Jump to content

Tony Wroblewski

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

830 Excellent


About Tony Wroblewski

  • Rank
    TrueEarth Dev
  • Birthday 03/27/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender:

Recent Profile Visitors

4,417 profile views
  1. If they're already in the sim, why would we need access to them as they're already there for everyone? There wouldn't be any sense in trying to replicate what is already in the base-sim, but rather to use it as a base and build on that.
  2. Yes, we included EGLW with TE GB South. EGLW is London city airport and we added this in the update so it was landable. To remove it, you can place your airport higher up in priority than the GB South airports pack, however this won't remove the aerial imagery. My suggestion is that you include your own draped .pol file along with your scenery that covers over this area. This way, it won't require customers to edit/patch files in to our scenery and will make it easily compatible with other sceneries as well.
  3. Really nice shots Dario, very atmospheric as well
  4. It looks like the mesh... I've seen this happen when the X-Plane can't smooth the normals correctly on a mesh, so under certain lighting conditions you can see what appears to be black or darker squares. I've never seen it that bad as shown above though so at the moment I'm not sure what is causing that.
  5. It's the flattening in the airport causing this... also the elevation is wrong in the apt.dat file, hence the big dip. It'll need fixing/updating on the XP scenery gateway The airport has't been updated since 2017: https://gateway.x-plane.com/scenery/page/EGSG, so it's not a new bug
  6. No, Orbx TE UK does not cover the channel islands
  7. That would make them transparent, but they're still there and animating. It's one solution, and hey if it works
  8. Only way to remove them would be to edit all the .obj files by hand and replace them with blank objects.
  9. When you "approved", who approved it? POIs can be requested and we'll take them in to consideration and do include many requested, but we don't officially approve/confirm which ones are being added.
  10. I thought it was the case, but it's not.. It seems something else has gone wrong. They are really marked as that high in the data I have, but the majority do seem correct. I used the same data in all the other US regions as well.
  11. The height in the data is in feet and I interpreted it as meters (the rest of my data sources are metric), so they are 3 times as big as they should be
  12. I'll grab it later today and check it out.. It's good that he did this :-)
  13. Superb shots, makes me want to go on vacation
  • Create New...