Fence problem ?

#1
I'm not too sure this is the correct place to put this problem but I'll try to make it as short as possible. Using the latest version of ADE. Attempting to add fences to existing FSX airports using the base airport as a starting point.

Actions taken..

Delete existing fences
Enter new fence lines
Save and Compile.

Problem..

With base airports that have existing boundary fences..
Result .. No problems

With base airports that don't have any existing fences...
Result.. looks quite OK..
BUT the fences (ALL fences) disappear completely at certain view angles. I and another experienced scenery maker have checked this problem over about 8 to 10 airfields and the results seem to be always the same...

Existing fence = No problem
No existing fence = This disappearing problem

I've looked at the SDK (FSX) and the definition of BlastFence and BoundaryFence elements is...

BlastFence and BoundaryFence elements are part of an airport, and must contain at least two Vertex elements.

I'm starting to wonder if ADE's automatic deletion of Boundary Fences on a base airport that has no fences could have anything to do with these appearing/disappearing fences. I'm no XML/coding expert. Any useful ideas greatfully accepted.

Cheers Tony
 
#2
Tony

In the drop down list of boundary fences there are only 2 types you can choose from.

5 Meter chain link fence with wire
5 Meter chain link fence with top bent

Any other type fence will not alway display properly. The SDK fails to say that ACES only made textures for 2 type fences. All the other type fences will call the other 2 types randomly and in most cases will disappear at certain angles.

The fence must be part of the airport as per the SDK means it must sit on the airport mask class flatten. If the fence goes off the flatten in one area then it can disappear at other areas on the flatten as well.

The same applies to Blast Fences. There are only 2 that you can work with. I assume that FS was going to have all the different types of fences but only 2 types were made.
 
#3
Thank you for your quick reply Jim. We are using only the recommended fence types and have tried fences around the FSX airport ground polys and also random lengths and shapes inside these polys (which from my experience should all be inside the flatten area) but the only common factor seems to be the existance or lack of existance of an existing fence/s in a base FSX airport. I'm thinking along the line that the definition of a BoundaryFence (from the SDK) MUST contain at least 2 vertex points and a base airport without a fence obviously coundn't contain a vertex.

Cheers Tony
 
#4
Tony

I think I remember there must be 3 minimum vertex points for the fence.

George tested this and will chime in to give a better answer.
 
#8
Hello, it was me who asked Tony_A to assist with this problem. Just to confirm, we can place and view boundary fences without issue at airports which already have a default boundary fence. We have placed fences there with two, three and more vertices.

However, the problem is at airports which do not have default boundary fences. We can add boundary fences without problem, with two and more vertices, and they can be seen from certain angles. At the airport I am amending, the fences I have placed are visible between bearings approx 280 clockwise through to 40. However, when viewing the fence through the remainder of viewing arc (40-280), the fence disappears. Move back into the first arc of view, and the fence re-appears.
Thanks for your insights and help.
Prof
 
#11
Jon, I don't think so, for two reasons. Firstly, two of us on different computers experience the identical effect. Secondly, we can both view fences we have made at other default strips without problems.

George, I wonder if you'd mind repeating that experiment at Normanton, Queensland, Australia? Both Tony_A and I experience the problem at this strip. I will do the same at Bagran. :)

Edit: confirmed, I can also place a fence which is fully visible at Bagram. So it's not the 'no fence in default' problem which Tony_A thought it was, but the problem remains. George, I'll be interested to hear how you go at Normanton.
cheers and thanks
John
 
Last edited:
#13
George, if only it was that easy. :)) Well, we definitely have a confirmed problem. But how to fix it I have no idea. I wonder if it could have something to do with flattens and such like. Unfortunately I don't really know how to look at what's underlying the Normanton file to investigate. I need to leave it to others more knowledgeable.
Thanks for testing anyway, much appreciated.
John
 
#14
I don't think it is to do with the flatten, I added another one to ensure the fence was on it. However, the ARP is some way off the airport.



However, I didn't exclude the default flatten, perhaps this is what's wrong.
 
Last edited:
#15
I am running into some very odd design issues. If FS/ACES built an airport then we can manipulate everything that is already in the XML and FSX honors it the correct way.

Now I go to a incomplete/partial airport that only has runways and a ARP. This airport has 2 incomplete runways, 4 Start Locations and a apron that is in place to represent a 3rd runway.



I build the airport adding the 04/22 runway. All taxiways, aprons parking spots placed and when I add the fence on to the default MAP Class Flatten it only shows using certain headings.

To add insult to injury I create 4 ILS/Approach codes and ATC goes bezerk. I am allowed to select any apprach to final vectors regardless of wind direction from the ATC window. ATC also list the runways as both visual and ILS. ATC by default assigns me the correct runway based on wind direction but I can also ask for the reciprocal and ATC says ok. Approach then gives me vectors to final which means all runways and runway ends are active.



This is not a ADE issue but a code problem in FSX. The XML compiles to a bgl but when the ingame .dll's get a hold of these airports the coding is not being channeled properly to all the various FS running engine platforms.

We do know that SP2 changed some runtime coding by accident over SP1a as per ACES. I am seeing parts of a built up airport either bypassing a ingame engine or when channeled through the engine does not get treated the same as a fully built stock airport.

I am spending some time researching when these problems surfaced (FS9.1, FSX, SP1a, or SP2).
 
#16
There is something totally screwy at YNTN :rolleyes:

I deleted everything (including approaches) and re-built the airport nearer to the reference point. The fences are viewable from every angle.

Attached is the ADE file.
 
Last edited:

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#17
There is something totally screwy at YNTN :rolleyes:

I deleted everything (including approaches) and re-built the airport nearer to the reference point. The fences are viewable from every angle.

Attached is the ADE file.
That is weird... How about if you just move the ARP to the center of the runway - you can move the ARP. Save the file and re-open it - see if that makes any difference
 
#18
George

I looked at the default YNTN from topdown. The MaskClassMap resembles the surrounding texture so well I cannot see the boundary of the flatten.



I took a picture of the CVX and placed it in ADE so I could see where the MaskClassMap was positioned in FSX. I drew the fence staying within the proper flatten bounds.



What I see is the fence and the top are not aligning like they should. I moved the ARP over to the runway but the fence still disappears when rotating on different headings.



I made the fence much smaller and placed around the apron. The top aligned properly but it still disappeared. I tried another airport design utility which uses a non SDK compiler but the fence still disappears.
 
Last edited:
#19
Jon, I don't think so, for two reasons. Firstly, two of us on different computers experience the identical effect. Secondly, we can both view fences we have made at other default strips without problems.

George, I wonder if you'd mind repeating that experiment at Normanton, Queensland, Australia? Both Tony_A and I experience the problem at this strip. I will do the same at Bagran. :)

Edit: confirmed, I can also place a fence which is fully visible at Bagram. So it's not the 'no fence in default' problem which Tony_A thought it was, but the problem remains. George, I'll be interested to hear how you go at Normanton.
cheers and thanks
John
Prof, why don't you supply some pictures to show what you are talking about. A couple at a 'good' airport, and a couple at a 'bad' airport showing how you see then DON'T see the fences...this may help validate and explain exactly what you are talking about.

I too tried at several airports and had no issues what-so-ever.. Both at airports with default and without default. So picture evidence would be very nice. Heck, make a movie, that would be even better as it would show the point at which it vanishes.

- Greg

EDIT: Actually, I made at the airport you mentioned, and got the same results.. Yeah, seems that MS broke something big time and now, they are gone!!!! Oh well...

As for the fence and top not aligning correctly, I see the same thing when I put a fence around my airport.. What a pain.. May use a 3rd party fence to remove that problem...but what a pain to have to create it entirely by hand.. Ahh..the good ole' days..hehe
 
Last edited:
#20
First of all, thanks to everyone for hopping on to this. I really appreciate your help. Perhaps I should introduce myself, as I'm new to this forum. I'm one of about a half dozen pretty active freeware scenery developers for OZx, a group developing mainly small bush strips for Australia and soon for the Pacific North West. We basically build photoreal airstrips to go into ORBX scenery. So this is why I'm doing Normanton at the moment. The url for OZx is http://www.aussiex.org Glad to meet you all.

George, I shall download that file straightaway and check it out. Many thanks for your troubles. Jon and others, I gather you are seeing some real issues with how FSX handles data put into the ADE files. I continue to watch and listen with interest. Meanwhile I must test George's file.
cheers
Prof
 
Top