This is exactly what I’d ask for. A few offending objects is no problem. Having the ability to en-mass delete/select offending objects is what I’d like. Then people could save the airports and know they are “compatible” and then further edit them using compatible objects to replace the naughty ones. Thanks a lot!

Right. Please note that _now_ the validate function selects the offending object. So if you have one or two stragglers you can easily find them now…the new feature will be for “I have an OSX-based scenery and I want to use some of the runways, etc. as a starting point” where the number of objects to be found and killed will be large.

Done! Good idea “select non-compatible objects” and allow one to delete them in one step. Then I could add new objects that are “compatible” and export the airport.

This would help anyone who has OpensceneryX installed and still wants to make a compatible airport. If you use an incompatible object by accident, this feature would allow you to select and delete it and fix your airport without having to hunt down every single offending object. Good idea!

Hrm – we don’t have that yet, but I could add some kind of “select-by” feature to select, for example, all objects that are not in the default scenery pack.

PLEASE file a bug against WED here:

http://dev.x-plane.com/bugbase/

I just have too many things going on and these days the attention span of a 3 year old (possibly due to having a near-3-year-old 🙂 but if you put it in the bug base, it won’t go away until it’s done. And this is cheap and useful enough that I should throw it into WED 1.3.

cheeres
Ben

Yes – we don’t have a monopoly on anything other than what goes into the core sim.

Creating a third party projects with the -exact same- objectives as the gateway project would be silly (in that it would be a dupe of the gateway project) but creating a third party project with -slightly different- objectives (e.g. we are going to collect custom artwork for the airports too) would be a totally reasonable thing to do, just like OpenSceneryX is different from the libraries we put into X-Plane and is a totally reasonable project.

I view scenery as being a pyramid, with the base layer having the widest coverage and the least specificity and custom packs having the smallest amount of coverage and near-exact specificity. There’s no reason why people can’t implement intermediate layers too!

cheers
Ben

Hi Jan,

Contributed lego brick airports will be an approximation of the real airport; if you have local knowledge of the airport, you may only be truly satisfied by hand-modeled custom scenery. But clearly it is not practical to ship 20,000 hand-made custom modeled airports with the base sim. 🙂

cheers
bEn

Unfortunately the height parameter for hangars, the building most often used on airports, does not work, as far as I can tell.
The smallest hangar you can make has a height of like 10 meters, making it impractical for all but the larger airports.
I have gotten quite adept at working around this by using other facades, like wharehouse, for example, or putting the medium sized hangars in an overlapping way.

I think that acceptance of the WED-airport contribution process will hinge to a large amount on the availability of “fitting” lego pieces. I understand that initially you are saying that just “some” buildings are better than none, but with every submission the designer puts his ability on display, and we all fear the “I fly to that airport all the time, and sorry, your submission doesnt look like the real thing at all!” comment…

Jan

It is true that this design proposal would probably not allow great flexibility in the generation of .apg structures, but in the cases being proposed, the standard leggo set provides a wealth of addons which can be used for this purpose and for smaller airfields, the need is for size flexibility, not volume.

It is just a seuggestion….

For anyone interested, this could be a custom design activity, which, if proven feasible then could be considered for X-Plane Inclusion. It would provide extra function and improved design variation.

For what it’s worth, the vertical height parameter on facades can select from multiple models with different vertical profiles. That’s not a ton of flexibility, but it’s there.