It would be very helpful to have the ability to add an updated version of the bing maps aerial as a georeferenced background image. This would be handy when editing airports to match the latest developments.
I agree. Something that allows us to add a custom background image (aerial, CAD file, etc.) for sketching on top of would be an excellent addition.
It would be for reference only and would not be uploaded as part of the scenery.
In my line of work, I do have access to Nearmap imagery and airfield CAD files (pavement, marking, lighting, etc. layouts). Right now, I just eyeball it.
It technically would probably work to create a projectedmesh reference image in another project and copying that section into the xml temporarily.
I’m loosely familiar with projectmesh, and that crossed my mind when typing up my post. Would projectedmesh be available to us in this WorldHub version of the SDK, or only the full one?
As you mentioned, I may try it in my full project then copy those lines from one xml to the other and see what that does.
It’s not supported in sceneryhub mode, and I’m guessing the upload validation would fail, so you would have to remove it from the xml before uploading, but based on everything else that actually shows in sceneryhub mode even though it’s not supported, I’m guessing projectedmesh would show up for you as well.
if I saw it correct on WorldHub we are only allowed to place stuff that is visible on the current satalite image: Login
I feel that moderator comment is ambiguous. It can either mean all the aprons were shifted because different reference was used, or it can mean we’re not allowed to add/remove new aprons, taxiways and runway layouts if it’s different from the aerials. That could need some clarification, because if it’s the latter, we’re pretty much left with only updating taxiway names.
At present, we lack clear indications of what needs to be done. I’m writing some guidances to you guys.
For greater clarity :
Right now, we’re asking for editions that match the aerials in the game, and even more so with photogrammetry enabled.
We’re aware that some of our aerials are obsolete, and we’re considering the situation.
For clarification, does that mean, for example at KYIP, where the aerials are very outdated, they have completely removed one runway, closed another, and shortened the third, replacing part of it with a completely new taxiway, updating it would not be allowed? Because that feels like it only leaves taxiway names, taxisigns and fixing paintedlines.
Here is an example of changes I’ve been working on in scenery hub mode.
current sim default:
Fixed in worldhub scenery editor:
I’m also very interested in an answer to that. I’m trying to edit KRFD and I was planning to add a cargo apron extension that is not present either in the default airport or on the in-game aerial.
Yeap, that’s the kind of example we can’t accept.
We’re discussing this internally to find out whether it’s a definitive rule or not, but for the time being we won’t be able to accept this submission.
I think you should distinguish two things:
Adding new objects or moving existing objects based on different satellite imagery.
- This will cause issues because the items will not be aligned properly with the rest of the world in MSFS and I understand this can’t be approved.
Fixing/Editing properties of existing objects based on external data source (newer satellite imagery, on-site survey, knowledge,…)
- This should (IMHO) be accepted because everything stays consistent in-sim: If a runway is closed, then, that’s it, let’s reflect this state in the sim, no risk of creating inconsistencies with the surroundings.
- Another example: Let’s say we can’t determine if taxiways are lit based on what we can see on MSFS satellite imagery, but a pilot sent me videos of the taxiways: It should definitely be allowed to reflect this in MSFS even if my data source is not the MSFS imagery.
- WorldHub SDK docs says “[…]it’s important to ensure that you have as much
information as possible about the airport(s) which you want to wortk on.
The following links can all help you to find the required details for the
airport(s) that you want to edit[…]” → Leveraging data from external datasources is encouraged, using newer satellite imagery falls in the same bucket.
^ This, a thousand times. World Hub functionality just for fixing AI-generation bugs in outdated aerodromes, without actually being able to update the layouts to match the real-world counterparts is as good as pointless.
Never mind the fact that sticking rigidly to the existing aerials is a largely baseless limitation as adding stuff on top of them will cover them without any visible mismatch. What really bugs me is that it is in direct contradiction to what the manual itself says about using as many accurate sources as possible. Stuff like Navigraph charts, Skyvector etc. stays up to date with the real world. How (and WHY) are we supposed to find the obsolete reference data? And even if we were able to, we don’t even know when the aerial was taken anyway.
If the guideline is to not be able to update the airport layout with runways and taxiways to current aerodrome charts or current reality using the tools available in scenery hub mode, no deviation from older aerials, (in addition to not being able to add objects like apron light masts, no terraforming), it doesn’t feel like scenery editing. It feels like being human replacement for an AI algorithm.
If that is what the project is for, then that should at least be made clear in marketing, because it wasn’t what we as users expected. It feels very pointless to basically only update taxiway names.
Another example: ENSH. Sim Aerials are about 5-7 years out of date. The airport is missing a taxiway, part of an apron, outdated markings. Adding it in the scenery editor is relatively easy.
Ignore the custom buildings in the following shots
Current sim aerial:
Current sim airport:
Edit: Adding ENBO. The aerials have severely outdated apron markings, as the image is from 7/5/2015. The apron parking was completely rearranged and redrawn in 2017-ish. Old lines vaguely visible here when ground merging is turned on.
It would be great if editing wasn’t limited to fixing things only, as many airports have changed over time… thinking of new terminals, taxiways, aprons, and runways at VOBL, VIDP, LYBE, and SPJC.
And of course new airports like LTFM and VOGA.
I had a submission declined because it does not match the aerial, but I know it matches real-world conditions based on Nearmap aerials, and the fact that my company did the new taxiway and runway layouts for this particular airport.
I’m less interested in this World Hub if we can’t match real-world conditions. For consideration, perhaps when uploading a revision to the World Hub for review, additional documents could be uploaded to justify what we are trying to implement (FAA Airport Diagram, Navigraph Chart, Nearmap or other newer satellite imagery, CAD files, photos from the airfield, etc.).
same goes with the decline comment: Satalite Images contains vehciles etc, so we need to add a fake apron ontop of it
Have there been any temporary updates to the satellite imagery?
I opened an airport yesterday and noticed updated aerial images as compared to the previous ones. However, today only the older satellite background showed up.
I have a dev friend who has had issues like that in the last two weeks, where the imagery has been temporarily updated for a few days, at a location in the US.
Another example, in addition to KYIP, ENBO and ENSH above:
Half the airport doesn’t exist in the aerial and there’s even the fun part that the east end of the runway and taxiway has completely missing aerial. By the current guidelines would one even be allowed to fix markings on the east threshold and taxiway? Not to mention the missing half of the airport.
And while I’m in the mood.
Wouldn’t be allowed to edit the default aprons and markings over the missing aerial, I assume?
Sim without aprons drawn: