In Tucson, Arizona, the rivers are dry. In the SIM they all have bright blue water which really takes away from the environment. There have been a few very nice scenery add-ons that make the area much more realistic but this problem still exists. There are a couple of mods on flightsim.to that are supposed to fix this but they don’t. Maybe they did in the past before recent updates. Is anyone aware of something that will currently get rid of all the water in Tucson and other Arizona areas?
Climate Crisis
Is that a suggestion or a clever remark/joke?
Anyone have a real answer?
This issue has been well-documented in numerous places since 2020 days, e.g.:
This section of the SDK discusses Polygon Objects
" A Polygon object is an object element used to define an N sided area (minimum 3 sides) that you can create to define an arbitrary area in the scene to manipulate in some way. The properties that you assign to the polygon will allow you to do some of the following:
…
- add or remove water
…
Polygon objects come in two “types”, either regular or water and they both have different Properties which can be edited.
…
Water
Selecting this option tells the simulation that the polygon is defining an area of water . Here you can choose the type of water that is to be rendered within the polygon, or you can choose the Exclude option to remove any water from within the area."
So, as I read this, the issue can be fixed, but it is probably a rather time-consuming procedure, and not one that I’ve tried myself.
There is a fix on flightsim.to but only for 2020.
I’ve created a mod on flightsim.to that seeks to address this issue throughout the SW US (and others for Mexico and Australia) that works for both 2020 and 2024. For some reason the Tucson area escaped my attention. I’ll try to get an update out in the next day or so.
Having said that, this is really something Asobo should address. They do have the data. They’re just not interpreting it correctly.
On a related note, the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon needs major work, as it looks nothing like it actually does. The Asobo Colorado River is shallow and has sandbars along its banks. IRL, sandbars are quite rare, and the riverbank drops quickly into deep water. I know this is probably not a project you want or can take on, and Asobo should be the ones to fix it.
Besides the river, many locations within the canyon use uniform generic brown textures, which look terrible and are a big immersion breaker. The Bing imagery looks to be from the fall or spring, when many parts of the south-facing slopes are in shadow, thus the generic textures. It is too bad because the DEM for the canyon is outstanding. Google Earth textures are excellent, with no shadows. I doubt this will ever get fixed unless the Canyon Bing imagery is updated.
I believe the problem, particular with many rivers, is that the hydrology data they use doesn’t match the terrain/mesh data (and/or the aerial imagery). This is especially evident in places like the Grand Canyon, where we have high-res PG overlaid with coarse OpenStreetMap hydrology.
Fixing this at the user’s end is a painstakingly arduous task, not something I’m inclined to do. Removing water is pretty straightforward and can be done with a fairly wide brush/sponge. Altering/adding water, not so much.
There’s a creator on flightsim.to (Boulder) who has done a great job with the Feather and Upper Sacramento Rivers in CA and the Lower Hudson in NY. I can just see how much work went into this, but ultimately they’re relatively short stretches of river compared to the Colorado, even just in the GC.
Yes, water elevation and data like that it probably tricky for an independence scenery creator. I would love to see the Grand Canyon improved in that respect. But, at least, it does contain water and that is accurate! The rivers in and around Tucson do not contain water and seeing them bright blue in the flight Sim is really annoying.
Thanks for your reply. I figured a fix would be a PITA. As I said, all of the Grand Canyon needs to be redone with new ground textures. Not only is much of the south rim in shadow, but the areas that aren’t also have a lack of color. IMO, Google imagery is much better as colors are more accurate and saturated (too much in some areas though), and fewer shadows.