|
|
Post by Ripcord on Nov 29, 2017 16:10:02 GMT
Some of you are probably noticing a static default carrier in port in a few places, which is not being removed by turning off the trafficCarriers.bgl file, as we recommend.
Please note that we do have some basic port sceneries in the works, which do have object exclusions that remove these. Instead of waiting for these sceneries to be completed, we'll just run through these exclusion files, do a bit of testing to ensure that these default static carriers are being removed, and get those out to the community. I see no reason to look at those eye-sores in the interim, but we do want to make sure the exclusion do solve the issue in each location.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Dec 3, 2017 1:00:33 GMT
I think we have them now (they worked for me), and they are currently being tested by others. Thanks for your patience.
|
|
|
|
Post by udidwht on Dec 27, 2017 23:48:09 GMT
One of em is in San Diego.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Dec 28, 2017 0:37:12 GMT
One of em is in San Diego. Oh easily the main offender is San Diego. In several areas there, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by hangar200 on Jan 5, 2018 16:42:53 GMT
…and again a gentle reminder that any rendering/exclusion of NAS North Island needs to include the CSG-7 N2 parking spot down at one of the carrier piers, complete with 1994 Explorer. Just saying…if we want to be accurate  |
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Jan 5, 2018 22:15:29 GMT
Photos, sir. Need imagery. Lots of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Jan 12, 2018 13:39:56 GMT
I am ready to share exclusion files for those that are interested in testing. Please let me know if you would like to test them out.
Areas where exclusions are provided are Norfolk, San Diego, Bremerton, Everett, Pearl Harbor and Guam.
|
|
|
|
Post by texxasal on Jan 12, 2018 15:33:33 GMT
I'm in.
Glad to test exclusion files
Al
|
|
|
|
Post by udidwht on Jan 12, 2018 22:08:11 GMT
Same here. I'm in.
|
|
|
|
Post by pappyboyington on Jan 15, 2018 1:02:48 GMT
Aye aye, willing to test
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Jan 15, 2018 2:51:06 GMT
Great thanks folks. I'll get something posted up in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by AD1(AC) on Feb 4, 2018 15:12:10 GMT
Where can I find these exclusions ?
SEMPERFORTUS
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Feb 14, 2018 17:35:35 GMT
For those that are interested in testing, please post your results. drive.google.com/file/d/1-TEW3V_fELjZ2Dtf7JaBZmoDxSHm5DP3/view?usp=sharingThis is a standard scenery folder that should be activated in FSX or P3D like any other scenery. Be sure that it is placed above your ORBX folders, if you are an ORBX user. 5 primary locations to check: San Diego, Norfolk, Pearl Harbor (these are the big ones) as well as Everett and Bremerton in WA state. There is also an exclusion file for Port Hueneme CA which removes a ship placed by ORBX SoCal but this one won't really necessary when the patch comes out (changed parking area there). |
|
ron
Recruit
Posts: 17 
|
Post by ron on Feb 16, 2018 2:31:46 GMT
OK. I put the entire exclusion folder in add-on scenery and activated it in the scenery library. It is on the top of my list. San Diego ships disappear, but no ships at all, no Haze Gray. I know you made it work, so please tell me what I did wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripcord on Feb 16, 2018 12:15:57 GMT
Ron there is no way to do this wrong. These exclusions cannot remove the AI traffic, so it means that something else is wrong here.
Try a flight the first day or the last day of a 5-week cycle and see what it looks like. Also try turn boat traffic to zero, and then back to 10% or more.
And list any other addons you use in this area -- photoreal anything? ORBX Socal? Anything else?
It also happens sometimes that the sim 'removes' a ship when certain conditions (which I cannot defined) are met. Usually it happens when there are a lot of ships, or better stated, I tend to notice this in places like San Diego or Norfolk where there are a lot of them present. This might be a system resource limitation, but I don't know for sure. If reset the flight too many times, it seems to me this happens more often, but this has never been tested.
|
|
