PDA

View Full Version : Bridges in FS2004


Kevin Reilly
July 29th 03, 11:03 PM
Have Microsoft not been keeping up on their Bridge Licensing Fees or
something?

I took delivery of FS2004 this morning (thanks Play!) and in general the
improvements are very impressive, especially in the visuals (Manhattan
looks absolutely gorgeous). However on visiting two of my favourite
flying haunts, the North West of England and Tokyo Bay, I'm compelled to
ask: what the hell has happened to the bridges?

The Runcorn-Widnes bridge, a steel arch type, had been rendered in its
full glory (graphics of the time permitting) in every release of MSFS
back to at least '98 and possibly further. In FS2004 it's been turned
into a generic flat thing bearing no resemblance to its real-world
counterpart.

And as for Tokyo, what have they done with the Rainbow Bridge? Aside
from the loop at one end the structure in FS2004 looks nothing like it.
I just can't understand this. It's been present and correct (again,
graphics allowing) for several versions of MSFS so why drop the model
for something that looks like a reject from a Meccano competition?

What's really ironic is that the tweaks to Tokyo's graphics in general
are magnificent in FS2004; a vast improvement over those in FS2002. I
would go so far as to say they're about the best you're going to get
with autogen scenery, but that bridge sticks out like a sore thumb and
ruins the whole effect.

What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"Apply artificial respiration until the patient is dead."
From a school First Aid examination

Randy L.
July 30th 03, 04:17 AM
Kevin,
I was just flying out of Key West NAS in FS2004, and noticed that while the
highway that runs along the Florida keys is there, in some places the
highway looks like it dips down into the water! In those places it looks as
if the bridge that supports the highway has collapsed. Very strange indeed.

Randy L.

"Kevin Reilly" > wrote in message
...
> Have Microsoft not been keeping up on their Bridge Licensing Fees or
> something?
>
> I took delivery of FS2004 this morning (thanks Play!) and in general the
> improvements are very impressive, especially in the visuals (Manhattan
> looks absolutely gorgeous). However on visiting two of my favourite
> flying haunts, the North West of England and Tokyo Bay, I'm compelled to
> ask: what the hell has happened to the bridges?
>
> The Runcorn-Widnes bridge, a steel arch type, had been rendered in its
> full glory (graphics of the time permitting) in every release of MSFS
> back to at least '98 and possibly further. In FS2004 it's been turned
> into a generic flat thing bearing no resemblance to its real-world
> counterpart.
>
> And as for Tokyo, what have they done with the Rainbow Bridge? Aside
> from the loop at one end the structure in FS2004 looks nothing like it.
> I just can't understand this. It's been present and correct (again,
> graphics allowing) for several versions of MSFS so why drop the model
> for something that looks like a reject from a Meccano competition?
>
> What's really ironic is that the tweaks to Tokyo's graphics in general
> are magnificent in FS2004; a vast improvement over those in FS2002. I
> would go so far as to say they're about the best you're going to get
> with autogen scenery, but that bridge sticks out like a sore thumb and
> ruins the whole effect.
>
> What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
> the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
> difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
> only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
> butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.
>
> --
> Kev
> __________________________________________________ ________________________
> "Apply artificial respiration until the patient is dead."
> From a school First Aid examination
>

henri Arsenault
July 30th 03, 08:54 PM
In article >,
Kevin Reilly > wrote:


> What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
> the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
> difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
> only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
> butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.

Ha that's nothing, the Coronado Bridge in San Diego is not there at all!

I went to a few places I know, and here is what I found.

Th coastlines are generally better defined. The Coronado Bridge in San
Diego is missing, but the Coronado hote, San diego Convention Center,
Marriott Marina Hotel and so on are all there. The surroundings of the
Los Angeles Airport are better defined that in FS2002, for example the
cloverleaf for 405 near the airport is there, as well as the road
through the airport to Marina Del Rey. San Francisco looks OK, Stanford
University is still not there, but the bridges are.In Montreal, the
Jacques Cartier Bridge is fully defined, the other bridges look generic.
Mount Royal looks like a small hill, but the Oratory is still on the
top, and the Olympic Stadium is there. The Quebec City bridges are there
as generic flat bridges, but the bend in the Chaudiere River where it
enters the St laurence is in the wrong place. There is no road to the
airport, presumably people are supposed to get there by skidoo or dog
sled...

I have only spent a short time with the simulation so far, and I like
the new features like the movng map display. I haven't had time to play
much with the ATC much, but that is supposed to be improved as well; the
command to show a line to the parking lot has been removed because now
there are signs along the ways like in real airports, but I wish they
still had it.

The game is plenty smooth on my 2 gHz system with Radeon 8500 at 1028
resolution and everything pretty much near the max. The clouds look
great, I haven't tried the rain yet, which is supposed to be improved.

Henri

Walt Bertram
July 31st 03, 02:30 AM
Of course, I meant to say

"FS2002 had none"

Walt Bertram wrote:
>
> FS98 and FS2000 had one or more patches. FS2004 had none.
>
> Icebound wrote:
> >
> snip
> >
> > MS has not been known to patch their flight sim versions.
> >

Skyhawk
July 31st 03, 04:55 PM
Henri,

You are in luck! The progressive taxi (magenta) line can be accessed
through the ATC dialog box after contacting ground control. After the taxi
instructions are received, an option appears for the progressive taxi, hit
the 1 key and the line appears. Good Flying!
"henri Arsenault" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Kevin Reilly > wrote:
>
>
> > What bothers me is that of the mere half dozen or so places I tried with
> > the new version, two have shown these glaring bridge problems. I find it
> > difficult to believe that in one session I just happened to pick the
> > only two locations where this has been done. There must be more, surely?
> > I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed or notices any more
> > butchered bridges in FS2004, famous or otherwise.
>
> Ha that's nothing, the Coronado Bridge in San Diego is not there at all!
>
> I went to a few places I know, and here is what I found.
>
> Th coastlines are generally better defined. The Coronado Bridge in San
> Diego is missing, but the Coronado hote, San diego Convention Center,
> Marriott Marina Hotel and so on are all there. The surroundings of the
> Los Angeles Airport are better defined that in FS2002, for example the
> cloverleaf for 405 near the airport is there, as well as the road
> through the airport to Marina Del Rey. San Francisco looks OK, Stanford
> University is still not there, but the bridges are.In Montreal, the
> Jacques Cartier Bridge is fully defined, the other bridges look generic.
> Mount Royal looks like a small hill, but the Oratory is still on the
> top, and the Olympic Stadium is there. The Quebec City bridges are there
> as generic flat bridges, but the bend in the Chaudiere River where it
> enters the St laurence is in the wrong place. There is no road to the
> airport, presumably people are supposed to get there by skidoo or dog
> sled...
>
> I have only spent a short time with the simulation so far, and I like
> the new features like the movng map display. I haven't had time to play
> much with the ATC much, but that is supposed to be improved as well; the
> command to show a line to the parking lot has been removed because now
> there are signs along the ways like in real airports, but I wish they
> still had it.
>
> The game is plenty smooth on my 2 gHz system with Radeon 8500 at 1028
> resolution and everything pretty much near the max. The clouds look
> great, I haven't tried the rain yet, which is supposed to be improved.
>
> Henri

Kevin Reilly
August 2nd 03, 12:42 AM
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 henri Arsenault wrote:

>Ha that's nothing, the Coronado Bridge in San Diego is not there at all!

I've seen this for myself, now. It's not the only one, either.

Thanks to Henri and all who responded on this point. I hadn't been
keeping tabs on the FS web-based forums so I had no idea this was such a
well-documented problem. I've now looked at a few forums and websites
and it really does seem to be fairly major.

What's curious is that now I've come to examine the Tokyo bridge issue
in detail, and looked at the FS2004 model more closely, the actual
TOPOLOGY of the new model is really OK. In fact it's arguably closer to
the real thing thanks to the increased polygon count. However the
GEOMETRY of it is way off. If this really is a pseudo-autogen model it
looks almost to my untrained eye as though the 'anchor points' (or
whatever the technical term is) have been put in slightly the wrong
place.

I've uploaded some comparison photos to the gallery at the following
website

http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004

and it seems to me that if the bridge towers were placed closer to the
bay coastlines like their real-world counterparts all of the other parts
of the structure would 'stretch' into place. It would look almost spot
on.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in FS scenery construction could take
a look and let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree on this issue.

What interests me further is that we have dozens of bridges reported
missing in action, yet the first page of the gallery link above shows,
among other things, an EXTRA bridge where there shouldn't be one. And
it's a fairly complex model as well, almost as though it's been
specifically designed to go somewhere and ended up somewhere else. Does
anyone recognise it, and perhaps know where it should be in the real
world?

You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have several
reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be, and at least
one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests to me that many
of the bridge problems could well be down to simple *typos* in the
scenery database. Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the
wrong type could be explained by this, if generic bridge types are
defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and the flag is wrong.

Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6?
As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation. If I'm
way off target, please let me know.

Because the way I see it, if these are simple database errors rather
than complex modelling errors, they should be relatively straightforward
to fix. Certainly more straightforward than defining exclude files and
designing models from scratch which is, I believe, the way scenery
problems are normally tackled.

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"If you won't tell me who told you that, it's not worth the paper it's
written on." Malcolm Rifkind

Captain Krunch
August 4th 03, 06:45 PM
Kevin Reilly > wrote in message >...

> You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
> bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have several
> reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be, and at least
> one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests to me that many
> of the bridge problems could well be down to simple *typos* in the
> scenery database. Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the
> wrong type could be explained by this, if generic bridge types are
> defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and the flag is wrong.
>
> Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6?
> As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation. If I'm
> way off target, please let me know.

I strongly believe you are right. Why? Because of what I have found
with regards to the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway near New Orleans. The
Causeway, at 24 miles long, is the longest bridge in the world - but
it doesn't show up over the waters of Lake Pontchartrain in FS2004.
Yet, the bridge *does* show up, over *land*, moved exactly 24 miles
north of where it should be! It's as if it hop-scotched over itself.

Is this a lat/long problem? Or is it a bit more complex? If it's
some sort of toggle in the code or database, it would explain why the
bridge is there, but not where it should be. So I would tend to agree
with you on your conjecture.

Krunch

Skyhawk
August 5th 03, 03:03 AM
Flight Sim Friends,

Another area to look at is Tampa/ St.Pete. In "real" life are three bridges
from Tampa across Tampa Bay to St.Pete/Clearwater. The bridges vary in
length but all are around 5-7 miles long. The first mile or so is over land
jutting into the bay. This area is portrayed in FS 2004 but the bridges are
no there. Try a flight out of KTPA, use RWY 18R and make a right turn after
departure to see what I mean. So what is everyone's guess? Will MS issue a
patch for the obvious problem? Also, why is all of the water aqua in color?
Does anyone know if the beta version floating around had the bridge problem?
I wonder how such an issue escaped MS. Overall, the simulation is GREAT!!!
Good Flying!
"Captain Krunch" > wrote in message
om...
> Kevin Reilly > wrote in message
>...
>
> > You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
> > bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have several
> > reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be, and at least
> > one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests to me that many
> > of the bridge problems could well be down to simple *typos* in the
> > scenery database. Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the
> > wrong type could be explained by this, if generic bridge types are
> > defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and the flag is wrong.
> >
> > Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6?
> > As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation. If I'm
> > way off target, please let me know.
>
> I strongly believe you are right. Why? Because of what I have found
> with regards to the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway near New Orleans. The
> Causeway, at 24 miles long, is the longest bridge in the world - but
> it doesn't show up over the waters of Lake Pontchartrain in FS2004.
> Yet, the bridge *does* show up, over *land*, moved exactly 24 miles
> north of where it should be! It's as if it hop-scotched over itself.
>
> Is this a lat/long problem? Or is it a bit more complex? If it's
> some sort of toggle in the code or database, it would explain why the
> bridge is there, but not where it should be. So I would tend to agree
> with you on your conjecture.
>
> Krunch

DAS BOOT
August 6th 03, 01:25 AM
Skyhawk > wrote in message
...
> Flight Sim Friends,
>
> Another area to look at is Tampa/ St.Pete. In "real" life are three
bridges
> from Tampa across Tampa Bay to St.Pete/Clearwater. The bridges vary in
> length but all are around 5-7 miles long. The first mile or so is over
land
> jutting into the bay. This area is portrayed in FS 2004 but the bridges
are
> no there. Try a flight out of KTPA, use RWY 18R and make a right turn
after
> departure to see what I mean. So what is everyone's guess? Will MS issue
a
> patch for the obvious problem? Also, why is all of the water aqua in
color?
> Does anyone know if the beta version floating around had the bridge
problem?
> I wonder how such an issue escaped MS. Overall, the simulation is
GREAT!!!
> Good Flying!
in ref to bridges being out of wack in FS2004 could this be a national
security type thing?

henri Arsenault
August 11th 03, 07:44 PM
This reminds me of the first time I went to Minsk for a Congress in
1986 under the communist regime. They gave us a map, but almost all of
the important buildings were in the wrong place! But the streets were
OK. I was told that it was to confuse any potential invaders. so if one
wanted to go someplace, one had to ask a knowledgeable person to show
one where it was on the map.

No wonder the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight (there are
those who think it was because of the Pope, and some who even think it
was because of Ronald Reagan; in fact it was because no one there knew
whether he was coming or going).

maybe Microsoft hired one of those Soviet mapmakers...

Henri

Owain
August 12th 03, 06:37 PM
henri Arsenault > wrote in message >...
> This reminds me of the first time I went to Minsk for a Congress in
> 1986 under the communist regime. They gave us a map, but almost all of
> the important buildings were in the wrong place! But the streets were
> OK. I was told that it was to confuse any potential invaders. so if one
> wanted to go someplace, one had to ask a knowledgeable person to show
> one where it was on the map.
>
> No wonder the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight (there are
> those who think it was because of the Pope, and some who even think it
> was because of Ronald Reagan; in fact it was because no one there knew
> whether he was coming or going).
>
> maybe Microsoft hired one of those Soviet mapmakers...
>
> Henri

Remove bridges at http://www.planesimulation.com/

You can then restore FS2002 landmark bridges to FS2004 (USA only for
now). In ceratin cases the FS2002 custom/landmark bridges actually
match the road data (aligned)in FS2004 better!(someone mentioned VTP
points or coastline overlays) The probelm may be that autogen can't
properly make the elevation adjustments from one vtp point to another
and has no "sense" of what road it belongs to. So, weird cyborg
autogen bridges occupy the environment sometimes.

Owain Robinson
http://www.planesimulation.com/

Mark Cherry
September 17th 03, 06:48 AM
In ,
Kevin Reilly wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 henri Arsenault wrote:
>
> What interests me further is that we have dozens of bridges reported
> missing in action, yet the first page of the gallery link above shows,
> among other things, an EXTRA bridge where there shouldn't be one. And
> it's a fairly complex model as well, almost as though it's been
> specifically designed to go somewhere and ended up somewhere else.
> Does anyone recognise it, and perhaps know where it should be in the
> real world?

I'm a month and a half late in coming into this discussion but I've seen stuff
in another NG about it, which you might be interested in. But first....

> You can perhaps see where I'm headed with this. We have at least one
> bridge that's in the right place but the wrong geometry. We have
> several reported cases of bridges that aren't where they should be,
> and at least one that is where it shouldn't be. All of which suggests
> to me that many of the bridge problems could well be down to simple
> *typos* in the scenery database.

That figures. Some unfortunate grunt or, worse still, a sub-contractor <shudder>
probably got the unenviable task of putting all that data together.
Tragically, the E and W keys are right next to each other and such a simple slip
would put a USA-based bridge anywhere between Japan, China or Russia!

> Even issues with bridges in the right place but of the wrong type could be
explained by this, if
> generic bridge types are defined by a flag pointing to a generic model and
the flag is wrong.
>
> Could this be the case, or am I putting 2 and 2 together and getting
> 6? As I said, I know nothing of FS scenery design or implementation.
> If I'm way off target, please let me know.

I don't think so. Last I heard, someone said that, after finding loads of
bridges missing, they'd found a bunch of them stacked one on top of another,
somewhere in Canada!

I sincerely hope this was wit, rather than a genuine observation because that
would, indeed, be comical. Then again, "Software giant releases half-assed
product" wouldn't exactly make the headlines, these days. But, if it did, you
could expect some cheeky suggestions that their marketing catchprase will have
to change to "this is as real as it gets - for 50 bucks".

I was going to say "what are you doing gawping at bridges when you should be
concentrating on flying the plane" and leave it at that but count this as an
instant retraction. Since the tall bridges represent a genuine aviation hazard,
to be avoided, you do need to be looking at the. All sizes of bridge could be
vital landmarks for approaches into to small airfields with no ILS or navaids,
so they all really need to be got right.

Not to mention that you can do things in a sim which you wouldn't do in real
life, for fear of death, disfigurement, or licence revocation <g>. How many of
you out there can honestly say that you've NEVER attempted to fly _under_ the
bridges. And not just the Golden gate, I mean like the ones over the Thames in
central London? >:-{} You'd think that MS has been in this game for long
enough to know that we do things like that, so this problem was bound to come to
light this quickly (give or take the number of postings I've seen from people
who can't even get the damn thing to run at all).

Many thanks to one and all for saving me the cost of entry into this world of
auto-bodge scenery.

--
regards,

Mark

Kevin Reilly
September 20th 03, 02:48 AM
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 Mark Cherry wrote:

>I don't think so. Last I heard, someone said that, after finding loads of
>bridges missing, they'd found a bunch of them stacked one on top of another,
>somewhere in Canada!

It's true. There's a picture of them at

http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004/St_Donat

It looks as though the Martians have landed and are building a new
mothership. Better blow it up before that last piece goes in.

There also seems to be a bridge party going on in Tampa:

http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004/tampa

I'm not sure what's going on in either of those pictures but it sure
looks to me like a bunch of look-up tables have got screwed up.

I know Microsoft are historically loathed to release patches for the FS
products, preferring to concentrate on the next version and let third-
party folk temporarily plug the gaps. But they really ought to do
something about this bridge problem. It really is out of hand.

"FS2004 - as real as it gets (unless you have a favourite bridge, in
which case cross your fingers)."

Actually I'd like to see some of the bridges pictured on that site
implemented in MS Train Simulator. Especially the ones that stop halfway
across rivers and then plunge beneath the surface. Most entertaining.

--
Kev
__________________________________________________ ________________________
"That's what happens when, in cricketing parlance, the wheel comes off and
you can't steer the boat." Bob Willis

Mark Cherry
September 21st 03, 11:40 AM
In ,
Kevin Reilly wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 Mark Cherry wrote:
>
>> I don't think so. Last I heard, someone said that, after finding
>> loads of bridges missing, they'd found a bunch of them stacked one
>> on top of another, somewhere in Canada!
>
> It's true. There's a picture of them at
>
> http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004/St_Donat
>
> It looks as though the Martians have landed and are building a new
> mothership. Better blow it up before that last piece goes in.
>
> There also seems to be a bridge party going on in Tampa:
>
> http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004/tampa

Ta. I've got to go and check those out. Good for a giggle!


> I'm not sure what's going on in either of those pictures but it sure
> looks to me like a bunch of look-up tables have got screwed up.

Easily done.

> I know Microsoft are historically loathed to release patches for the
> FS products, preferring to concentrate on the next version and let
> third- party folk temporarily plug the gaps. But they really ought to
> do something about this bridge problem. It really is out of hand.

Like I said - comical. Do you get the sneaking feeling that they farmed out
the database work to some far-east sweat shop?


--
regards,

Mark


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
address-bots please add these to your database:-







henri Arsenault
September 24th 03, 06:36 PM
In article >,
Kevin Reilly > wrote:

> >I don't think so. Last I heard, someone said that, after finding loads of
> >bridges missing, they'd found a bunch of them stacked one on top of another,
> >somewhere in Canada!
>
> It's true. There's a picture of them at
>
> http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004/St_Donat

If you look closely, all of those bridges are replicas of the old quebec
city bridge (it is missing in Quebec). I wonder why there is more than
one?

henri

Mark Cherry
September 27th 03, 12:44 PM
In ,
henri Arsenault wrote:

> In article >,
> Kevin Reilly > wrote:
>
>>> I don't think so. Last I heard, someone said that, after finding
>>> loads of bridges missing, they'd found a bunch of them stacked one
>>> on top of another, somewhere in Canada!
>>
>> It's true. There's a picture of them at
>>
>>
>> http://idle.thehueys.com/bridges/Missing-Bridges-2004/St_Donat
>
> If you look closely, all of those bridges are replicas of the old
> quebec city bridge (it is missing in Quebec). I wonder why there is
> more than one?
>
> henri

Apparently, bridges are now part of the Autogen scenery. Maybe they decided that
the Quebec bridge made a good 'generic' bridge and it was meant to be used in a
selection of locations but something went wrong in the database and they've all
ended up in the one place!

--
regards,

Mark
mailto -- .- .-. -.- -.-. .... . .-. .-. -.-- {.- -}-.-. --- -- .--.
...- ... . .-. ...- . {-.. --- -} -.-. --- --

henri Arsenault
September 29th 03, 04:20 PM
In article >,
"Mark Cherry" > wrote:


>
> Apparently, bridges are now part of the Autogen scenery. Maybe they decided
> that
> the Quebec bridge made a good 'generic' bridge and it was meant to be used in
> a
> selection of locations but something went wrong in the database and they've
> all
> ended up in the one place!
>
Cantilever bridges of that size are not very common. Until recently, the
Quebec Bridge was considered one of the wonders of the World (it fell
twice while it was being built). Actually I can't recall seeing any
other large bridges of the kind.

Henri

David CL Francis
September 30th 03, 11:21 PM
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 at 15:20:29 in message
>, henri Arsenault
> wrote:

>Cantilever bridges of that size are not very common. Until recently, the
>Quebec Bridge was considered one of the wonders of the World (it fell
>twice while it was being built). Actually I can't recall seeing any
>other large bridges of the kind.

The Forth Railway Bridge in Scotland is a good example. That has been
there for years. Other kinds of bridge are now much more economical for
large spans. Is that bridge there in FS2004? It crosses the Firth of
Forth about 5 miles west of Edinburgh. There is also a newer suspension
road bridge next to it and they should both be there.

Try:

http://www.doughoughton.com/webpage/image/66/a66530.jpg

or perhaps the best

http://netrover.com/~capaigle/Ponts/fortha.html

--
Francis

Mark Cherry
October 2nd 03, 11:00 PM
In ,
David CL Francis wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 at 15:20:29 in message
> >, henri Arsenault
> > wrote:
>
>> Cantilever bridges of that size are not very common. Until recently,
>> the Quebec Bridge was considered one of the wonders of the World (it
>> fell twice while it was being built). Actually I can't recall seeing
>> any other large bridges of the kind.
>
> The Forth Railway Bridge in Scotland is a good example. That has been
> there for years. Other kinds of bridge are now much more economical
> for large spans. Is that bridge there in FS2004? It crosses the Firth
> of Forth about 5 miles west of Edinburgh. There is also a newer
> suspension road bridge next to it and they should both be there.
>
> Try:
>
> http://www.doughoughton.com/webpage/image/66/a66530.jpg
>
> or perhaps the best
>
> http://netrover.com/~capaigle/Ponts/fortha.html


Just as well I read your reply before posting. I was going to mention the Forth
Bridge myself.

Worth pointing out that it's a *railway* bridge only hence the need for the
second bridge.

You can get an idea of the scale of the thing from watching Robert Powell
dangling off it in the '70s remake of 'The 39 Steps'.



--
regards,

Mark

Google