37 replies to this topic

[IBtheSarge]

PiP, on Nov 8 2005, 01:55 AM, said:

lol. I still know the password from when i did EGNL,

So the defaulr airfield there has its own bgl file?

could you not place an exclude over the default airfields airpoirt reference point and have your addons airport reference poin somwhere else outside of the exclusion?

Yep; every airport in FS9 has an associated BGL.  And no, you can't just put an exclude (or anything else) over the default stuff and put the new stuff in.  FS9 will not let you alter default NAVAIDS, comm freqs, airport name, etc.  The only way to get rid of the default stuff and eliminate "Pease Intn'l Tradeport" is to get rid of the default BGL.

Pease Intn'l Tradeport has one ILS with a backcourse; Pease AFB (SAC) has an ILS for both rwy 16 and 34.  FS9 won't even let you take the backcourse out.  You can remove the tick in the box, but as soon as you save the modified BGL, FS9 puts it right back in.  Pease Intn'l Tradeport has a VOR; Pease AFB (SAC) has a TACAN and is named as such; FS9 won't let you change the VOR/DME to "TACAN".

Since I had to remove the default airport and build the reopened airbase, if the default BGL is left in FS9/Scenery, the default runway and ramp area will cause flashing of the textures for the redesigned runway and ramps.  The parking and maintenance areas were adjusted to more accurately present the configuration of Pease AFB when it was active, as opposed to the changes that were made when the Tradeport conglomerate took over.

[PiP]

I might be able to make an installer that moves that file out the way for your end user. with an uninstaller too. probably an afternoons work.

[IBtheSarge]

PiP, on Nov 8 2005, 02:35 AM, said:

I might be able to make an installer that moves that file out the way for your end user. with an uninstaller too. probably an afternoons work.

If you can do that, that would be GREAT.  The same thing is going to have to be done for KPBG and KLIZ; in fact, nearly every airbase on my list to reopen is currently represented by a default BGL containing information that doesn't match up with the data for the airbase.  Those default BGL's will have to be moved to prevent conflicts with the revision and duplicate entries in FS9's facilities data windows.

[Skydvdan]

sarge, on Nov 8 2005, 01:19 AM, said:

Skydvdan, on Nov 8 2005, 01:10 AM, said:

When I say LOD modelling I don't mean terrain.  I'm talking about building different LOD models of the same object based on how far away the object is determines which model is displayed.  Check out this link.
It can be done for scenery too, and from what I seem to be gathering it's not just for GMAX.

Pardon me .... I immediately jumped to the conclusion that you were asking about landclass/waterclass.  Yes; although it's primarily for aircraft (polygon intense), certain sceneries (such as the one TCY is doing) can benefit from multiple LODs.  Ordinarily there isn't a whole lot you can do with a 12 polygon object (such as a building) to reduce the amout of detail presented.

In the case of several thousand polygons (AI aircraft for instance), you can create an LOD that eliminates any of the interior polygons that would be visible at a closer distance, and another LOD that isn't quite so refined in shape for display at a greater distance.  For that 12 polygon object, you can't eliminate anything else without taking away surfaces that have to be there for the textures that are on them.  That's where the designer must know how to manipulate the V1 distance, and keep the object design to the essential polygons only.  If that is done, then there's no need to use LODs for scenery objects.

Remember, too, that multiple LODs are in one package; and the total polygons of ALL the LODs are loaded into memory simultaneously and only the particular LOD is displayed depending on the V1 distance.  My terrain-covered munitions igloos are 39 polygons, but because I wanted the terrain to change as the season changes, there are four versions of that igloo in the package (for a total of 156 polygons).  All 156 polygons are loaded into memory on start-up, but only the 39 polygons for the prevailing season are displayed.  As I have set the V1 distance to 3,000m (about the right distance for an object that size to REALLY be visible), and since there are NO unnecessary polygons, were I to create an LOD with less detail, some surfaces would be missing that would be READILY evident at 3,000m.

By keeping the design to the essentials, and having no unnecessary polygons, the need for multiple LODs to reduce framerate impact is eliminated.  My Pease AFB scenery consists of 8 T-hangars of 118 polygons each, 2 ILS transmitters, a TACAN, control tower, fire/crash/rescue station, chain-link fencelines, operations and support buildings, a terrain-changing "Mole Hole" alert facility, 9 terrain-changing munition storage igloos, 9 hardened/soft alert aircraft shelters, base operations, and a few dozen taxiway/runway signs.  But by keeping the polygon count down in the designs, and using XML to place individual and multiple copies of those objects, the entire scenery is less than 500 polygons loaded into memory.

The evidence is in the framerates -- my system (P4 3.2gHz with 2.0gB DDR dual channel and Radeon 9550 256mB video) is locked at 30 fps.  The only time my actual framerates have ever dropped below 28.7 is when FS9 was displaying really weather.  So the entire design has a framerate impact of -1.3 fps; of course it will be lower depending on how much weather FS9 has to draw and how much AI I put into the base.  But the complete scenery itself has only a -1.3 framerate hit.

Just as an example:  let's go back to that fenceline.  The west side of that enclosure has one leg that is over 3,000' long.  Polygon count?  2.  There's no way to make an LOD that reduces that; to eliminate one side or the other would mean NO fenceline displayed if you were to approach the base from the direction of the polygon that was eliminated for the reduction LOD.

A lot of the "detail" is contained in the textures placed on very basic, low polygon, structures.  And I even lower the amount of system resources required for texture display by using a lot of extended bitmaps (DXT1/DXT3), which means smaller sized files that FS9 has to load as opposed to standard 256x256 or 512x512 bitmaps.

I'm not saying that you need them yet for your current project but you probably won't be making low poly-count models forever.  Eventually you'll have to start making more complex models and the poly count will start to climb.  I'm slowing but surely going that way.  So I'm trying to get it figured out now.  Check out this video to see an example of what I'd like to do.  Do you have any idea of how to do this with FSDS2?

[IBtheSarge]

Skydvdan, on Nov 8 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

I'm not saying that you need them yet for your current project but you probably won't be making low poly-count models forever.  Eventually you'll have to start making more complex models and the poly count will start to climb.  I'm slowing but surely going that way.  So I'm trying to get it figured out now.  Check out this video to see an example of what I'd like to do.  Do you have any idea of how to do this with FSDS2?

Do I know definitively how it was done?  I wish!    But I can take a fair stab at a Wild--Guess, if that's okay.

The first things that disappear from view are the wheels; those are generally 16x1 polygon tubes (with polygon smoothing to get the rounded effect instead of 16 points on a circumference).  So LOD 720 probably eliminated those plus any polygons on the underside (which shouldn't be there anyway, they can't be seen from inside the cockpit or passenger cabin to begin with) plus the interior polygons of the rotating dock; this also eliminates the need to load the textures for those polygons, releasing other system resources as well.  And as the LODs progress outward to 640, 560, etc., even more polygons are removed which can't be seen at those increasing distances.

The concept is the same as making pre-sets for seasonal terrain changes.  The first LOD (800?) is the complete, complex object.  You would then copy/paste the completed object (making a second one right over the top of the original), moving it to one side so you can tell which one you're working on, eliminate the first series of polygons, and use FSDS2's Object Properties, Pre-Sets (lower right corner of the Object Properties window) to set a distance at which the second copy would appear instead of the first.  And you would keep doing that until you had all of the LODs you want to create.  When you've got them all created and the pre-sets identified, you have to overlay all of the iterations of the object directly on top of each other, so there's no difference in the precise location each will appear.

There is a draw-back that you have to consider, and it may work out as beneficial after you complete your design; that's something you would have to specifically test for during beta testing.  In the video, LOD 800 is 718 polygons, 720 = 627, 640 = 543, 560 = 428 (and I'll stop there).  For arguments sake, let's say that you only create those four LODs.  All four of those LODs are in the object package (API, SCA, SCM, BGL, MDL, whichever you use); and when FS9 loads that object for the scenery, it is going to load all 2,316 polygons into memory.  It's only going to display one set at a time, but because of the speed at which you will be going towards or away from the object, it has to have all 2k+ polygons already in memory.  (Remember -- it loads at start-up and then displays based on your location.)  That uses a lot more resources than simply loading 718 polygons and then letting the scale and V1 distance reduce the size of the display until you are beyond the V1 distance, at which time FS9 quits displaying the object altogether.

The greater number of polygons in an initial object (be it a building or an aircraft), the more applicable having multiple LODs will probably become.  Personally, I wouldn't consider using LODs until I start hitting the 1k polygon range; but that's just my "druthers."  I doubt I'll ever hit anywhere near that in my object design, as even 1k polygon objects start jacking up the framerate impact.

The hardened aircraft shelters I made (and I'm working on another version that will be even MORE framerate friendly) should appear as rolled steel or a corrugated concrete appearance on the outside.  It isn't necessary to make 16 runs of 90' x 2' tubes (each tube being 8 polygons) to create that effect.  A flat surface half-tube (8 polygons) with a texture that displays as rolled steel or corrugated concrete, gives the identical visual with 1/16th the number of polygons for FS9 to load and draw, regardless of where you might be inside the V1 distance.

(Lot of info there, probably 99% of it not applicable to the question.  But, that's about the sum total of my knowledge on the LODs, and the proverbial WAG on how it was done.     Hope there's something in there that helps you, or at least points you to an avenue of research.)

[Skydvdan]

Yes.  Next question...where are you getting your textures for your objects?  I imagine that I'll be finishing the International Airport portion of my scenery soon.  I'll then be moving on to the Air Force base.  The standard textures for FS9 just won't do from what I've found.  BTW, there's something wrong with your site's forum.  I cant read the posts.

Edited by Skydvdan, 08 November 2005 - 12:10 PM.

[IBtheSarge]

Skydvdan, on Nov 8 2005, 01:07 PM, said:

Yes.  Next question...where are you getting your textures for your objects?  I imagine that I'll be finishing the International Airport portion of my scenery soon.  I'll then be moving on to the Air Force base.  The standard textures for FS9 just won't do from what I've found.  BTW, there's something wrong with your site's forum.  I cant read the posts.

Re:  Check Six! Forums .... I've got to completely reload the mySQL database and start fresh.  During my "absence" no maintenance was done, and the sites were moved from an unreliable server to a more stable server, and the database went Tango Uniform.  It's on the list of things to do; in fact, the forums will be expanded to include all areas of SargeUSA.  Check Six! and Check Six! Designs will be topic areas in the overall forums.

Okay; as for textures, I'm in hide-and-seek mode for the moment.  I have PSP 7.0 and am slowly working my way through it to be able to create my own textures and any transparent texturing that needs to be done plus night effects.  Until that comes to fruition, however, I use a variety of textures -- fsnova.com for the Nova and NovaGold textures, textures of other designers when they grant permission to use them, and some that are created for me by others who know how to do it already (Taz does all the tail designs on the military AI based on photographs I give him of the actual tails at particular bases).  I also have developed enough skill to be able to use photographs and manipulate them enough to create textures; that's how I got the real-world textures for the Pease AFB maintenance hangars and the control tower.

I do use some of the default textures.  It's an interesting trick sometimes to take pieces of one .bmp for a particular polygon, and a piece of another .bmp for the opposite facing, and come up with an entirely different representation.  But until I can make my own, some of the default stuff is usable.  If you can find some of the shots of the warehouses (military and civilian) that I made, you'll see that most of the texturing is from the default LargeAirport, MediumAirport and SmallAirport .bmp's.

[Skydvdan]

Quote

I do use some of the default textures. It's an interesting trick sometimes to take pieces of one .bmp for a particular polygon, and a piece of another .bmp for the opposite facing, and come up with an entirely different representation. But until I can make my own, some of the default stuff is usable. If you can find some of the shots of the warehouses (military and civilian) that I made, you'll see that most of the texturing is from the default LargeAirport, MediumAirport and SmallAirport .bmp's.

The LargeAirport, MediumAirport and SmallAirport .bmp's are what I've used the most so far for the International Airport.  You seem to know alot more about the ins and outs of FSDS2 than I do.  I'd really like to talk you you more about some of it's features.  Like an issue that I ran into while trying to apply a texture to the front of a hangar last night.  These Hangars.

[PiP]

sarge, on Nov 8 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

PiP, on Nov 8 2005, 02:35 AM, said:

I might be able to make an installer that moves that file out the way for your end user. with an uninstaller too. probably an afternoons work.

If you can do that, that would be GREAT.  The same thing is going to have to be done for KPBG and KLIZ; in fact, nearly every airbase on my list to reopen is currently represented by a default BGL containing information that doesn't match up with the data for the airbase.  Those default BGL's will have to be moved to prevent conflicts with the revision and duplicate entries in FS9's facilities data windows.

theres 2 ways it could be done.

An instaler the copys all the files to the addon scenery folder (or wherever). and renames the stubborn bgl file with a .bkp file extension. To do this I'll need a quick sketch of each page of the instaler.

Or i could just do a small program to patch that bgl only. but I guarentee 50% of your customenrs won't bother using it/won't know they have to/or refuse to let anything mess with there FS9 installation.

without pictures on the pages I would guess that the instaler would add 300kb.

[IBtheSarge]

Skydvdan, on Nov 8 2005, 01:40 PM, said:

The LargeAirport, MediumAirport and SmallAirport .bmp's are what I've used the most so far for the International Airport.  You seem to know alot more about the ins and outs of FSDS2 than I do.  I'd really like to talk you you more about some of it's features.  Like an issue that I ran into while trying to apply a texture to the front of a hangar last night.  These Hangars.

PM me and we'll figure out a more efficient way to exchange information on FSDS2.

As for the hangars, I'm going to make a guess that you're having a problem with the curved roof texture.  DO NOT slap your forehead when you read what follows; I've already done that enough for the both of us (and probably several other designers as well)  

The part of the texture outside of the curvature of the roof is transparent.  The roof itself is an oblong.  When the texture is applied, you only see the curved portion; the transparent part above the curved roof lets any background come through, giving the "appearance" that it's a curved surface.  The top polygon of the oblong roof is a solid color; from the top, that's what you'd see -- the color of the roof to all four corners of the building.  But from the front, back and sides, the transparent part of the texture would give you the appearance of a curved roof.  That method doesn't always work, because it relies HEAVILY on having the correct perspective on the texture that you're going to apply.  If it's off by just a hair's breadth, it's not going to look right.  (One of the default textures has a curved roof texture; don't remember which one it is, but it's a red-and-white checkerboard facing with black outside of the curvature.  The black is transparent, so when looking at a block that you put the texture on, you'll see anything that's above or behind the block you're looking at.)  Depending on who made the texture, black or lime-green are the usual choices for transparent colors (although that's not a rule, just a general convention that texture designers seem to prefer; I plan to use the lime-green for mine).

You can also get the same effect by creating a horizontal tube that sits atop the building, only the upper half protruding.  Then you have to adjust the points of the individual polygons on the bottom half of the tube to line up with the top of the building, giving you the upper half of the tube.  Then texturize the top, front and rear with whatever texture you want to apply, delete the polygons that sit directly atop the building lengthwise (not the end polygons), and join/snap to scale the half-tube to the building.

[IBtheSarge]

First alpha test results in:

1st System -- P4 3.2gHz 800FSB, 2.0gB DDR dual-channel 400FSB, Radeon 9550 256mB video, framerates locked at 30 fps.  General framerates 28.7 - 29.8, low of 23.x when FS9 put up a snow-storm.

2nd System -- AMD 2800 XP, 1gB DDR PC2100, ATI Saphire 9550 128mB video, framerates locked at 20 fps.  General framerates 20.0, low of 17 (reason not specified) but only once; airborne, all over the base on the ground, default video display, 1024x768, 1280x1024 ... no flicker, flash, hump, bump or jump and framerates steady at 20.0 (except that one occurrence at 17.0).

Soon as I polish off the edges, ready for beta testing.

[IBtheSarge]

Scavers, mul, PiP .... get ready, buck-o's!!!!  Had to make a few changes to some of the textures on the objects, but that's just about completed (maybe another 24 - 36 hours).  Then the package will be assembled and ready for delivery.  Hoping for sometime Saturday afternoon/evening.

Let me know if you aren't ready for it yet.

Edited by sarge, 10 November 2005 - 07:51 AM.

[PiP]

sound ok to me, but it will be sunday evening/monday before i can test it

[IBtheSarge]

PiP, on Nov 10 2005, 01:20 PM, said:

sound ok to me, but it will be sunday evening/monday before i can test it

Not a problem; I'd prefer if you guys take your time testing it to make sure we haven't overlooked something.  (I HATE it when people release buggy products and then you have to go get upgrade 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 .... you know? like Microsoft does?  )

I'm looking for framerate impact, texture flashing, object alignments, ATC frequencies functionality, NAVAIDs functionality, and appearance of data in the FS9 facilities data (looking up an airport for runway, frequencies, identity, etc. info).  The more time I give you guys, the better the testing will likely be.  That Saturday target for the beta package is still looking good; notices will be via PM to you.

What do you think of the alpha test results?

[SargeJr3]

sarge, on Nov 9 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

Scavers, mul, PiP .... get ready, buck-o's!!!!  Had to make a few changes to some of the textures on the objects, but that's just about completed (maybe another 24 - 36 hours).  Then the package will be assembled and ready for delivery.  Hoping for sometime Saturday afternoon/evening.

Let me know if you aren't ready for it yet.

Totally rad sarge, Totally can't wait.  I have no school till tuesday then school Tuesday, Wed and half of thursday then i'm off till the following Monday.

Lots 'o time to test

[PiP]

sarge, on Nov 10 2005, 08:16 PM, said:

What do you think of the alpha test results?

i would call it a miracle to get those frames with those cards even without a large addon in the area.

[IBtheSarge]

Because of the success with the alpha testing, I'm going to add three more objects to the Pease landscape .... bulk storage fuel tanks; they'll be east of the north extension (transient parking) near the default fuel tank.


40M Underground Cut-and-Cover bulk fuel storage tank

Now, Question:  do I make it so the terrain changes as the seasons change (as with the munitions storage igloos and the Mole Hole)? or just leave it with a single terrain texture?

Edited by sarge, 11 November 2005 - 05:00 PM.

[IBtheSarge]

mul, scavers, PiP -- check your PM's.  It's up; go get it and test, test, test.  I have a tentative date for testing completion of 22 November 2005.  If we don't run into any show-stoppers, I'd like to shoot for release between the 26th and 30th of November.

Have fun, gentlemen .... and don't forget to check the README_FIRST.txt file on getting rid of the default KPSM.