Multiple addon sceneries, priorities and the "double runway" effect

Hello,

just installed the revision, and, fair enought, it is only one runway. But what a runway that is…

I don´t know

Cheers,
Richard

@froemmelm Is that supposed to be EDDS from Gravity? Can’t 100% tell from your screenshots as there are quite some differences (can’t see the taxiway e.g.). Because I followed the instructions in FAQ - Double scenery elements and it looks fine to me:


This is my Context.xml after the instructions:
Content.xml (4.6 KB)

@NAVData just for clarification, in Release notes - AIRAC Cycle 2013 - revision 5 you write if the freeware scenery “Aerosoft Paderborn” is installed, this package MUST BE on the first line in the content.xml file. As you can see in my Context.xml it’s not on the top after following the instruction, but I also have Paderborn installed from the Aerosoft installer inside the Community folder and not via the Marketplace in Official/OneStore, so I’m not sure if it should still go on top of all the internal packages. I haven’t noticed any problems yet.

Hi Jan,
haven´t moved my Paderborn scenery from the “Official/OneStore” - but interesting idea.

The strange thing is, when I delete my content.xml file and when I let the sim create this file, the Aerosoft Paderborn package is always on the top. Also, there is a freeware scenery RPUO (https://flightsim.to/file/4564/basco-airport-rpuo). I was in contact with this developer and he shared the source file - all looks good in his file, but the strange thing was, that when the Aerosoft Paderborn package was AFTER our package - this scenery shows double runways or only our runway, … so it was completely mess.

When the Aerosoft Paderborn is above our package, all is good and the scenery looks like it should. It would be great, when you can try to install the scenery on your system to see what happened.

Also, have you deleted the content.xml file or only manually re-ordered?

Thank you,
Richard

PS: I have changed the release notes slightly now … :roll_eyes:

Yes, it is gravity’s EDDS. All taxiways and aprons are gone but the buildings - like the newly modeled terminal, DHL and Tower are still there. I suppose there is something weird about caching going on.

Have you done this (point #2):

Cheers,
Richard

FINALLY! point#2 did the trick. Up until now I had manually edited the content.xml file to make sure the order is correct. All seems to be fine now - the holidays can finally come.
Thank you all, and a merry christmas to everyone. :santa::christmas_tree:

Woho … Christmas can come :+1: :christmas_tree: - Thanks for the feedback …
Richard

I’m not sure if that’s possible, as they are from different sources (Official/Onestore from the ingame store, Community from external Aerosoft installer) there might be differences (e.g. the one from the ingame store might be fsarchive-encrypted).

I have a problem with multiple airports in northern Quebec
Lots dont exist stock ingame, and I use those

I had double runways pretty much everywhere.
Downloaded the new update today, and had to manually set Navigraph’s priority to the bottom (did the procedure on the FAQ)

Now I dont have double runways, but grass is over most gravel runways, and I dont see ramps/taxiway anymore

I can speak directly to the maker of those airports if you find something that would help

*CYPX & CYPH are good exemples
Thx!

Hi,
but there is no instruction somewhere, that you should edit anything manually …

image

Please do exactly these steps …

I´m pretty sure, that the addon-scenery designer hadn´t set #1 from the FAQ. You should forward the guys there this part.

Cheers,
Richard

If I dont edit it, I have that (after doing all the steps you posted)

You wrote this … “had to manually set Navigraphs priority” … therefore!

Please can you upload your complete content.xml file …
Thank you
Richard

I meant that in the ‘‘content.xml’’ I had to change to position of ‘‘navigraph.navdata’’ to the bottom of the list to make it ‘‘works’’

Content.xml (10.6 KB)

Thanks for the file … it looks perfect. Sorry, I have misunderstood you …

I will recall my answer:
The sceneries doesn´t containt the “DeleteAirport” element from the FAQ. So, when able, please can you forward someone these information. The issue is, that when they don´t use this element in their scenery you have this double scenery effect …

I have tested the CYPX …

So, they should add this please and should try it again:

<DeleteAirport 
     deleteAllApronLights="TRUE"
     deleteAllAprons="TRUE" 
     deleteAllHelipads="TRUE" 
     deleteAllRunways="TRUE" 
     deleteAllStarts="TRUE" 
     deleteAllTaxiways="TRUE" 
     deleteAllBlastFences="TRUE" 
     deleteAllJetways="TRUE" 
     deleteAllControlTowers="TRUE" 
     deleteAllPaintedElements="TRUE" 
     deleteAllLightSupports="TRUE" 
     deleteAllTaxiwaySigns="TRUE"
 />

Please let me know, about the results :wink:
Thank you,
Richard

1 Like

thx

I dont know squat about making a scenery.

I guess there is a specific place where he have to write all that?

Yes, the guys know where … it can also be done directly in their SDK project. When you forward this information, I´m sure, they know what is to do … :wink:
Cheers,
Richard

1 Like

Sorry, but you’re making this very easy for yourself. Why can’t airports be hidden in your data?
I have built Rostock and Strausberg. Both do not exist in MSFS and therefore there is no “Delete Airport” for a stock airport.

Regards Simmershome

We try to help, when this is not welcome, no problem for me because all of this analyzes and testings are extremely time-consuming and I do nothing for myself - we do it for the community.

When you don´t add these “DeleteAirport” and someone else creates also the same airport you have the “double scenery” view. That´s exactly the case here.

We “create” these missing airport in the navdata-cycle (only the runway, nav points and procedures). Our package is very low and we disable the stock data completely. All addon-sceneries are higher in the priority as our data but when you don´t add these “DeleteAirport” you see the runways from our package and also from your package.

Richard