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