Trees in the middle of airport ESGG Gothenburg

[speedy2970]

In real life there are no trees between the runway and taxiway nor either between platform and taxiway ... at ( ESGG ) Gothenburg Airport Landvetter

 

It looks stupid and should not be there in a payware airport.

 

Can someone at Orbx please fix this

[Marcus Nyberg]

11 hours ago, speedy2970 said:

In real life there are no trees between the runway and taxiway nor either between platform and taxiway ... at ( ESGG ) Gothenburg Airport Landvetter

 

It looks stupid and should not be there in a payware airport.

 

Can someone at Orbx please fix this

 

First of all, I do not appreciate your tone. Of course we wouldn't on purpose release a product with that kind of issues.

Also next time use our support ticket system if you want support.

 

With that being said, do you have both World Updates Nordics installed and the latest ESGG version installed that was released yesterday at Orbx Central?

We had trees introduced with the latest world update that was released last week and we have been adjusting our scenery with a hotfix to get rid of trees.

 

Our version is made to be compatible with the two World Update Nordics installed, streamed data and photogrammetry enabled.

 

If you bought it via the Marketplace you will have to wait for them to approve the new build, if you bought it at Orbx the update is ready to be downloaded at Orbx Central.

 

Regards,

Marcus, the developer

[John Burgess]

 

I hadn't yet updated ESGG, Marcus, so checked with v120. As you suspected the trees only appear if Photogrammetry is switched off.

 

speedy2970 we cannot fix this because there is nothing to fix. Please switch on photogrammetry (and bing world graphics of course).

Hopefully you can then enjoy Marcus's scenery as it's intended to be.

If you have v120 installed as soon as you get the chance please update to v130 (if you bought it from Orbx I usually just use OC to uninstall and re-install).

 

Hope this solves your problem.

As Marcus mentioned a more civil tone would be appreciated in the future 

 

EDIT - one last point. As a test team we have on occasion been caught out by MSFS turning off Photogrammetry with no warning. You may have fallen foul of the same issue. Appreciate the frustration!

 

All the best,

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

[F737MAX]

15 hours ago, Marcus Nyberg said:

Our version is made to be compatible with the two World Update Nordics installed, streamed data and photogrammetry enabled.

 

Appreciate the quick fix, Marcus.

I am concerned that we need to turn on photogrammetry to have the fix function, however.
Please note that some us consider PG as not fit for purpose. It often presents buildings with a 'melted' look, shows both buildings and fauna as strange geometric shapes until their resolution increases as you approach them and gives the wrong colour to trees (if using a seasons texture add-on like AccuSeason or Bijan Seasons pack).

 

Could you reconsider creating a separate fix for those of us using Bing Data World Graphics, but not PG, please?

Thanks.

[Nick Cooper]

Hello,
for the record, at 0513 Z on 16th November, Bing Imagery is down, so any testing of this fix will produce unreliable results
until Bing Imagery is fixed.

[Marcus Nyberg]

4 hours ago, F737MAX said:

 

Appreciate the quick fix, Marcus.

I am concerned that we need to turn on photogrammetry to have the fix function, however.
Please note that some us consider PG as not fit for purpose. It often presents buildings with a 'melted' look, shows both buildings and fauna as strange geometric shapes until their resolution increases as you approach them and gives the wrong colour to trees (if using a seasons texture add-on like AccuSeason or Bijan Seasons pack).

 

Could you reconsider creating a separate fix for those of us using Bing Data World Graphics, but not PG, please?

Thanks.

 

Yes, if the only difference being trees at the airport I can exclude those trees for none-PG users. The compatibility might not be perfect though, and some objects that were in the previous version outside the airport has been excluded as they are now covered by the PG might be missing but hopefully it won't bother too much.

Will check it out!

[Marcus Nyberg]

1 hour ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello,
for the record, at 0513 Z on 16th November, Bing Imagery is down, so any testing of this fix will produce unreliable results
until Bing Imagery is fixed.

 

Might be related, who knows! Not sure how the autogen part is streamed but the level of precision seems to have degraded lately.

[F737MAX]

4 hours ago, Marcus Nyberg said:

Yes, if the only difference being trees at the airport I can exclude those trees for none-PG users. The compatibility might not be perfect though, and some objects that were in the previous version outside the airport has been excluded as they are now covered by the PG might be missing but hopefully it won't bother too much.

Will check it out!

 

Even if the only benefit is underlying trees not displaying themselves on the airfield, that would be enough for me.

[Koko23]

I bought the airport via MSFS market place and I have the same issue. Trees in the taxiways and even trees in the gates.

 

Switching photogrammetry on fixes the problem but I never use photogrammetry due to performance issues.

 

Please, make a fix for those users who dont use photogrammetry.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Koko23

[Marcus Nyberg]

On 12/1/2023 at 12:40 AM, Koko23 said:

I bought the airport via MSFS market place and I have the same issue. Trees in the taxiways and even trees in the gates.

 

Switching photogrammetry on fixes the problem but I never use photogrammetry due to performance issues.

 

Please, make a fix for those users who dont use photogrammetry.

 

 

Hey guys!

 

I will patch the trees issue

 

[Koko23]

13 hours ago, Marcus Nyberg said:

 

 

Hey guys!

 

I will patch the trees issue

 

Thank you Mark. ESGG airport is one of the best Orbx addons and fixing the trees issue for not photogrammetry users will be something awesome😃

[rockliffe]

Apologies to jump in here guys, but I want to drop my penny's worth in as it's pretty relevent I feel. What is it with developers who create scenery that needs to have PG switched on before it functions corrrectly? Not long ago I bought Seville (MK Studios) and I had issues with trees on the taxiways! When I complained about this, I too was told that the scenery had been designed to work with PG on. I find this very very odd. Why is this? IMO this is like selling a car to customers telling them that it will only work properly if the driver ensures they drive it with a full tank of petrol! (probably not a great example, but I'm sure you get my point.) I suspect there are as many people simming with PG off, as there are people flying with PG on. To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to restrict a properly functioning scenery to only those people who operate their sim in a particular way. If there is a valid reason for this, then I'd love to hear it. Thanks. 

[Nick Cooper]

18 minutes ago, rockliffe said:

What is it with developers who create scenery that needs to have PG switched on before it functions corrrectly? 

 

Hello,
two posts above yours, the Orbx developer of an Orbx product has stated that he will "patch the trees issue".

 

[rockliffe]

15 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

 

Hello,
two posts above yours, the Orbx developer of an Orbx product has stated that he will "patch the trees issue".

 

Sure, Nick. I see that, I'm curious why a developer would design a scenery in the first place that needs to have PG turned on (?) I don't understand it, and would appreciate being educated. 

[Nick Cooper]

Hello Howard,

it wasn't designed to need photogrammetry, but it always needed Bing Imagery to be switched on.
It is not alone in this, but anyone who runs MSFS without Bing imagery, might as well be back in FSX, so it's a non-issue.

As you should be aware, every time Asobo produce a Simulator update, they change things, often without mentioning that
they did and in any case without giving third party developers any notice.

Immediately after SU 14, trees appeared where they shouldn't and the very next day, Marcus published an update to fix that.
However, it needed photogrammetry to be switched on to work.

Now, he is going to make another update that does not rely on photogrammetry to remove the trees.

 

So you can see that the photogrammetry "issue" is not a design concept, but a necessary reaction to changes that were not
forseen by anyone outside Asobo and not evident until they had been made.

[rockliffe]

29 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Hello Howard,

it wasn't designed to need photogrammetry, but it always needed Bing Imagery to be switched on.
It is not alone in this, but anyone who runs MSFS without Bing imagery, might as well be back in FSX, so it's a non-issue.

As you should be aware, every time Asobo produce a Simulator update, they change things, often without mentioning that
they did and in any case without giving third party developers any notice.

Immediately after SU 14, trees appeared where they shouldn't and the very next day, Marcus published an update to fix that.
However, it needed photogrammetry to be switched on to work.

Now, he is going to make another update that does not rely on photogrammetry to remove the trees.

 

So you can see that the photogrammetry "issue" is not a design concept, but a necessary reaction to changes that were not
forseen by anyone outside Asobo and not evident until they had been made.

Thanks for the explanation Nick, appreciated.

[Neil]

Hi, my take on the trees. Developers know what the airport looks like, and strive to achieve it. Trees are a problem and have been since FSX. Iceland, the Canadian Arctic continue to have trees. No one seems to have quite solved it yet. Would appear to be an Asobo problem. Don't blame the scenery developers.

 

Neil

[asjiopd]

Thank you very very much @Marcus Nyberg
I really like the way you put love into detail of your airports and I'm happy I can fly to Göteborg again 👍👍👍