FSXA Generic building placement

[FlyingAxx]

In the past I did not too much in order to customise the objects I placed on airports. However, a week ago I started to work on a small airport I know quite well and while I tried doing it as good as I can with default objects I definitely failed even with standard hangars when I wanted to use six in a row. I selected one type called "Ridge Roof Building" from the general building catalogue but soon I had to decide to change a bit the size of each.

First negative effect has been that it did not just blow up the textures as I would have expected but the hangar door front flipped first by 180° and in a second try by 90° (or even 270° who knows). After finding a setting that would fit more or less I placed the first hangar (actually I only thought so), copied it five times and placed the copies as exact in a row with the original as I was able to.

I wasn't too surprised that the first building was misplaced by several meters but I don't have a clue why four buildings are standing exactly in a row, but the last two are leaving a gap of about 4m again (probably even more) while standing again perfectly in relation to each other. Finally I selected an other, but similar type in order to complete the hangar complex - it's not really satisfying, though.

I know that it must have to do with the resizing of the object. Now my question: is there any trick regarding changed dimensions in order to avoid surprises like objects "hopping" in unpredictable directions or switching the textures?

 

[Helli]

I selected one type called "Ridge Roof Building" from the general building catalogue but soon I had to decide to change a bit the size of each.

Please tell me how you changed the size of the general building (the method might have an influence on what happened)

Helli

 

[FlyingAxx]

Helli,

I changed the "Ridge Roof Building" (the object name and the "headline" are not consistent, it's actually a hangar) to 23m x 25m in the object properties (width and length are achievable independently). . One side effect had been that the textures obviously "flipped" around the building, dependent on the chosen sizes. Side doors had been shifted to the front etc.
It would be understandable for me if there would have been a discrepancy for each single building as there all are copies, but, four in a row are fitting as they should and then there is a quite remarkable gap to the next one and even a smaller deviation to the side. I wasn't even able correcting the position of the next copy as the behaviour was dependent on the chosen location (it was like trying to align two magnets having the same polarity).

 

[scruffyduck]

Generic buildings in FSX can give many problems both in location and in floating on the ground. I think the only sure way to deal with it is replacing them with Library Objects.

 

[FlyingAxx]

Thanks for the encouragement Jon.

Meanwhile I decided to go a further step as I ordered and made first steps with F1's "Instant Object Studio" (a first impression of Arno was quite helpful to give it a try). I don't have an over-ambiguous approach regarding photo-reality of objects. They only should meet some basic requirements regarding their size and basic functions (an office building shouldn't replace a hangar) and if they are looking a bit like their real counterparts it's okay for me.

I enclosed my very first attempt (one day trial and error) to build a landmark close to EDAZ (which was misplaced in FS) and it is still incomplete -the roof antenna is missing. This small radio tower is quite good visible from far away when approaching the airport.

The real one is here. Left: You might see it at the top left, but still behind the propeller and right: just in top middle in-midst the woods.

Of course it's rather a spot than recognizable... Google Earth was quite helpful in this respect (and a bit of imagination).

 

[scruffyduck]

That looks very nice

 

[FlyingAxx]

Thanks, however, the rest of this evening I tried to add a the object "roofantennamed02" but it ended up that after compilation the antenna is flickering and is covered by the trees in the background.

The XML-code looks like this:
<SceneryObject
lat="52.2142903155709"
lon="13.186143876674"
alt="18.4M"
altitudeIsAgl="TRUE"
pitch="0"
bank="0"
heading="137.718039802754"
imageComplexity="NORMAL">
<LibraryObject
name="{d0b33980-2bda-48cb-b290-b712b4ddc855}"
scale="2.00"
/>
</SceneryObject>

If somebody has an idea what is going on there and how to avoid it, I would be happy.

I think it might have to do with the alpha channel which is used for the lattice work on top of the building. Actually I wasn't keen doing a complete steel construction. Probably I'll try building the antenna instead by using some of the default elements. I'm still in the learning phase (of course). Actually, I'm shuddering when thinking about the airport buildings.

 

[Helli]

Jon is right.
Generic Buildings are excellent for placing buildings quickly and easily in an airport scenery.
But their structures are not so easy.
There is a lengthy but rather complete tutorial in the Wiki of this forum. There you could study the complex issue of Generic Buildings and how to change sizes and textures (via their XML-file).

To determine also their placement behaviour (where you experienced problems) I ran a couple of years ago a lengthy research.
I tried to find a predictable pattern in the seemingly random placement errors by the Microsoft Flight Simulators..
After a few month I gave up - there was no predictable pattern.

I would not go so far as Jon is suggesting, namely to avoid Generic Building.
Because when you learn how to model them by changing, adapting, testing and correcting again their parameters in the XML-file, one can do wonderful things. Much easier - I think - than constructing buildings via GMax or similar 3-D-programs.
I want to show you:
This is a photo of the castle of Neuchatel in Switzerland, which was used as "model".

This is the result of about 30 min. work of generating several Generic Buildings and placing them close to and on top of each other.

In those days (2009), when we discussed Generic Buildings in the forum, a renowned member of
Microsoft's Game Studios, namely Doug Matthews participated.
The following is one of his statements:

"Generic Buildings are a wonderful tool to fill out an area.
Our Data Techs (the team that builds the world we ship)
couldn't do it without them. But Generic Buildings can be
a bit quirky and trying to get absolute control over their
use of textures is not really possible (trust me - I've fixed
a few bugs in the source code)."

Jon is right after all

servus

Helli

 

[FlyingAxx]

Helli, I'll see what I can do. It's again a good hint where to look at. Your Neuchatel example looks great (I'm impressed). I'm simming now well more than a quarter of a century. Unfortunately due to a permanently growing lack of time over the years not really intensively. However, now the aspect of enhancing the stuff has an increasing proportion - and keeps the brain running after the time constrains are gone.

I'll see what I can find. Thanks for the hint.

EDIT: Okay, I got your tutorial... It's really quite comprehensive and I will see how I can use the hints for tweaking the few building types I need (I'm not keen doing all from sketch).

 

[abax2000]

Thanks for this thread, as it was the cause to find Helli's excellent tutorial and resolve most of my problems (as in here http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/gen-buildings.429496/)

Some remarks for the tutorial:

1. In fig. 11,12,13 the top layer (13) is not mapped to a texture number.
2. It is not mentioned that sizes are expected in integer numbers (I believe).

And two general remarks for generic buildings:

1. texture index Y seems not working as expected for Gables higher than 85 (or 1085). Although texture index Z is ok.
2. Gable 2037, when compiled in bgl, causes a FSX crash (g3d.dll). A couple of other 2xxx gables I tried work fine.

Conclusion: having the tutorial by your side, makes the use of generic buildings really easy.

 

[tgibson]

I've never heard of an object being covered up by other separate objects in the background. The inverse is quite common though. If a library object is in FS2004 format and has components that are transparent, then those transparent areas will block the view of other objects behind it. The only thing you can do in that case is convert the library objects to FSX format, using ModelconverterX. Bring up each transparent object (green arrows at top left), choose the Material Editor button, and for each material, choose Set Default Transparent from the drop down box and click Apply. Once finished, use the Export Scenery (not Export Object) and save the library as an FSX format BGL file.

But this doesn't sound like your problem...

 

[FlyingAxx]

Thanks for this thread, as it was the cause to find Helli's excellent tutorial and resolve most of my problems (as in here http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/gen-buildings.429496/)

Some remarks for the tutorial:

1. In fig. 11,12,13 the top layer (13) is not mapped to a texture number.
2. It is not mentioned that sizes are expected in integer numbers (I believe).

You're speaking about textures, right?

And two general remarks for generic buildings:

1. texture index Y seems not working as expected for Gables higher than 85 (or 1085). Although texture index Z is ok.
2. Gable 2037, when compiled in bgl, causes a FSX crash (g3d.dll). A couple of other 2xxx gables I tried work fine.

Conclusion: having the tutorial by your side, makes the use of generic buildings really easy.

Well, unfortunately it's not true for me. I checked the XML and the relative positions of all buildings in the row and there is no significant error visible (distance between two coordinates). The same is true after compiling the stuff (same errors as before) and loading the resulting BGL into ADE. Nothing has changed. That means that the compiler works as it should. Its crazy. I think I'll continue the construction work. BTW, Helli's paper is nonetheless great.

 

[FlyingAxx]

I've never heard of an object being covered up by other separate objects in the background. The inverse is quite common though. If a library object is in FS2004 format and has components that are transparent, then those transparent areas will block the view of other objects behind it. The only thing you can do in that case is convert the library objects to FSX format, using ModelconverterX. Bring up each transparent object (green arrows at top left), choose the Material Editor button, and for each material, choose Set Default Transparent from the drop down box and click Apply. Once finished, use the Export Scenery (not Export Object) and save the library as an FSX format BGL file.

But this doesn't sound like your problem...

Tom, up to now I have no experience with ModelconverterX. I'll give it a try, thanks for the hint. However, the attached picture might show what I mean.

 

[tgibson]

Hi,

No, that's not the same thing AFAIK. It looks to me almost like it was placed as an effect.

 

[FlyingAxx]

Hi,

No, that's not the same thing AFAIK. It looks to me almost like it was placed as an effect.

Hmm, I just tested to place a second antenna right beside the building (without touching it) and after compiling it the behaviour is similar. But, now its late here and I will try out a vague idea tomorrow.

EDIT: I still have no idea what is going on.
1. I placed an other antenna type on the roof resulting in the same effect
2. Other objects, even a pole planted in midst of the building, are visible as they should.

Could this be a material dependent thing?

 

[FlyingAxx]

The shining texture is solved for me by building my own antenna on top of the radio tower. I can't say that the object is perfect or too complex but it's sufficient for me. A picture is enclosed.

Regarding the Generic Object stuff I failed. I constructed now the objects with SBuilderX (it generally works nice, indeed) but failed actually to wrap around the textures the way I wanted to see them. The problem might have been that I changed the size again. However, I build the objects in a row as before and got the same gap between the fourth and the fifth one as before.

My next try will be with self-made hangars as library objects. If this doesn't work I'm sure that it has to do with internal rounding errors of FSX. As far as I understood from Microsoft's SDK they tried to be over-precisely regarding the grand circle calculation by taking into account that the world is an ellipsoid and I'm not sure about the way they did it.

EDIT: The placement of my self-made hangars worked as desired. Five in a row and no gap.
Thanks to all for the valuable remarks.

 

[Helli]

ABAX2000 wrote
Some remarks for the tutorial:

1. In fig. 11,12,13 the top layer (13) is not mapped to a texture number.

Yes, it is strange, isn't it?

The fact is, that this part of the texture is not accessible.
I guess the Microsoft people just never got around to implement this
(or they ran out of numbers )

As I mentioned before (did I?), the purpose of Generic Buildings were to cover the worlds scenery with as many buildings as possible - with a minimum of effort due to the huge required number.
Unfortunately nobody has discovered yet the mechanism, how Microsoft (and its Flight Simulator) is positioning "exactly" Generic Buildings, which are contained in a scenery BGL-file

Helli

 

[abax2000]

Yes, it is strange, isn't it?

The fact is, that this part of the texture is not accessible.
I guess the Microsoft people just never got around to implement this
(or they ran out of numbers )

Now, yet another record in the FSX quirk list (unsurprisingly).

Unfortunately nobody has discovered yet the mechanism, how Microsoft (and its Flight Simulator) is positioning "exactly" Generic Buildings, which are contained in a scenery BGL-file

From my limited experience, using your tutorial, quite acceptable and predictable results are produced.

 

[FlyingAxx]

Yes, it is strange, isn't it?

The fact is, that this part of the texture is not accessible.
I guess the Microsoft people just never got around to implement this
(or they ran out of numbers )

As I mentioned before (did I?), the purpose of Generic Buildings were to cover the worlds scenery with as many buildings as possible - with a minimum of effort due to the huge required number.
Unfortunately nobody has discovered yet the mechanism, how Microsoft (and its Flight Simulator) is positioning "exactly" Generic Buildings, which are contained in a scenery BGL-file

Helli

The most interesting experience in this context for me has been that theoretically those buildings should have been in an equidistant row regarding their coordinates (even after de-compilation). Obviously the appearance in FSX is not necessarily determined by such figures. I'm just wondering how ACES had build some quite big building assemblies without such quirks.