Germany North Part 3 2.0.0

License Agreement - Lizenz

Photo Scenery Version 2

Courtesy of Bing satellite images and hand edited using Paint.Net

Have fun flying over this area.;)


  • Version 2.0.0

  • Now I could identify the tiles that pixelate the naval base Hohe Düne: :-)

    • map_13_88a0_ae60.ttc
    • map_13_88a0_ae68.ttc
    • map_13_8898_ae60.ttc
    • map_13_8898_ae68.ttc

    Unfortunately I am still missing a tile east of it, which I cannot find. :-(

    Is there a grid with all tile names? That would help me a lot and I could name tiles directly to you.

    Bye, Michael (III)

    Edit: the list of tiles has been increased from 2 to 4

  • Hi Michael,

    unfortunately BING (version 2.0.0) pixelates the area of the airfield Rostock-Laage (ETNL), which is also used for military purposes.

    I found out that these tiles are affected:

    • map_13_88b0_ae10.tcc
    • map_13_88b0_ae18.tcc
    • map_13_88b8_ae10.tcc (here is the runway)
    • map_13_88b8_ae18.tcc
    • map_13_88c0_ae10.tcc
    • map_13_88c0_ae18.tcc

    I have hidden the 6 affected BING tiles for testing purposes and instead removed the 6 tiles from the version 1.0.0 -- it works.

    How can we achieve that airports that have been pixelated by BING can be replaced by other photo scenarios in the further creation of tiles? After all, airfields are a central point in the flight simulator.

    I continued my search at the Baltic Sea coast and saw that there the German active military airfields

    - Schleswig-Jagel (ETNS) and

    - derision (ETNH)

    are pixelated.

    The same problem also exists with other locations, e.g. naval bases

    • Rostock-High Dune
    • Neustadt in Holstein
    • Kiel (shipyard only)
    • etc

    It would be nice if we could avoid the thwarts with a reasonable effort and legal templates.

    Is there an easy way to get from geo-coordinates to the affected tiles?

    Bye, Michael (III)

    • You found a work around, good idea, that must of taken you ages to find the effected files?

      Unfortunately both providers offer very poor quality images.

      A long time ago I asked Nick Hod author of "AeroScenery" to add "ArcGIS" server to his software but it has never happened.

      Bye, Michael.

      PS The only other thoughts I have is to make a higher definition say resolution 17 or 18 just for the effected airfields using the better quality images. What are your thoughts?

    • In general I find the highest possible (reasonable) resolution for airfields very good, because I got used to hide the "artificial runways and decals" whenever possible. Because I think the original just looks better.

      Bye, Michael(III)