Tutorials scenery

[wlbragg]

I am seeing more and more new users starting FlightGear and trying to run the tutorials and basically breaking their setup. As far as I can tell it is always because they have a week to non-existent Internet connection. We really need to match the tutorials to the current release scenery or they need to quit changing airports or they need to make the changes to the tutorials to match the new airport.

Any ideas, can we automate the changing of the tutorials to match the new version's scenery?

[dany93]

Probably very tricky...

I'm wondering if it would not be better for the FG pack to come back to the old system with the same airport (it was KSFO, but no matter which one), used in the tutorials, and add a second new airport, changing with the version. Everybody would be happy and things would be more simple.

[wlbragg]

The argument might only be the size of the pack having two scenery chunks?

[wkitty42]

i'm wondering if we might should have two airports... the changing default one, which i think is an excellent idea, and a static one like KSFO... then all tutorials can be written around the static airport... it means a larger download to include the static airport back in the installer, though...

either way, these discussions should probably be in the forum or the dev list... better there than here in a new issue that we can't solve anyway... plus the tutorials will have to be fixed up again, anyway, if we do get a static airport to run them on... it kinda makes ya wonder why we're not hearing this from other folks flying other aircraft, too...

[wlbragg]

these discussions should probably be in the forum or the dev list

I was waiting until we had a consensus here.

better there than here in a new issue that we can't solve anyway

Technically we can solve it by changing the tutorial coordinates prior to every release.

[wlbragg]

i'm wondering if we might should have two airports

Isn't this the same as @dany93 suggestion?

[wkitty42]

On 03/29/2018 02:22 PM, wlbragg wrote:

these discussions should probably be in the forum or the dev list

I was waiting until we had a consensus here.

i don't have a problem either way... i just didn't want to see us (TINU) spending a lot of time on something that may not go anywhere for various reasons...

[wkitty42]

On 03/29/2018 02:23 PM, wlbragg wrote:

i'm wondering if we might should have two airports

Isn't this the same as @dany93 https://github.com/dany93 suggestion?

i read his suggestion as dropping all of the changing default airport stuff and going completely back to just having KSFO only...

my thought was to combine the two and have (for example) KSFO all the time but the default airport would still change every release to showcase that airport... KSFO would be there mainly for the tutorials so they don't have to be edited every time a new default airport is chosen...

[wlbragg]

OK, that is how I read @dany93's maybe it is different that what your suggesting.

What your suggesting would be the easiest all around and it would get new users two locations to fly in right off the bat. Those that have a hard time downloading scenery would have a better experience with two areas to fly in.

It just depends on the size of the distro and if the project is willing to add to it I guess.

[dany93]

@wkitty42 wrote:

i read his suggestion as dropping all of the changing default airport stuff and going completely back to just having KSFO only...

If you read my message down to the end you wil see that it is the same idea. Or is it my Frenglish? :wink:

@dany93 wrote

.... and add a second new airport, changing with the version

@wlbragg wrote:

The argument might only be the size of the pack having two scenery chunks?

Not sure. w130n30 (current KSFO, Terrain + Objects) makes a bit more than 150 Mo.

[wkitty42]

On 03/29/2018 05:17 PM, dany93 wrote:

If you read my message https://github.com/c172p-team/c172p-detailed/issues/1035#issuecomment-377295857 down to the end you wil see that it is the same idea.

@dany93 https://github.com/dany93 wrote

.... and add a second new airport, changing with the version

FWIW: i did read it... i just missed that or didn't understand what you were trying to say... sorry...

[gilbertohasnofb]

I think it's really a good idea to add an extra scenery tile which we (and all other developers) can use for tutorials or testing purposes. This idea of rotating the default scenery was really not well thought in my opinion, and the amount of work it creates for us is really unnecessary.

The argument might only be the size of the pack having two scenery chunks?

150 Mb is not that much, but we could also consider a smaller tile (I suspect the tile with KSFO will be larger than the average one). Also, KSFO was always a performance hog, so let's maybe consider a tile with a GA-friendly airport at the centre (so no-one sees the borders after take off). What do you guys think?

Alternatively, if the devs wouldn't want to add a fixed extra tile nor stop rotating the airports, they could simply add some code so that an error message would pop-up when an user loads any aircraft at any missing tile. This should be quite trivial from their side.

[wlbragg]

Also, KSFO was always a performance hog, so let's maybe consider a tile with a GA-friendly airport at the centre (so no-one sees the borders after take off). What do you guys think?

I agree! To me this is the simplest fix for the immediate problem. The sim could use a scenery check however and warn the user why their aircraft is crashing.

[legoboyvdlp]

The British field at Shoreham is very well modelled FWIW, if you'd like to include that one?

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp Shoreham does look nice. Do you know if it's close to the centre of the tile? My TerraMaster isn't working for some reason. Also, those hangars do need some texturing, are you familiar who created or who maintain those models? I would gladly make some generic hangar textures for it if necessary.

[legoboyvdlp]

I picked a random model from EGKA on scenery.flightgear.org, it appears Vic Marriot is the author: https://scenery.flightgear.org/app.php?c=Models&a=view&id=1307

[legoboyvdlp]

Unfortunately not:

Let me check KL-666's map.

There is nothing in the UK with good quality, which is general aviation only, and in the middle of a tile.

Just checking something in Germany here:

[legoboyvdlp]

I was discussing with Talons, by the way: he tells me that Hawaii would be a good option, as it is surrounded by water, so there are no scenery tiles, anyway :)

But, ED03 airport in Germany is very well modelled, and in the center of the tile (I only have the one tile downloaded with it).

It has a moderately long asphalt runway (1000m, as far as I know), with hangars at one end.

The main problem, however, is that in reality the field is grass.

This, however, is solved by the layout in the gateway:

Therefore, I must check to see if Hybris (Torsten's project of regenerating world scenery) solves this problem with a new layout. If so, the objects will just need to be merged over. The objects are decent quality, the layout is the only bad thing.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp Hawaii would be a good option indeed. Could you please check for me how many tiles are needed for the whole island?

[legoboyvdlp]

@gilbertohasnofb please check my update above about ED03

As for Hawaii, Ohau (PHNL) is covered by two tiles. The Big Island is covered by five tiles, but four of them are barely land, 95% water.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp Hmm, this is getting a bit tricky. I don't think that an untowered airport with grass runway is a good idea, some of the tutorials involve listening to ATIS for instance. I think we need a medium asphalt runway in a towered airport, preferably in a place where 172's do realistically use (so no KSFO).

[wlbragg]

I still like Hawaii. Surely with all the tourism there are private operators flying c172's out of a paved ATC supported airport on one of the islands.

[legoboyvdlp]

Kona Airport (PHKO) apparently had a Cessna fly out of it, at least once, unfortunately: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/8529161/a-closer-look-at-the-cessna-172

In FlightGear, it is quality level 4, according to KL-666.

It has an 11,000 foot runway. Screenshots to come, both with and without Hybris.

[legoboyvdlp]

I need to work on centreline, but I made it 😛

[gilbertohasnofb]

PHKO does look nice indeed. It seems it is located exactly on a border between two tiles, but the second one is 99% water, so I don't see why not include both. If all here agree then we could bring this up to the devs, as well as the idea of having an automatic popup message when a user loads into a scenery they don't have.

[legoboyvdlp]

Sure. That sounds fine!

[wkitty42]

On 03/31/2018 08:21 AM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:

PHKO does look nice indeed. It seems it is located exactly on a border between two tiles, but the second one is 99% water, so I don't see why not include both. If all here agree then we could bring this up to the devs, as well as the idea of having an automatic popup message when a user loads into a scenery they don't have.

personally, i don't have an opinion but i do want to point out that the original problem, while caused by lack of scenery, was the user's craft was in a crashed state due to our damage modeling... granted, it was in the drink but the gear was broken and i think maybe even a wing... i'd have to go back on the forum and find his linked video again...

in any case, the original comment was that we detect a crashed stated, not lack of scenery, and let the user know their craft is "crashed" so things may not work as desired...

[gilbertohasnofb]

@wkitty42 Yes, dealing with a missing scenery tile is a must from the side of the devs, but as a default aircraft it would be great if we would be able to offer the tutorials to everyone, even those with bad connection that don't use TerraSync. So I think both things can be addressed.

[wkitty42]

On 03/31/2018 11:51 AM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:

@wkitty42 https://github.com/wkitty42 Yes, dealing with a missing scenery tile is a must from the side of the devs,

yes, i fully understand that... especially since it is they that make FG log "no scenery beneath craft" when you out fly the scenery engine's loading capability... not just terrasync... yes, i have outflown the scenery loader in the UFO :)

but as a default aircraft it would be great if we would be able to offer the tutorials to everyone, even those with bad connection that don't use TerraSync. So I think both things can be addressed.

agreed... how about, instead of some place large like Hawaii, a smaller, out of the way, place... Diego Garcia would work and it is small... one runway, easy taxiing, nice little scenic tour around the island coast... simple and easy with not a lot of other stuff to mess with... plus Diego can be cleaned and dressed up more easily than other places ;)

[gilbertohasnofb]

@wkitty42 Diego Garcia is a military base in the middle of the ocean, I think it would look very strange to have tutorials set there.

[wkitty42]

On 03/31/2018 03:24 PM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:

@wkitty42 https://github.com/wkitty42 Diego Garcia is a military base in the middle of the ocean, I think it would look very strange to have tutorials set there.

i don't know why... all that's needed is a nice clear airport that large and small craft can operate from... DG doesn't (currently) look like a military base and besides, what does it really matter? it is a small area to package, there's rarely any other craft around, and we're talking about doing this only for the tutorials...

FWIW: do the tutorials also turn off multi-player when they are running and then restore its state after they are finished? should tutorials be running when in MP mode? just some more things to think about ;)

[gilbertohasnofb]

what does it really matter?

It matters because we care for realism. We have thousands for airports to chose from so there is no need to go with a military base in the middle of the ocean.

do the tutorials also turn off multi-player when they are running and then restore its state after they are finished? should tutorials be running when in MP mode?

No idea, I don't run MP. If you'd like to test that then just open a new issue if any problem is found.

[wkitty42]

On 04/01/2018 06:04 AM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:

what does it really matter?

It matters because we care for realism. We have thousands for airports to chose from so there is no need to go with a military base in the middle of the ocean.

wow... realism is the rebuttal? yeah, ok... whatever...

do the tutorials also turn off multi-player when they are running and then
restore its state after they are finished? should tutorials be running when
in MP mode?

No idea, I don't run MP. If you'd like to test that then just open a new issue if any problem is found.

that's funny because you know i generally don't do MP, either :lol:

[gilbertohasnofb]

@wkitty42 You are a pain today, aren't you? Please do take a chill pill.

wow... realism is the rebuttal? yeah, ok... whatever...

If you look at the discussion above between all others, we all agree that the choice of airport should be a place suitable for GA aircraft but that still has ATIS for one of the tutorials. People make proposals and some of those get rejected, I don't see why you are taking this so personally. Your proposal does not fit with what the rest of us has been discussing and is unrealistic, so it's a no. Just live with it.

that's funny because you know i generally don't do MP, either :lol:

Do I know that though? Do you really think I keep track of how each one of us here uses FG? Sigh. You reported a potential bug that you think might exist and that was my way of saying to you that I won't bother with it unless it's a proper report. I don't do MP and I won't go chase wild guesses. Concrete reports are fine, hence why I suggested you could try your theory out. But if you just throw a guess of a potential problem in an issue about tutorial scenery then my guess is that you don't care that much either, so let's just leave that aside.

Finally, I am not a native speaker, but the construction "If you'd like to test that then [...]" implies condition, not an assumption.

Now I would appreciate if we can all come back to the original topic and stop with this noise.

[wkitty42]

On 04/01/2018 06:39 AM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:

@wkitty42 https://github.com/wkitty42 You are a pain today, aren't you? Please do take a chill pill.

please do not project what's happening with you onto me...

i made a suggestion, a valid suggestion... you are the only one here who has shot it down... the funny thing is that we (TINW) are not the ones to make this decision... you coming back at me like this makes that even funnier...

have a April Fool's Day!

[wlbragg]

At the risk of offending anyone unintentionally, I agree with @gilbertohasnofb, we don't need to resort to "that" military base not with all the other choices available to us. Plus it's not that interesting of an area IMO. @wkitty42 I understand the thought process that may have brought you to that suggestion though. There has to be other airports that would be better choices. I think a "travel destination" place would be the best choice.

i do want to point out that the original problem, while caused by lack of scenery, was the user's craft was in a crashed state due to our damage modeling.

The "original problem" as it pertains to this issue is me pointing out that I am seeing more and more users asking why their tutorials are not working. In every case it was because they ran the tutorial and it took them to a place that has no scenery, that causes a crash at worst or a "where is my scenery" at best. It's the chicken or the egg scenario. I'm interested in having the flagship's capabilities being fully realized, by default, when the base release is installed. Starting at a "travel destination" airport on an island of some sort, would also give the user immediate access to water to allow for amphibious or water landings. Another feature of the flagship that can be immediately experienced.

This should show our tile layout in these areas

[wlbragg]

Does the tile that PHOG sit on include any of Thorsten's volcano work on it? How much space would that tile and the tile to the immediate N take? That has the added bonus of a lot of space to explore. Does it have ATIS services? I would want to see a small push to update any selected airport as much as possible.

Then again if we were to use two tiles the PHNL would probably be a better choice.

So do any of these potentially fit the bill? PHNL PHOG PHKO

[legoboyvdlp]

I know for a fact that the two or three volcanoes on the Big Island are present but I have never tested near PHOG for volcanoes.

[wlbragg]

two or three volcanoes on the Big Island are present

Then I would vote PHKO.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@wlbragg I think PHOG is a good choice, the scenery is very beautiful, the airport has an asphalt runway and ATIS. Also, I think that taking the tile to the N of PHOG would be fine as it would consume very little more space.

[gilbertohasnofb]

For comparison. This is PHOG:

This is PHKO:

Both airports look nice and both sceneries are nice. PHOG has perhaps a nicer scenery and a more interesting airport layout, PHKO has more ground objects and a volcano around. Either would be fine with me.

[wlbragg]

Either would be fine with me.

Same here. My first choice was PHOG because of the immediate area around it and I liked the airport layout the best. But I also like the idea of having the bonus of a default tile that had volcanoes and interesting features.

Beings this is is for the tutorials I resend my original vote and choose PHOG, main reason being because of the airport layout.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@wlbragg Great, I am also tending more towards PHOG due to the airport as well as the beautiful hills you can see from the ruway. @legoboyvdlp what's your view?

[legoboyvdlp]

PHOG's screenshots look beautiful: I vote there.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp Great, thanks. Tomorrow I will write an e-mail to the dev-list, let's hope they will like the idea and consider start including these tiles from the next release on.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp Could you please do me a favour before I write the list? Would you be able to tell me the name of those two tiles that we want using TerraMaster, i.e. the one with PHOG and the one just to its north? The names are coordinates such as w010n40.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp Nevermind, I managed to solve my problem with Java and I can now run TerraMaster myself. Those two tiles are w157n20 and w157n21 and their size combined is 19.4 MB.

[gilbertohasnofb]

Just wrote the list, I will report back here. Let's cross our fingers for PHOG!

@legoboyvdlp I remember that you used to deal with airport layouts. I noticed that the taxiways at PHOG could do some improvements, would that be something you would be able to do and interest in doing?

[legoboyvdlp]

I certainly can ;) Although, I will check first in the X-Plane Gateway to see what the layout there is like.

[gilbertohasnofb]

@legoboyvdlp really appreciate that, lego. If the layout is not available at the X-Plane Gateway then it might be better for you to wait for the reply to our request, so that you don't end up working on an airport that they might reject to add (though that would still be one more nice airport for FG :smile: ). Let me know if I can be of any help.

[legoboyvdlp]

@gilbertohasnofb

The only potential problem is the use of polygon objects, which genapts850 does not support as asphalt. I think the taxiways are all taxiways, though. They can be converted, though the best soloution is to develop genapts1000 :)