Hans J

Hi All, Out of most probably the same inquisitiveness as Steve0616 above seems to have had, I downloaded the Portland airport scenery via his quoted link but did not see blurries of any kind from whatever vantage points I tried. Hans

AC799 If you open an on land flight or scenery anywhere in the world and you press your "Y" key, followed by selecting "top-down view" and then pressing the "-" (minus) key more than a few times, you will sooner or later always get to see your default "weird square" (= a fat cross). However, the first altitude at which you see this square/cross, should under normal circumstances be extremely high and above any normal flying altitudes. Therefore, when I say that I do not see your problem in my FS9, I mean that I never (try to) fly at such altitudes myself and also that I do not purposely seek any of the possible FS9 scenery or hardware limits. At what altitude does your weird square firstly become visible and is that altitude the same anywhere in your FS9 world ? Hans

Michael, Thanks for all your efforts and especially for your tutorial. However, I've never had the payware "Instant Scenery" program and am for that reason not able to follow your tutorial. Moreover, all those "simple" things put together do seem to make the whole issue very complex indeed. Also, please explain: The original steam plumes (1 to 4) on the freeware carrier Waikato, are produced by 4 separate (SCASM) BGL files and when having disassembled each of them, a call for any of the installed "fx_steam_fx" effects, are nowhere to be found in any of them. My basic question is therefore: Can a (SCASM) BGL file somehow create such a steam plume without calling for a named effect file ? I've tried to contact the original author a number of times but alas, no replies. If I would quote the exact geographical position, altitude and the effect name of my wished for steam plume to you, would you then be able to create the necessary BGL file for me. It would save a lot of sighs and I would be extremely greatfull. Very best regards. Hans

Michael. I've sent you a PM. Greetings Hans

Please let me pitch in my theory. When any flight is initiated anywhere in the world, only those sceneries in the direct surroundings become active and visible, simply because there's no technical point in opening any sceneries/objects outside such surroundings. This is also true while you are flying at any altitude inside of a (so to speak) moving "circular glass cage", where in front of you, new sceneries become actived/visible, while those behind you become de-activated. I believe the standard diameter of this "glass cage" is around 40 nautical miles. It moves along with you as you fly in it's center and it also activates/de-activates AI activities. In your case however, the texture(s) at the bottom of your "glass cage" seem to display incorrectly and it just COULD be a question of some default texture not having an alfa channel. Maybe and hopefully this theory will cause some technical experts out there to be able to point more precisely to a solution to your problem. Good luck. Hans P.S. I do not see your problem in my FS9 either.

Hi All, I've finnished installing my new CVN65 (USS Enterprise) aircraft carrier "off Puero Rico" and have gotten the catapult launching and arrestor cable systems working as they should. But now and just as a small visible extra, I'm missing the small animated steam plume "effect" at the beginning of it's catapult rail. I have such a steam plume effect correctly positioned on my Waikato carrier and am now searching for a method to get the same plume visible on my new CVN65 carrier. I've (test-)disassembled the Waikato BGL file concerned, have tried to edit all the geographical positioning/elevation data found therein, but try as I may, nothing seems to (want to) work. I have not touched any of the complex looking animation programming and could not find any "call" for any effect name either, so I'm most probably following a wrong path. Ideas anyone ? Hans

Oops, must have pressed a wrong key again. Please disregard my post above. Hans

Here are a few pics of my USS Enterprise in action.

Bernard, Thanks to your link and the download that followed I found that it was a little different to my original download. It had no Afcad file but the "surface hardening" file was very welcome indeed. However, I kept my own Afcad file with it's fake airport code but without the five runways and other entries because I wanted to keep being able to "Go to" that airport via the game's drop down menu. Out of inquisitiveness I also disassembled the "surface hardening" file and found that it contained a VOR, an NDB and even an ILS. However, it also contained a "flatten" entry, so maybe John was correct all along, although I had tried "flattens" unsuccessfully a number of times myself. In the meantime I've also been able to activate my catapult and cable trapping systems, which now work great on this wonderful ship. Pity that AI aircraft cannot make use of these systems. WOW !! All problems are now solved and thanks to you. Fondest regards. Hans

In the meantime I've "covered" the whole of this CVN65 carrier's flight deck with 5 standard but invisible Afcad runway textures of different sizes, positions, headings, etc. and the carrier's flight deck has now become "hard" amost everywhere. I've also added quite some static US Navy aircraft and other deck objects. Looks very good indeed even with the whole project still being in a testing phase. I'm now in the process of getting the catapult and the arrestor cable zones working but those are rather complex operations and may therefore still take some time. Bernard, I do not have the "CVN65_PuertoRico_LandableSurface.bgl" file, nor have I seen anything with that name anywhere, unless I've somehow overlooked it. I'm very inquisitive as to the methods used by this file and would therefore very much like to somehow get hold of it. Is it a separate file or should it have been part of the original download ? Strange that you say that the original freeware Alfa download did not include an Afcad file because my download did in fact include one but I discarded it because it had a single runway, a taxiway and even an AI parking position, typical for AI activities. I therefore created my own Afcad file with the quoted 5 runways, predominantly because of my original deck "sofness" problems. Moreover, I do not use AI aircraft on carriers because it's my opinion that they perform very unrealistically, espcially the faster Navy jets. I thank you again in advance for any reactions. Hans

During all my efforts in trying to harden this CVN65 carrier's flight deck, I took another good look at my other carrier's (Waikato) construction in order to find out why this carrier's flight deck has remained "hard" since it's installation about twenty years ago. It has a single wide and very basic Afcad runway, which covers almost all of it's flight deck, without any parts of it sticking out outside the carrier's deck perimeter and is positioned only a few inches below it's visible deck surface. This Afcad runway is devoid of "start locations" and any other standard Afcad parts, only the runway's concrete texture is used because it isn't visible anyway and doesn't even have the real function of a runway but only a hardening function. Not only that, but this Waikato carrier also has a number of added soft scenery Navy escort vessels around it, of which three have rectangular rear heli decks. These have my own created very short and wide Afcad runway textures in order to fully cover their rear decks and to make them hard for flyable Navy Helicopters. Works great but these Afcad runway textures automatically now need them to receive a (fake) airport code and therefore to be seen by the game as being a real airport. However, an added advantage of this is that I can now "Go To" these Navy "airports" from the game's drop down menu. The Afcad program may be old but it's definitely not dead and still does what it's supposed to do, even although such a very specific "hardening" function was most probably not something which the original author(s) had actually planned for it to be capable of. I've tried "flattens" during all my testing procedures but these do not work in any way, at least not for hardening any flat surfaces. I will now proceed to (test-)create more "hardening" runways on this CVN65 carrier to see if taxiing around on it's deck and parking along it's edges becomes possible. Hans

Bernard, After much hair pulling I finally found out what the basic "soft deck" problem is with this otherwise very realistic looking CV65 (Enterprise) carrier. Only the very narrow designated runway area which is positioned according to the active "AF2_CV65.bgl" file, is actually hard, which therefore means that initiating any flight outside that runway area, e.g. at any available parking spot, will cause your aircraft to immediately "fall" through the flight deck to the sea level immediately below it. Taxiing from any parking position to e.g. the catapult area for take off, is for the same reason not possible. Therefore in my mind, a possible overall solution COULD therefore be a very large and wide "runway" covering and overlapping the total flight deck area but with a totally transparent texture, which sadly, the Afcad program doesn't offer. All in all, a great pity for such a well made and extremely realistic looking carrier, unless of cause any of you experts out there has any other solution. Regards Hans

Charliearon, Can you please advise me on how to feed Viagra to an aircraft carrier. Thanks and greetings. Hans

Bernard, I tried a backup version of this "Puerto Rico" carrier and also the newly downloaded one but their flight decks somehow remain "soft" ?? I've now given up trying to find the cause and have decided to remain with Mr. Rewetti's trusted Waikaito carrier. Regards and thanks for your reactions. Hans

Bernard, Yes, I agree with you that AI flights to and from carriers remain problematic, and that's putting it mildly. My only really reallistically working carrier is named "Waikaito" and is positioned somewhere near New Zealand's North Island. It was made by an extremely talented and pioneering New Zealand's developer named "Rewetti", is extremely old and is programmed using the antique SCASM system. Could therefore even be specially made for FS2002. It does not cater for AI aircraft either but uses animated aircraft/helicopters instead. I hope you can still find it somewhere. I have added Rob Barendregt's catapult and cable trapping systems myself but you also need to add his tailhook lowering and catapult launch gauges to the panels of any of your flyable carrier based aircraft. Regards and LONG LIVE FS2004 !! Hans

Bernard, I will re-install this carrier soon and will report back if it's flight deck has then suddenly become hard. Very strange problem because I have not changed anything on my existing carrier. Do your AI aircraft work well on this carrier or on any of your other carriers ? Do you use Rob Barendregt's catapult and cable trapping systems for your flyable carrier based aircraft ? Greetings Hans

Bernard, The file name of the freeware carrier is: CVN65_off_Puerto_Rico.zip and is downloadable from this site. It resides under Puerto Rico scenery. In the file description it says that it has a "hard deck" --- BUT ---- mine does not seem to have that. Thanks for your reaction and willingness to help. Hans

Hi All, I've downloaded and installed a static aircraft carrier scenery but it's flight deck is not hard, which keeps resulting in any opened flight having it's chosen aircraft sitting on the sea below the carrier's flight deck. The carrier's Afcad flight deck is at the correct elevaion and a "flatten" of any size/combination does not seem to want to work either. Ideas anyone ? Regards Hans

Did this evidently payware Erfurt scenery work normally on any of Deadl's pre-Windows10 platforms or was it just a question of it "killing his (FS2004) Sim" ? Could also just be old and slow hardware related. If it concernes a new Erfurt installation (on any Windows platform), an internet connection COULD be required for an automatic online confirmation from Aerosoft that their scenery was actually purchased. This online confirmation COULD then be necessary every time this scenery is (re-)opened in the Sim, unless of cause it was released definately the very first time but only for use on Deadl's dedicated hard/software. If this Erfurt scenery worked normally in a technical sence, under any of Deadl's previous Windows platforms, then what could be the problem about contacting Aerosoft about this new problem ? Could also just be a problem related to exctly where and how his FS2004 was installed under his new Windows-10 platform. Good luck !! Hans

O.K. In general my heli and Osprey landings can now be performed very much more precise and especially a lot more realistically on almost all fronts. End of problem and a great compliment for Rob Barendregt, who pioneerd this complex solution all those years ago. Hans

ViperPilot, Yes, the "Hover Gauge" does make quite a difference, especially at very low altidutes and just above the terrain. However, not for all heli's because in some of the later addon one's, this functionallity (non Rob Barendregt's) seems to somehow be already built in. I'm now experimenting with heli and Osprey landings on an aircraft carrier because, although it's deck is "hardend", it does remain rather high above the surrounding sea level and above Rob Barendregt's built in altitude limits. Thanks again for your "heads up". Hans

ViperPilot, O.K. I found the "hover gauge" myself and have downloaded it from this site. Thanks for the Heads Up. Hans

ViperPilot, Can you please provide a link to Rob Barendrecht's "hover gauge" or a route to where I can find it because it sounds very interesting indeed. Thanks for any trouble taken. Hans

Hi DalPilot, If I remember correctly I downloaded and installed a version of NZCH (Christchurch) scenery many many years ago but it turned out to be so sparse and primitive that I almost immediately deleted it again. Furthermore, I definitely don't remember the author's name nor have I ever searched for a possible better/newer version. Moreover, it seems that the above link provided by Steve0616, is somehow blocked because the actual download button doesn't seem to work but I could be doing something wrong myself. Has anyone actually been able to download it ? Regards Hans

Chris_eve, After much more practicing and causing many more dents in the terrain around my test helipad, I've finally cured myself of my last remaining FS2004 niche and yes, while the default Bell 206B JetRanger seems to be the most stable "practice" heli, it does remain an extremely sensitive option and therefore (for me) just too unrealistic. I must however admit that using my age old yolk, together with my separate rudder pedals, instead of a single heli dedicated joystick (with certain inernal springs removed), could contribute to the cause of my heli pad landing problems but to then and for that reason only, suddenly go out to purchase such a stick, is definately a contribution to my cure, especially for only those helis with skis as landing gear. With other "heli types" with wheels instead of skis, like twist wing aircraft, Ospreys, etc. which never land on heli pads and whereby just before their touch downs, some (slow) forward motions remain, making it all a lot easier and especially, more realistic. Anyway, thanks for your reaction. Regards Hans