Jump to content

TomL

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About TomL

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Obviously snow coverage is manageable as long as weather presets are used and the snow depth is set to a fixed value. Then the snow coverage seems to be dependent on the surface: the darker, the less the coverage . However, live weather seems to set values that - at least for the short time of my testing - leads to a solid coverage regardless of the actual snow height. The Meteoblue data used for the live weather show a coverage of only around 5-10 cm for the valley at LSZS but a much higher coverage for the surrounding summits. Maybe it's a large resolution of the grid meteoblue is providing
  2. Didn't intend to, sorry! Alright, so it seems there's variables for the surface coverage that make it quite random, as I noticed in Nick's screenshot a blizzard with 1m snow depth and 100 mm/h precipitation leads to a cleared runway whereas the live weather setting with no actual precipitation visible makes for a solid cover in the middle section of the runway, as I noticed with severe CAVOK conditions for the whole day in live weather. Maybe there's a way to implement a more congruent appearance especially for live weather - like a control panel setting in the lines of "set alw
  3. No, it was live weather: CAVOK, no recent precipitation, but snow coverage in the whole area.
  4. While I find the freeware extraordinary well done I like the Orbx version a bit better, but I have to admit that I didn't test the freeware beyond the boundaries of the airport perimeter. What I like about the Orbx version is the modeling of buildings in St. Moritz as it adds a lot to the immersion on approach. I mainly focused on the snow coverage of the surfaces where the freeware excels but to me the modeling of the airport in the Orbx version felt a tad more realistic, but it is good in both versions. However, I would recommend to install the freeware first an go by your own impressions -
  5. Hi Nick, I know the snow coverage of surfaces in MSFS is hard to handle for developers, at least that's what I learned from many reviews. Yet the developer of the freeware has managed to represent the airport in a state I think is predominant in LSZS and other winter destinations. While there are for sure some hours or even days where airport operators aren't able to clear the movement areas they mostly tend to clear at least the runway. In case of ongoing snowfall there might be slush remaining, but a solid cover will be the exception. For most airport surfaces in MSFS however it
  6. Hi, only after I purchased LSZS I realised there's a freeware version for the same airport. No complaints here, it's my duty as a customer to explore the market. But out of curiosity I installed the freeware and lo and behold- the textures of the runway are far superior in so far as the whole runway is clear of snow whereas in your version it is pretty much covered up - apart from some portion on both ends. As LSZS is a destination predetermined for winter usage I am wondering why Andreas has chosen to develop a mostly snow-covered runway? I highly doubt the airport operators will
  7. It's been marked as "noted" per this thread as it is possible to integrate the data necessary for the autotune function - that is new as a standard feature in MSFS and therefore not on the dev's radar -, and I hope we will see this feature integrated with future releases and some updates for existing sceneries.
  8. That's the beauty of flightsimming: you can be lazy, because equipment is superior to the real thing while your ass isn't on the line...
  9. Yeah, it's not that I wouldn't know THAT - as that's how we've done it when I learned flying. But thanks for the lecture anyway.
  10. You might want to hint your developers to this post at FSDT's forum. I'm not an expert, but I was able to learn that there seems to be a difference to FSX/P3D design in so far as changing the runway record without including the ILS record (two scenery thingies commonly known to developers obviously) makes autotune fail. Seems to be doable once you know the deal (there's obiously still an issue with Magnetic/True heading, but hey, that's why we don't do airports ourselves, isn't it?)
  11. +1 To delve a bit deeper into the issue: The FBW Airbus, WT CJ4 and WT G3000 equipped aircraft are able to autotune the ILS frequency if the approach is selected within the avionic system (FMS/Garmin). This is working for ALL stock airports and for NONE of my +10 Orbx- (and partner-) airports. Apparently the ILS's are functional for all these airports, yet the database loader (or whatever that MSFS thingy working in the background is) doesn't recognise them. You can tune the ILS manually and it's working as expected, but that's not how the aircraft are meant to be operated - and it
  12. Thx Jon. I understand that updating EGLC to the current state needs some additional work, but the buildings across the railway tracks were said to be fixed by now. So I guess that's postponed as well.
  13. Just a thought, as the layout of the airport has changed(taxiways) and there's still some issues:
  14. Not sure if the developer 29palms has jumped onto the MSFS train yet. Not much information on their website and/or forum. Being a great fan of their work and having used EGPB quite often as a base for flights to Norway i would love to see it done though.
×
×
  • Create New...