Should The London Autogen Alignment Be This Far Off?

[solareagle 0]

Hi guys,

The product info says the autogen is placed within 3m, but some of this autogen is misplaced by more than that. Is something wrong here or is this how its supposed to look? According to my measurements the autogen is off by 5m on some, like the center item, and as much as 7m on those to the right.

[Andy B. 40]

No there is nothing wrong with the building placement, the same question was raised a few times in beta testing. The base of the objects are placed properly at the base of the building as shown in the aerial photographs that are on the ground. The problem is that the way photo scenery is made as you start getting to the edge of each photo, the camera that took the image is no longer looking directly above the object, so you are looking at it at an angle. The picture you have shown just highlights this issue.

[JamesChams 108]

No there is nothing wrong with the building placement, the same question was raised a few times in beta testing. The base of the objects are placed properly at the base of the building as shown in the aerial photographs that are on the ground. The problem is that the way photo scenery is made as you start getting to the edge of each photo, the camera that took the image is no longer looking directly above the object, so you are looking at it at an angle. The picture you have shown just highlights this issue.

Very well! But could you then realign the photo background to match the autogen? I understand that compromises must always be made but, this just looks too far gone for it to be considered an acceptable solution; especially from a package that's whole purpose is to be visual eye-candy.

[solareagle 0]

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying, but when the autogen item is sitting on only 1/4 of the buidling, and the other 3/4 is hanging out, I don't see how it can be an angle issue, especially when the walls of the buidling are not visible. If the angle is steep enough for the building to appear misplaced by 3/4 it seems to me I would be seeing walls, which I don't on any of the four sides. If that's the way it is, then that's the way it is, though I must say it's not what I was expecting to see after spending $40. Is there any way to get a refund?

[Andy B. 40]

If you move the building so that it covers the bit you can see now, you will just end up seeing the rest of the building instead, and then a whole different load of people will complain that the buildings are not placed correctly again. Horizon cant win which ever way they do it I personally think it looks fantastic.

[reef 0]

If you look carefully at the houses and the large white building you will see you can see walls and windows etc on the right side of the buildings. If you placed your objects to allow for the angle of the shot, you got them on the wrong side i'm affraid and by my reckoning as somone who works on houses, your about 6m-7m out. Its a fantastic product producing an amazing backdrop for low flying so for me this would detract little from the product but is certainly not up to the claim.

steve

[Andy B. 40]

but is certainly not up to the claim.

I'm only a beta tester, but what claim do you speak of?

[reef 0]

Sorry i meant what the Origional poster said about the info claiming objects placed within 3m.

steve

[Andy B. 40]

If you disable the scenery in the FSX scenery library but leave the 60cm photo's of the ground enabled and you then switch to top down view in FSX you will see that the buildings are within 3 metres of the base of the building (not the roof) in the image. Again its very difficult to line up the 30,000 buildings any closer than this. The pictures that make the ground images up are so large that its inevitable that towards the edges its going to look odd, because at one edge the buildings all lean in one direction and at the opposite edge they lean the other way.

[reef 0]

I still disagree these are within 3m but it remains a fantastic looking product no doubt. I'm sure most of the product lives up to the claim of buildings within 3m and is still on my list of purchases to get. When London City Airport gets added it will make for one of the most amazing approaches.

steve

[Andy B. 40]

I cant see how you can comment based solely on what you have seen from a screenshot, especially when you don't even own the product. Once you get London and you see it up close then you will probably change your mind, and actually understand what it is I'm trying to explain to you. There is simply not enough detail in that screenshot to see what is really going on.

[JamesChams 108]

I cant see how you can comment based solely on what you have seen from a screenshot, especially when you don't even own the product. Once you get London and you see it up close then you will probably change your mind, and actually understand what it is I'm trying to explain to you. There is simply not enough detail in that screenshot to see what is really going on.

Fare enough! I guess that 10 or more screenshots will give us all a better picture! But, I make it a policy not to buy things that "appear to be broken" to better experience that for myself... When Horizon gets around to updating it, I'm sure that we will have this discussion again.

[James A 39]

Hi Guy's,

Just a suggestion but what do you get if you turn the slider all the way to the left for Autogen scenery? As the scenery is PHOTO why do you need Autogen anyway? Try it and see what difference you get. One of the differences I found is the increase in frame rates (big style). Another is as you leave the scenery area you don't get either ugly looking anomalies or CTD's. Once you leave then turn up the Autogen again.

I only have two gripe's about the scenery, you can't select EGLW (Heliport) from the Go To menu and when you select EGLL, once it loads you tend to have half your aircraft inside a building!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

We'll ask Horizon to look into this issue. So let's just wait for an answer for that, ok?