A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bridges in FS2004



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 29th 03, 11:03 PM
Kevin Reilly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bridges in FS2004

Have Microsoft not been keeping up on their Bridge Licensing Fees or
something?

I took delivery of FS2004 this morning (thanks Play!) and in general the
improvements are very impressive, especially in the visuals (Manhattan
looks absolutely gorgeous). However on visiting two of my favourite
flying haunts, the North West of England and Tokyo Bay, I'm compelled to
ask: what the hell has happened to the bridges?

The Runcorn-Widnes bridge, a steel arch type, had been rendered in its
full glory (graphics of the time permitting) in every release of MSFS
back to at least '98 and possibly further. In FS2004 it's been turned
into a generic flat thing bearing no resemblance to its real-world
counterpart.

And as for Tokyo, what have they done with the Rainbow Bridge? Aside
from the loop at one end the structure in FS2004 looks nothing like it.
I just can't understand this. It's been present and correct (again,
graphics allowing) for several versions of MSFS so why drop the model
for something that looks like a reject from a Meccano competition?

What's really ironic is that the tweaks to Tokyo's graphics in general
are magnificent in FS2004; a vast improvement over those in FS2002. I
would go so far as to say they're about the best you're going to get
with autogen scenery, but that bridge sticks out like a sore thumb and
ruins the whole effect.

What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"Apply artificial respiration until the patient is dead."
From a school First Aid examination

Ads
  #2  
Old July 30th 03, 04:17 AM
Randy L.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin,
I was just flying out of Key West NAS in FS2004, and noticed that while the
highway that runs along the Florida keys is there, in some places the
highway looks like it dips down into the water! In those places it looks as
if the bridge that supports the highway has collapsed. Very strange indeed.

Randy L.

"Kevin Reilly" wrote in message
...
Have Microsoft not been keeping up on their Bridge Licensing Fees or
something?

I took delivery of FS2004 this morning (thanks Play!) and in general the
improvements are very impressive, especially in the visuals (Manhattan
looks absolutely gorgeous). However on visiting two of my favourite
flying haunts, the North West of England and Tokyo Bay, I'm compelled to
ask: what the hell has happened to the bridges?

The Runcorn-Widnes bridge, a steel arch type, had been rendered in its
full glory (graphics of the time permitting) in every release of MSFS
back to at least '98 and possibly further. In FS2004 it's been turned
into a generic flat thing bearing no resemblance to its real-world
counterpart.

And as for Tokyo, what have they done with the Rainbow Bridge? Aside
from the loop at one end the structure in FS2004 looks nothing like it.
I just can't understand this. It's been present and correct (again,
graphics allowing) for several versions of MSFS so why drop the model
for something that looks like a reject from a Meccano competition?

What's really ironic is that the tweaks to Tokyo's graphics in general
are magnificent in FS2004; a vast improvement over those in FS2002. I
would go so far as to say they're about the best you're going to get
with autogen scenery, but that bridge sticks out like a sore thumb and
ruins the whole effect.

What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"Apply artificial respiration until the patient is dead."
From a school First Aid examination



  #3  
Old July 30th 03, 08:54 PM
henri Arsenault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Kevin Reilly wrote:


What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.


Ha that's nothing, the Coronado Bridge in San Diego is not there at all!

I went to a few places I know, and here is what I found.

Th coastlines are generally better defined. The Coronado Bridge in San
Diego is missing, but the Coronado hote, San diego Convention Center,
Marriott Marina Hotel and so on are all there. The surroundings of the
Los Angeles Airport are better defined that in FS2002, for example the
cloverleaf for 405 near the airport is there, as well as the road
through the airport to Marina Del Rey. San Francisco looks OK, Stanford
University is still not there, but the bridges are.In Montreal, the
Jacques Cartier Bridge is fully defined, the other bridges look generic.
Mount Royal looks like a small hill, but the Oratory is still on the
top, and the Olympic Stadium is there. The Quebec City bridges are there
as generic flat bridges, but the bend in the Chaudiere River where it
enters the St laurence is in the wrong place. There is no road to the
airport, presumably people are supposed to get there by skidoo or dog
sled...

I have only spent a short time with the simulation so far, and I like
the new features like the movng map display. I haven't had time to play
much with the ATC much, but that is supposed to be improved as well; the
command to show a line to the parking lot has been removed because now
there are signs along the ways like in real airports, but I wish they
still had it.

The game is plenty smooth on my 2 gHz system with Radeon 8500 at 1028
resolution and everything pretty much near the max. The clouds look
great, I haven't tried the rain yet, which is supposed to be improved.

Henri
  #4  
Old July 31st 03, 02:30 AM
Walt Bertram
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course, I meant to say

"FS2002 had none"

Walt Bertram wrote:

FS98 and FS2000 had one or more patches. FS2004 had none.

Icebound wrote:

snip

MS has not been known to patch their flight sim versions.

  #5  
Old July 31st 03, 04:55 PM
Skyhawk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henri,

You are in luck! The progressive taxi (magenta) line can be accessed
through the ATC dialog box after contacting ground control. After the taxi
instructions are received, an option appears for the progressive taxi, hit
the 1 key and the line appears. Good Flying!
"henri Arsenault" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kevin Reilly wrote:


What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.


Ha that's nothing, the Coronado Bridge in San Diego is not there at all!

I went to a few places I know, and here is what I found.

Th coastlines are generally better defined. The Coronado Bridge in San
Diego is missing, but the Coronado hote, San diego Convention Center,
Marriott Marina Hotel and so on are all there. The surroundings of the
Los Angeles Airport are better defined that in FS2002, for example the
cloverleaf for 405 near the airport is there, as well as the road
through the airport to Marina Del Rey. San Francisco looks OK, Stanford
University is still not there, but the bridges are.In Montreal, the
Jacques Cartier Bridge is fully defined, the other bridges look generic.
Mount Royal looks like a small hill, but the Oratory is still on the
top, and the Olympic Stadium is there. The Quebec City bridges are there
as generic flat bridges, but the bend in the Chaudiere River where it
enters the St laurence is in the wrong place. There is no road to the
airport, presumably people are supposed to get there by skidoo or dog
sled...

I have only spent a short time with the simulation so far, and I like
the new features like the movng map display. I haven't had time to play
much with the ATC much, but that is supposed to be improved as well; the
command to show a line to the parking lot has been removed because now
there are signs along the ways like in real airports, but I wish they
still had it.

The game is plenty smooth on my 2 gHz system with Radeon 8500 at 1028
resolution and everything pretty much near the max. The clouds look
great, I haven't tried the rain yet, which is supposed to be improved.

Henri



  #6  
Old August 2nd 03, 12:42 AM
Kevin Reilly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 henri Arsenault wrote:

Ha that's nothing, the Coronado Bridge in San Diego is not there at all!


I've seen this for myself, now. It's not the only one, either.

Thanks to Henri and all who responded on this point. I hadn't been
keeping tabs on the FS web-based forums so I had no idea this was such a
well-documented problem. I've now looked at a few forums and websites
and it really does seem to be fairly major.

What's curious is that now I've come to examine the Tokyo bridge issue
in detail, and looked at the FS2004 model more closely, the actual
TOPOLOGY of the new model is really OK. In fact it's arguably closer to
the real thing thanks to the increased polygon count. However the
GEOMETRY of it is way off. If this really is a pseudo-autogen model it
looks almost to my untrained eye as though the 'anchor points' (or
whatever the technical term is) have been put in slightly the wrong
place.

I've uploaded some comparison photos to the gallery at the following
website

http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004

and it seems to me that if the bridge towers were placed closer to the
bay coastlines like their real-world counterparts all of the other parts
of the structure would 'stretch' into place. It would look almost spot
on.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in FS scenery construction could take
a look and let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree on this issue.

What interests me further is that we have dozens of bridges reported
missing in action, yet the first page of the gallery link above shows,
among other things, an EXTRA bridge where there shouldn't be one. And
it's a fairly complex model as well, almost as though it's been
specifically designed to go somewhere and ended up somewhere else. Does
anyone recognise it, and perhaps know where it should be in the real
world?

You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have several
reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be, and at least
one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests to me that many
of the bridge problems could well be down to simple *typos* in the
scenery database. Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the
wrong type could be explained by this, if generic bridge types are
defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and the flag is wrong.

Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6?
As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation. If I'm
way off target, please let me know.

Because the way I see it, if these are simple database errors rather
than complex modelling errors, they should be relatively straightforward
to fix. Certainly more straightforward than defining exclude files and
designing models from scratch which is, I believe, the way scenery
problems are normally tackled.

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"If you won't tell me who told you that, it's not worth the paper it's
written on." Malcolm Rifkind

  #7  
Old August 4th 03, 06:45 PM
Captain Krunch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Reilly wrote in message ...

You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have several
reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be, and at least
one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests to me that many
of the bridge problems could well be down to simple *typos* in the
scenery database. Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the
wrong type could be explained by this, if generic bridge types are
defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and the flag is wrong.

Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6?
As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation. If I'm
way off target, please let me know.


I strongly believe you are right. Why? Because of what I have found
with regards to the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway near New Orleans. The
Causeway, at 24 miles long, is the longest bridge in the world - but
it doesn't show up over the waters of Lake Pontchartrain in FS2004.
Yet, the bridge *does* show up, over *land*, moved exactly 24 miles
north of where it should be! It's as if it hop-scotched over itself.

Is this a lat/long problem? Or is it a bit more complex? If it's
some sort of toggle in the code or database, it would explain why the
bridge is there, but not where it should be. So I would tend to agree
with you on your conjecture.

Krunch
  #8  
Old August 5th 03, 03:03 AM
Skyhawk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Flight Sim Friends,

Another area to look at is Tampa/ St.Pete. In "real" life are three bridges
from Tampa across Tampa Bay to St.Pete/Clearwater. The bridges vary in
length but all are around 5-7 miles long. The first mile or so is over land
jutting into the bay. This area is portrayed in FS 2004 but the bridges are
no there. Try a flight out of KTPA, use RWY 18R and make a right turn after
departure to see what I mean. So what is everyone's guess? Will MS issue a
patch for the obvious problem? Also, why is all of the water aqua in color?
Does anyone know if the beta version floating around had the bridge problem?
I wonder how such an issue escaped MS. Overall, the simulation is GREAT!!!
Good Flying!
"Captain Krunch" wrote in message
om...
Kevin Reilly wrote in message

...

You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have several
reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be, and at least
one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests to me that many
of the bridge problems could well be down to simple *typos* in the
scenery database. Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the
wrong type could be explained by this, if generic bridge types are
defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and the flag is wrong.

Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6?
As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation. If I'm
way off target, please let me know.


I strongly believe you are right. Why? Because of what I have found
with regards to the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway near New Orleans. The
Causeway, at 24 miles long, is the longest bridge in the world - but
it doesn't show up over the waters of Lake Pontchartrain in FS2004.
Yet, the bridge *does* show up, over *land*, moved exactly 24 miles
north of where it should be! It's as if it hop-scotched over itself.

Is this a lat/long problem? Or is it a bit more complex? If it's
some sort of toggle in the code or database, it would explain why the
bridge is there, but not where it should be. So I would tend to agree
with you on your conjecture.

Krunch



  #9  
Old August 6th 03, 01:25 AM
DAS BOOT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Skyhawk wrote in message
...
Flight Sim Friends,

Another area to look at is Tampa/ St.Pete. In "real" life are three

bridges
from Tampa across Tampa Bay to St.Pete/Clearwater. The bridges vary in
length but all are around 5-7 miles long. The first mile or so is over

land
jutting into the bay. This area is portrayed in FS 2004 but the bridges

are
no there. Try a flight out of KTPA, use RWY 18R and make a right turn

after
departure to see what I mean. So what is everyone's guess? Will MS issue

a
patch for the obvious problem? Also, why is all of the water aqua in

color?
Does anyone know if the beta version floating around had the bridge

problem?
I wonder how such an issue escaped MS. Overall, the simulation is

GREAT!!!
Good Flying!

in ref to bridges being out of wack in FS2004 could this be a national
security type thing?


  #10  
Old August 11th 03, 07:44 PM
henri Arsenault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This reminds me of the first time I went to Minsk for a Congress in
1986 under the communist regime. They gave us a map, but almost all of
the important buildings were in the wrong place! But the streets were
OK. I was told that it was to confuse any potential invaders. so if one
wanted to go someplace, one had to ask a knowledgeable person to show
one where it was on the map.

No wonder the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight (there are
those who think it was because of the Pope, and some who even think it
was because of Ronald Reagan; in fact it was because no one there knew
whether he was coming or going).

maybe Microsoft hired one of those Soviet mapmakers...

Henri
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES ArtKramr Military Aviation 32 February 5th 04 03:34 PM
FS2004 Garmin GPS map question Charon Simulators 1 July 28th 03 06:39 PM
FS2004 images Paul H. Simulators 0 July 22nd 03 09:41 PM
Lago Tornado and FS2004 Paul H. Simulators 0 July 20th 03 11:35 PM
gradual gyro failure in FS2004? Gary L. Drescher Simulators 3 July 19th 03 07:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.