Basel in MSFS 2020

[virtuali]

Ok, this not the best solution, as to exclude some inapropriate gates, to your taste, would have being a better solution, by maintaining the more realistic randomness of the choice, but anyway it is better than nothing.

It would be wrong to exclude a parking that in real life exists, just because you "might" be assigned to it. It's much better you configure the gate in the flight plan, so it's not random.

[ACSoft]

Sorry, Umberto, but that isn't my opinion.

To my humble view, to force a specific gate in the flightplan isn't realistic at all, but is actually the only solution available to avoid this no sense to be sent to obviously  inapropriate places, because, the choice of the gate by FS AI, is most probably, just a very simplistic random choice, made of rough & incomplete criterias.

Take an other example: In EDDK, they are several places, where they dismounted the gateway some years ago, because low-cost company do not wanted them. So these gates are reserved to certain low-cost company. I bet what you want, that, FS AI will not check if the company who belong my aircraft is suitable or not for these special gates. As a former FS dev in the time of FS2004, I remember vaguely that it was possible to specify companies to specific gates, but I don't remember, in fact, if FS2004 was really taking this info in account.

[virtuali]

Sorry, Umberto, but that isn't my opinion.

You can have your opinion, but that doesn't prevent me to say I think ( in MY opinion ) that your opinion is wrong.

To my humble view, to force a specific gate in the flightplan isn't realistic at all, but is actually the only solution available to avoid this no sense to be sent to obviously  inapropriate places, because, the choice of the gate by FS AI, is most probably, just a very simplistic random choice, made of rough & incomplete criterias.

It's a proper workaround within the limitations of how THIS simulator works. Which in MY opinion is better than the alternatives, which would be either defining those spots as "GA" ( so you'll see small GA planes and equipment there, which is wrong ), or removing the parking spots entirely, which is even worse.

As a former FS dev in the time of FS2004, I remember vaguely that it was possible to specify companies to specific gates, but I don't remember, in fact, if FS2004 was really taking this info in account.

We obviously included airline codes for all the main gates, and the one you said should never used ( F4A ) doesn't have any. But yes, those codes are usually used only for AI, I'm not sure if they have any effect the parking assigned to the user airplane.

This is SUPPOSED to be controlled by this line in the aircraft.cfg

atc_parking_codes = "" ; Comma separated and may be as small as one character each

There isn't a single default airplane that has any of these defined, mostly because no real world liveries are included with the sim so, if you downloaded extra liveries, check if they have the atc_parking_codes lines with correct codes, MAYBE they work.

But even if they don't, I don't generally agree to the method of purposely feeding the simulator with wrong data ( removing parking spots, setting to wrong sizes on purpose ) just to overcome its shortcomings ESPECIALLY with a simulator that is in constant active development like MSFS 2020, I think it's best to include data as accurate as possible to real life, even if the sim doesn't handle it yet, because it *might* in a future upgrade, so we don't want to be left with wrong data put there on purpose we would have to fix again, after an update might finally solve the problem.

So, for the time being, just select your gate on the flight plan.

[ACSoft]

Umberto, in this case, it is typically a question of personal taste. Therefore, nobody can say the other is wrong !

If I pretend the Effel tower is only 150m high, then you can affirm I am wrong !

So, speaking of personnal taste, I would prefer to discover which gate the tower assign to me (to have the salt of the surprise, if you wish), rather than to known it in advance. But, of course, preferably a good surprise ! Not a bad one, where you have to go to some silly inappropriate place !

In my old time of FS2004, as I was flying almost always with my MD-11, I have edited all the airports I was using often, so that the size of the MD-11 was accepted only where it was appropriate to be, to my opinion. So maybe it was all wrong, but it was how I wanted it to be and it was not possible in FS2004, to specify the arrival gate in the flight plan.

This just a game, after all !

By the way Umberto, I am waiting with great hope, that you make an FS2020 version of your beautiful LSGG Geneva, which is my "mother airport".

[Shack95]

I have a problem at LFSB since the latest patch. When I‘m in external view all the glass textures disappear from certain angles (also when relatively close by). In the drone view this doesn‘t seem to happen, even from the same angle and distance. The same occurs in VR. Most of the times all the glass is gone and only from some angles it reappears. I haven‘t encountered this at LSZH (same settings, same flight). Is there anything I can do about it?

[Brittanix]

I have a problem at LFSB since the latest patch. When I‘m in external view all the glass textures disappear from certain angles (also when relatively close by). In the drone view this doesn‘t seem to happen, even from the same angle and distance. The same occurs in VR. Most of the times all the glass is gone and only from some angles it reappears. I haven‘t encountered this at LSZH (same settings, same flight). Is there anything I can do about it?

Same problem for me. When I zoom out slightly, parts of the buildings disappear. When I zoom in again the buildings are complete again.

[virtuali]

It's possible the latest update has tweaked LOD settings somehow, reducing them to optimize fps further, likely because of VR.

[ACSoft]

I confirm these problems !

So, Umberto, what are-you going to do ?

Can we expect a correction soon ?

[virtuali]

I confirm these problems ! So, Umberto, what are-you going to do ?

It would have been easier if more accurate reports would be given.

Assuming the problem IS related to LOD and a change of it in the last update ( which should be verified first ), LOD depends on so many factors:

- Screen resolution, the lower, the earlier objects will disappear

- Screen aspect ratio

- Zoom setting

- The sim settings

- Personal preference. I don't mind LOD. In fact, I find LOD to be an indication of a scenery optimization. It takes effort to ADD LOD, by default there aren't any LOD in a scenery, and releasing a scenery without LOD shows the developer has been lazy, not caring about optimization ( it takes LESS effort to create a scenery with no LODs )

Can we expect a correction soon ?

As usual, assuming there IS a correction needed on our site, the more accurate the reports are, the more likely issues can be fixed, assuming they can. I could only try with the few information given, which is "all the glass gone from some angles in external view".

So, I tried it now, started with the default A320 at Gate 5, and manually taxied in External view, try to look the plane from different angles, and no glass ever disappeared. Yes, there's some flickering on the SkyLounge dome, but this is a known issue which cannot be completely fixed, but nothing disappeared.

So, it would be best if more precise reports could come, like a screenshot or a video and some data about settings like screen resolution, etc.

[ACSoft]

Dear Umberto,

Maybe try this:

With the A320, go to gate 34, then, go to outside view and turn the camera in direction of the tower.

OK, now, zoom backward and you will see a whole parts of almost all buildings which will disappear !

I would be very surprised if you don't have the problem either, but if it is the case, tell me and I will publish a screenshot of it on my site and put the link here.

[virtuali]

With the A320, go to gate 34, then, go to outside view and turn the camera in direction of the tower.

OK, now, zoom backward and you will see a whole parts of almost all buildings which will disappear !I would be very surprised if you don't have the problem

That's it, zoom is as wide as it can go, no problems whatsoever.

[ACSoft]

Hi Umberto,

Look this video and you will see the problem:

In the video descriptor, you can read my computer & graphic settings.

When I am in the outside view and I have turned a little bit the camera (something not mandatory), I just use the mouse wheel to zoom in and out and you can see the result on the video.

Hope this help !

[Republic DC-9]

I have this problem also - with my settings most of the terminal disappears entirely (like shown in the YouTube video above) even on takeoff from the airport and doesn't appear until you are RIGHT on top of the terminal.

LODs are great, but it seems that this update and/or my settings make this airport's terminal glass disappear.

I will play with various settings - I don't encounter this at Vancouver for example.

Thanks,

Steve

[Republic DC-9]

I still get the issue, despite buildings on "ultra" etc.

If it helps, the Drzweicki Design Seattle has also begun appearing distorted etc. until right on top of it and I believe they indicated that the update had "done something to the LODs, we need to fix".

Steve

[virtuali]

When I am in the outside view and I have turned a little bit the camera (something not mandatory), I just use the mouse wheel to zoom in and out and you can see the result on the video.

That's precisely why in the screenshot I posted, I showed the External camera user interface, which shows zoom level at 0%, which is the same as if you rolled back on the mouse wheel all the way back.

What you are looking at is surely LOD.

Somebody else said something about the glass materials, but in your video it's not affecting just glass, but everything else disappears too.

I think the issue might just be your screen resolution a bit lower than the one on my screenshot, which was 2145x1191, while your screen is 1920x1080.

By reducing the window size to 1920x1080, I can replicate the problem ONLY from 0% to 1% of the Zoom level, as soon as I go to 2% and up, it's all normal so, it seems the small difference in size didn't allowed to see the last two  1/100ths of the whole zoom range, but it could on my system with just a bit more screen size.

Problem is, we must optimize the scenery for a wide range of users, and I fear a setting that would gave back those two 1/100th of the zoom range for 1080p users, would make LOD basically not-existent for 1440p and 4K users who need it more

Note that, this is NOT just dependent on the screen resolution, but also by "Objects Level of Detail" setting.

Try to run the FSDT Live Update now, I've tweaked it a bit, and with 1080p resolution and Object Level of Detail" at 100, it doesn't disappear at 0% Zoom level anymore.

In any case, I still believe that demanding LOD won't ever show up, even at extremely wide zoom settings, is like defeating LOD's purpose, since by optimizing it for the wide zoom levels, we make it useless when it really matters: on realistic zoom settings used during flight and approach, where fps matters the most.