mentioned before in all my sceneries and they never had a noticable impact on performance. 

 

 

 

[Dazzlercee]

I fixed Birmingham and Gatwick with Overlay Editor. Very simple, very quick and no issues. These were UK2000 airports. Luton seems fine as it is.

 

What is the disadvantage of using Overlay Editor?

 

Daz

[Historian]

I have been trying overlay editor on Chivenor but can only exlude facades as objects removes all objects without exception.

I can see no way to work out where the buildings will appear inside other buildings.

Image 1 shows the original problem with the buildings in hangars and in buildings.

I tried facades and objects excluded - no good.

Image 2 shows just facades excluded.

[FastNeatAverage]

Hello, thanks for this. Could you possibly add these:

• EGSS
• EGGD
• EGKK
• EGLL
• EGNX
• EGGW (it's fine for me but I have custom scenery, it might not be for the default one)

Regards, Matt.

[Dazzlercee]

5 minutes ago, Historian said:

I have been trying overlay editor on Chivenor but can only exlude facades as objects removes all objects without exception.

I can see no way to work out where the buildings will appear inside other buildings.

Image 1 shows the original problem with the buildings in hangars and in buildings.

I tried facades and objects excluded - no good.

Image 2 shows just facades excluded.

 

 

That maybe because it is a default Gateway scenery?

 

I can use the exclude objects to remove the houses in UK2000 scenery and only the houses are removed. All other objects remain.

 

Are you layering your exclusion sceneries below global airports and above Orbx?

 

Regards,

 

Daz

[Historian]

Above both

 

[FastNeatAverage]

2 minutes ago, Historian said:

Above both

 

Check the top post, it should be in that order.

[Dazzlercee]

Just now, Historian said:

Above both

 

 Try putting them below the Global Airports as exclusions supress scenery below their level. In theory they would then not supress the default objects and only remove the ORBX unwanted objects.

[Historian]

Like this you mean - I had just thought the same thing.

SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Orbx_iBY_Library/
SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Global Scenery/
SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Global Airports/
SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Chivenor/
SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Orbx_A_GB_South_TrueEarth_Custom/
SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Orbx_B_GB_South_TrueEarth_Overlay/
SCENERY_PACK H:\FLIGHT SIMULATION\ORBX\TrueEarthGBSouth\Orbx_C_GB_South_TrueEarth_Orthos/

 

I think we are there now - until ORBX release a full fix.

Thanks

 

 

[Dazzlercee]

Yeah, it's a shame this happens even on the default airports. I think they need to reinstate the default night lighting also.

[FlyAgi]

• Chivenor
• EGSS
• EGGD
• EGKK
• EGLL
• EGNX
• EGGW (it's fine for me but I have custom scenery, it might not be for the default one)

 

So, that's the current list? Did I overlook something? 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Dazzlercee said:

What is the disadvantage of using Overlay Editor?

 

In my opinion it's very inefficient, too much time consuming and it's somewhat dated so it can't handle all the stuff I need. Overlay Editor is still a good choice for certain special tasks but overall I higly recommend WED if you really want to do 'serious work'. 

[Historian]

Thanks, it was a good exercise in learning overlay editor and scenery layering.

One day I will play with WED, until then I will enjoy flying.

 

:-)

 

[Dazzlercee]

Yeah, I think Overlay Editor is fine for simple exclusions.

[FlyAgi]

Yes, It is - if you don't want to do many airports as fast as possible. :-)

[FlyAgi]

Chivenor EGDC - done
EGSS - done
EGGD - done
EGKK - done
EGLL - done
EGNX - done
EGGW - done

EGLC - done

EGBB - done

 

Please tell me if there are any issues, I did not test every airport myself. 

 

 

 

 

[FastNeatAverage]

On 10/16/2018 at 5:19 PM, FlyAgi said:

Chivenor EGDC - done
EGSS - done
EGGD - done
EGKK - done
EGLL - done
EGNX - done
EGGW - done

EGLC - done

EGBB - done

 

Please tell me if there are any issues, I did not test every airport myself. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, testing now.

[FastNeatAverage]

32 minutes ago, FlyAgi said:

Please tell me if there are any issues

Seems to remove all airport objects at EGSS, EGKK and EGNX, haven't tested the rest.

EGSS and EGNX are default airports for me, EGKK is TDG's one.

 

Nevermind, X-Plane appears to have done terrible, terrible things to my ini file. Testing, following are fine:

EGNX, EGSS, EGLL, EGKK.

[FlyAgi]

You have to put the exclusion layer BELOW Global Airports and ABOVE TrueEarth GBS. Otherwise it will remove all objects and fascades from the airports. 

 

The scenery order should be like this:

 

 

X-Plane Landmarks – London
Global Airports 

Orbx_0_GB_South_TrueEarth_Exclusions
Orbx_A_GB_South_TrueEarth_Custom
Orbx_B_GB_South_TrueEarth_Overlay
Orbx_C_GB_South_TrueEarth_Mesh

 

 

Edit: I justed checked EGSS and it seems to be fine there.

[FastNeatAverage]

9 minutes ago, FlyAgi said:

You have to put the exclusion layer BELOW Global Airports and ABOVE TrueEarth GBS. Otherwise it will remove all objects and fascades from the airports. 

 

The scenery order should be like this:

 

 

X-Plane Landmarks – London
Global Airports 

Orbx_0_GB_South_TrueEarth_Exclusions
Orbx_A_GB_South_TrueEarth_Custom
Orbx_B_GB_South_TrueEarth_Overlay
Orbx_C_GB_South_TrueEarth_Mesh

Apologies, seems to be working fine now. Thanks a lot.

[FlyAgi]

:-)

[N1EL]

Hi thanks for helping here,

 

I would imagine most airports need looking at?? 

EGHI and EGHH could do with a look,

Thanks for your help.

[FlyAgi]

So... EGHI and EGHH have overlapping buildings and need exclusions? 

[STUARTH]

Thanks for your efforts, I have also been having issues with EGTE.

See my post here:

Could you please also add it to your list of Orbx Airport Exclusions?

Cheers,

Stuart

[FlyAgi]

Yes... I will check EGTE and add exclusions if needed. 

[FlyAgi]

I updated the file, the higlighted items are new or optimized. Please download the file attached to this post, the older one above is outdated

 

EGDC - done
EGSS - done
EGGD - done
EGKK - done
EGLL - done - fixed some buildings
EGNX - done
EGGW - done 
EGLC - done 
EGBB - done 
EGHI - done
EGHH - done
EGTE - done

 

<< Download file removed by mods >>

 

[STUARTH]

Many thanks FlyAgi.

[McTrying]

EGVN could do with a little tender loving care please, especially Taxiway F.

[John Venema]

Hello everyone.

 

Whilst it is tremendous to see the initiative shown by FlyAgi in creating excludes, we do not support the posting of unofficial, untested fixes on our forums.

 

For this reason I have removed the links to the ZIP files and I will email FlyAgi to see if he wants to contribute these fixes to our development team so we can properly test them and then include them in an official patch distributed via FTX Central.

 

Please understand that if we allow many different  ZIP files without any version control or official testing to be distributed on our forums, this will lead to all sorts of support issues for our customers. Since we are aware that we now should look into doing these exclusions in-house, please bear with us while we come up with a solution and then distribute it officially. In the meantime, please put up with buildings inside buildings until we patch TE GB.

 

However, please continue to provide ICAO codes for airports that need fixing. Either FlyAgi or our team will provide the fixes in the first official patch to TE Gb South.

[Sam Keeping]

EGSS and EGHH require exclusion zones

[FlyAgi]

They are already in the list and done:

 

EGDC - done
EGSS - done
EGGD - done
EGKK - done
EGLL - done
EGNX - done
EGGW - done 
EGLC - done 
EGBB - done 
EGHI - done
EGHH - done
EGTE - done

 

 

 

 

[Museumkeeper]

On 10/18/2018 at 11:54 AM, John Venema said:

Hello everyone.

 

Whilst it is tremendous to see the initiative shown by FlyAgi in creating excludes, we do not support the posting of unofficial, untested fixes on our forums.

 

For this reason I have removed the links to the ZIP files and I will email FlyAgi to see if he wants to contribute these fixes to our development team so we can properly test them and then include them in an official patch distributed via FTX Central.

 

Please understand that if we allow many different  ZIP files without any version control or official testing to be distributed on our forums, this will lead to all sorts of support issues for our customers. Since we are aware that we now should look into doing these exclusions in-house, please bear with us while we come up with a solution and then distribute it officially. In the meantime, please put up with buildings inside buildings until we patch TE GB.

 

However, please continue to provide ICAO codes for airports that need fixing. Either FlyAgi or our team will provide the fixes in the first official patch to TE Gb South.

This is great news John, well done.

 

Kind regards

 

Ian S

[Neil Chamberlain]

EGBK please, where the fuel pumps are

[Nick Clements]

If you look at EG20 Clench Common it has a row of terraced houses projecting onto the runway 33. 

[Museumkeeper]

On 10/21/2018 at 6:09 PM, Nick Clements said:

If you look at EG20 Clench Common it has a row of terraced houses projecting onto the runway 33. 

Mine does not, have you by any chance GBPro or xEurope installed.

[slgoldberg]

On 10/20/2018 at 3:58 AM, Ian S said:

For this reason I have removed the links to the ZIP files and I will email FlyAgi to see if he wants to contribute these fixes to our development team so we can properly test them and then include them in an official patch distributed via FTX Central.

 

Hi, Ian, I really understand and appreciate your reasoning, however, I must protest that these are user-to-user help forums, are they not?  There's nothing to stop people from posting them somewhere else, but it sure would benefit users to be able to access this type of thing and to collaborate on improving them.

 

The evidence for open source and collaboration in these contexts is pretty clear -- overwhelming, I might say -- that it only ever helps with community happiness with the product to have this type of thing to offset the long cycle times of "real" development efforts. It's great that you will incorporate these changes into your product, but it defeats the purpose of users helping each other work around issues between your releases, does it not, to remove such workarounds? (Since, as far as I can tell now ~2 weeks later, these are not an probably won't soon be in the official release anytime soon, but read on.)

 

I completely understand the worry that if someone has installed something like this, and your installer doesn't know about it, it can cause even more problems down the road -- however, I would say that most people will fully understand (and remember) that they installed a custom workaround from the forums and will know they need to undo that. Will it cause some support burden later? Definitely. But is it worth it to let users get fixes like this in a timely fashion? Even more absolutely.  I have put in quite some of my own time adding exclusions to the airports in question for myself. I could've saved a lot of time if these were available when I needed them.

 

Is there an ETA for either (a) when this will be fixed for real (is it an X-Plane bug, or is it a bug in how your autogen is implemented? -- as I think about it, it seems you could just fix your tool to skip the region inside all known airport boundaries and it wouldn't require all these exclusion zones everywhere?), or (b) the equivalent "exclusions" overlay might be officially released in the Orbx FTX Central installer? I see these new libraries that have appeared, and have installed them, and put them in the order as per this and other threads, but I have all the same problems with all the same airports listed here as well, so I assume all these exclusions still aren't there. Is that correct?

 

Thanks either way -- I have said it in other places but I'll say it here: this is really the best and most compelling scenery I've ever seen on X-Plane. If it makes sense, I'd also put in a vote for selling your tool-set or possibly releasing it as open-source, since I would love to use whatever you're using to make awesome scenery. :-)

 

Thanks again!

 

  Steve

[Museumkeeper]

On 10/29/2018 at 6:01 PM, slgoldberg said:

 

Hi, Ian, I really understand and appreciate your reasoning, however, I must protest that these are user-to-user help forums, are they not?  There's nothing to stop people from posting them somewhere else, but it sure would benefit users to be able to access this type of thing and to collaborate on improving them.

 

The evidence for open source and collaboration in these contexts is pretty clear -- overwhelming, I might say -- that it only ever helps with community happiness with the product to have this type of thing to offset the long cycle times of "real" development efforts. It's great that you will incorporate these changes into your product, but it defeats the purpose of users helping each other work around issues between your releases, does it not, to remove such workarounds? (Since, as far as I can tell now ~2 weeks later, these are not an probably won't soon be in the official release anytime soon, but read on.)

 

I completely understand the worry that if someone has installed something like this, and your installer doesn't know about it, it can cause even more problems down the road -- however, I would say that most people will fully understand (and remember) that they installed a custom workaround from the forums and will know they need to undo that. Will it cause some support burden later? Definitely. But is it worth it to let users get fixes like this in a timely fashion? Even more absolutely.  I have put in quite some of my own time adding exclusions to the airports in question for myself. I could've saved a lot of time if these were available when I needed them.

 

Is there an ETA for either (a) when this will be fixed for real (is it an X-Plane bug, or is it a bug in how your autogen is implemented? -- as I think about it, it seems you could just fix your tool to skip the region inside all known airport boundaries and it wouldn't require all these exclusion zones everywhere?), or (b) the equivalent "exclusions" overlay might be officially released in the Orbx FTX Central installer? I see these new libraries that have appeared, and have installed them, and put them in the order as per this and other threads, but I have all the same problems with all the same airports listed here as well, so I assume all these exclusions still aren't there. Is that correct?

 

Thanks either way -- I have said it in other places but I'll say it here: this is really the best and most compelling scenery I've ever seen on X-Plane. If it makes sense, I'd also put in a vote for selling your tool-set or possibly releasing it as open-source, since I would love to use whatever you're using to make awesome scenery. :-)

 

Thanks again!

 

  Steve

Hi Steve

 

You have sent this to me as though I made the comments. I did not and suggest that you should have sent it to John Venema instead as I do not work for Orbx.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Ian S

[slgoldberg]

Thanks. Unfortunately, this forum doesn't appear to support editing (at least, not for me as a newbie, per se).

 

So I can't do much but ask John to read it. Thanks.

 

  Steve

[Torchy]

Hi, EGSH needs exclusions too

 

Thanks