FSXA Questions About QGIS

[GaryGB]

Are those the ones I worked on or edited? If so, could you point them out. Just to let you know, the darker blue line vectors are the ones I've worked on. The default, or lighter blue are the ones I have not worked on.

I see only (1) Blue color used; at certain zoom levels they appear thicker- or thinner- than nearby portions of Road lines, even if near to KBHM.


I believe we will have to reinstate the SDK SHP2VEC TMFViewer color scheme for all FSX / P3D CVX Vectors to avoid confusion in the future.

Please review the examples of RGB color assignments in SBuilderX I previously presented to you in your thread regarding KATL cited above.


I will review and post precise RGB colors to be used in SBuilderX and/or Google Earth to match RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer for continuity.

I don't understand what you're referring to. I have already aligned the roads around the airport area. Do you mean I need to go back and aligned the RDX vectors again? I don't understand why they're not aligned. What about the FWX vectors. Did you capture the FWX vectors with a screenshot and coordinates? When you say "aligning and editing ALL the roads, do you mean I need to align every road that's in the shp file, even those miles away from the airport? I like to know why the roads I've already aligned are not aligned.

By "editing", I mean your derivation of FWX vectors from RDX vectors that have been already aligned by editing Polygons to create FWX Poly-lines.

If you do not plan to align CVX Vectors more than a specific distance outside KBHM, then your FWX will be derived from those distant RDX vectors.

By the way, there's one thing that concerns me. When I align these vectors, I'm using google earth, not Virtual Earth. I don't think that should make a difference, but I have noticed that when using google satellite, the image would change position slightly after I have made an alignment from a previous zoom, such as 18, 19, or 20. I have it aligned perfectly at zoom 19, for example, and when I zoom to 20, the line vector is off slightly, not because I've moved the vector line but because the image itself has shifted slightly. They also have a bad habit of not aligning their own maps when merging them and using different seasons. They are really crappy about this. But as I've said, the shift in the image is only slight.

Ken.

I assume you use SBuilderX to do your CVX Vector work, and when you refer to 'Google Earth', it shows a Google-api3-Satellite background Map.

You may zoom to various levels while editing, and thus may see a mix of seasons and variable alignment due to Google's tile projection methods.


While technically EPSG:3857 projected, Google "cheats" to locally warp "off-Nadir" imagery to fit into otherwise "on-Nadir" imagery to cover areas.

That may result in slight misalignments at various zoom levels within the same tile source and between different source aerial imagery tile sets.


But I believe your best ultimate goal to save work and achieve better overall scenery quality, may be to plan for alignment and compatibility with MSFS, which uses MSVE aerial imagery at zoom level-21.


While we can access a tile set from Google via SASPlanet that is output at zoom level-21 even if SBuilderX' tile downloader sees only lower zoom levels, it would save work correcting Google alignments by using MSVE aerial imagery for all alignment from the beginning.


FYI: MSFS 2020 displays FSX SDK BGLComp scenery library objects / G-Polys, but not FSX Resample SDK aerial imagery; it also provides all Autogen.

The MSFS Trees and vegetation are a significant enhancement in quality compared to FSX / P3D.


The MSFS Roads and utilities use Open Street Map (aka "OSM") source; the water body data set appears to be a new source created by Asobo, and has become the most precise I have seen available.

However, the water "Hydro" attributes are very subdued, and Village Creek is barely visible on KBHM airfield areas.


I will look at the 1959 Topo map Geographic coverage on ground n Nautical Miles, and shall make a Range Radius reference image for evaluating extent of coverage by custom FSX aerial imagery and terrain mesh.


GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

I see only (1) Blue color used; at certain zoom levels they appear thicker- or thinner- than nearby portions of Road lines, even if near to KBHM.

If I remember correctly, I did set all the road RDX vectors back to their original colors. It was the FWX Freeway traffic vectors that had the 2 color difference. I do this so that I'll know what's been aligned and what hasn't because there are so many of the roads that criss cross over each other. Regarding the thickness of the vectors, it being thinner or thicker, I set the width to match the exact number of lanes I'm working on. If it's a 2 lane, I set the width so that it covers only 2 lanes. If it's a 4 lane, it set it to cover 4 lanes. This is much easier to work with than leaving it at it's default of 50, which is way too wide. Is it okay to do that?

I believe we will have to reinstate the SDK SHP2VEC TMFViewer color scheme for all FSX / P3D CVX Vectors to avoid confusion in the future.

I don't understand what color has to do with it. Are you saying that the color scheme has an effect?

Please review the examples of RGB color assignments in SBuilderX I previously presented to you in your thread regarding KATL cited above.

Okay.

I will review and post precise RGB colors to be used in SBuilderX and/or Google Earth to match RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer for continuity.

That's interesting. I never knew that certain RGB colors had to be used in SbuilderX.

By "editing", I mean your derivation of FWX vectors from RDX vectors that have been already aligned by editing Polygons to create FWX Poly-lines.

What do you mean by derivation? To be clear, I did not use polygons to create FWX traffic vectors. I only used the Line tool to align with the image and select the number of lanes and the direction in the Properties.

If you do not plan to align CVX Vectors more than a specific distance outside KBHM, then your FWX will be derived from those distant RDX vectors.

I'm not sure exactly what area you saw a problem but I've checked my road vector RDX project and noticed that I did not go out as far as I did with the traffic vector FWX. With the road, I only went as far as Roebuck. With the traffic, I went as far as Trussville. So, I guess I need to align the rest of the roads to Trussville.

I assume you use SBuilderX to do your CVX Vector work, and when you refer to 'Google Earth', it shows a Google-api3-Satellite background Map.

Yes, I'm using SBuilderX and google-api3-satellite is the map I've been using. If you think it's better to use Virtural Earth instead, I'll start using it. I don't use it because the images are way too dark and it doesn't allow me to zoom in as close as google earth api3. It will only allow me to zoom in to 19. Since I've already been using google earth api3, should I continue to use it or will it cause problems if I switch to Virtual Earth?

You may zoom to various levels while editing, and thus may see a mix of seasons and variable alignment due to Google's tile projection methods.

I've noticed how the image seems to have been reprojected. Instead of looking straight down, it looks like I'm looking at it at an angle.

While technically EPSG:3857 projected, Google "cheats" to locally warp "off-Nadir" imagery to fit into otherwise "on-Nadir" imagery to cover areas.

That may result in slight misalignments at various zoom levels within the same tile source and between different source aerial imagery tile sets.

I've though about that myself.

But I believe your best ultimate goal to save work and achieve better overall scenery quality, may be to plan for alignment and compatibility with MSFS, which uses MSVE aerial imagery at zoom level-21.

Okay. That seems to make better sense and if it's okay for me to switch back to Virtural Earth. I haven't noticed any shifting when I go from one to the other. But Virtural Earth will not allow me to zoom to a level of 21. I can only go to zoom level 19. Why is that?

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

If I remember correctly, I did set all the road RDX vectors back to their original colors. It was the FWX Freeway traffic vectors that had the 2 color difference. I do this so that I'll know what's been aligned and what hasn't because there are so many of the roads that criss-cross over each other. Regarding the thickness of the vectors, it being thinner or thicker, I set the width to match the exact number of lanes I'm working on. If it's a 2 lane, I set the width so that it covers only 2 lanes. If it's a 4 lane, it set it to cover 4 lanes. This is much easier to work with than leaving it at it's default of 50, which is way too wide. Is it okay to do that?

[EDITED]

I have posted below, RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer as a reference for CVX Vector color assignment in SBuilderX and/or Google for continuity:


Airport Boundaries = FLX ( R-198, G-200, B-0 )

Hydro Polygons = HPX = ( R-1, G-19, B-225 )

Streams = STX = R-1, G-162, B-255

GPS Hydro Polygons = HGX = ( R-?, G-?, B-? ) < To Be Determined >

Roads = RDX = ( R-192, G-0, B-0 )

Freeways = FWX = ( R-1, G-162, B-255 )

Utilities = UTX = ( R-192, G-192, B-192 )

Shorelines = HLX = ( R-192, G-192, B-0 )

Railways = RRX = R-63, G-64, B-0

Parks = PKX = ( R-0, G-128, BB-0 )

Exclusions = EXX = ( R-1, G-282, B-255 )


For more information on default CVX Vector object GUIDs etc., see:

https://prepar3d.com/SDKv6/sdk/world/terrain/terrain_overview.html#The Shp2Vec Tool

[END_EDIT]

I don't understand what color has to do with it. Are you saying that the color scheme has an effect?

No; we simply want to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer colors to avoid confusion and allow viewing CVX BGL files for this project in TMFViewer.

That's interesting. I never knew that certain RGB colors had to be used in SBuilderX.

You do not have to use certain RGB colors for CVX Vectors; we are choosing those colors to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer.

What do you mean by derivation? To be clear, I did not use polygons to create FWX traffic vectors. I only used the Line tool to align with the image and select the number of lanes and the direction in the Properties.

We save work when we derive the FWX vectors from already aligned RDX vectors; the derived Poly-lines can be aligned to proper Road positions.

IMHO, to save work, we should first: align RDX CVX Vector Poly-lines; then edit derived FWX to match aerial imagery via copy / paste / edit / move

So, align RDX Poly-line > Copy / Paste > Edit attributes of derived Poly-line to FWX > Edit direction type > Move into proper position for Road lanes

I'm not sure exactly what area you saw a problem but I've checked my road vector RDX project and noticed that I did not go out as far as I did with the traffic vector FWX. With the road, I only went as far as Roebuck. With the traffic, I went as far as Trussville. So, I guess I need to align the rest of the roads to Trussville.

Refer to the Topo I posted above; note that the distance from KBHM Terminal center to the top of the Topo map is 7km (3.779688 Nautical Miles).

Decide what Radius you wish to match to IRL.

Yes, I'm using SBuilderX and google-api3-satellite is the map I've been using. If you think it's better to use Virtual Earth instead, I'll start using it. I don't use it because the images are way too dark and it doesn't allow me to zoom in as close as google earth api3. It will only allow me to zoom in to 19. Since I've already been using google earth api3, should I continue to use it or will it cause problems if I switch to Virtual Earth?

If visibility is better to get work done using Google imagery, continue with that; we can fine tune mis-alignments later with MSVE loaded instead.

Okay. That seems to make better sense and if it's okay for me to switch back to Virtual Earth. I haven't noticed any shifting when I go from one to the other. But Virtual Earth will not allow me to zoom to a level of 21. I can only go to zoom level 19. Why is that?

Different software configurations that access different cached tile servers online yields different caps on zoom levels.

SASPlanet (and perhaps QGIS' tile server ?) may access / output either native zoom level-21, or can up-sample zoom level-19 as zoom level-21.

Zoom level-21 aerial imagery loaded into SBuilderX from disk may improve viewed Map resolution, and may be used to make FS2Kx PR LC imagery.


However, if FSX scenery is loaded into MSFS 2020, FS2Kx SDK Resample PR LC imagery and terrain mesh BGLs do not display, thus are not needed.

Custom Autogen annotations of FS2Kx SDK Resample PR LC imagery BGLs also do not display in MSFS 2020, thus are not needed.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

[EDITED]

I have posted below, RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer as a reference for CVX Vector color assignment in SBuilderX and/or Google for continuity:

Thanks Gary for the RGB colors as a reference for the CVX vectors. I'll assign them as shown.

No; we simply want to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer colors to avoid confusion and allow viewing CVX BGL files for this project in TMFViewer.

Okay, I understand now.

You do not have to use certain RGB colors for CVX Vectors; we are choosing those colors to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer.

Got it.

IMHO, to save work, we should first: align RDX CVX Vector Poly-lines; then edit derived FWX to match aerial imagery via copy / paste / edit / move

So, align RDX Poly-line > Copy / Paste > Edit attributes of derived Poly-line to FWX > Edit direction type > Move into proper position for Road lanes

I think I understand. When I did each project, I was appending the RDX and FWX into SbuilderX as a separate project, one at a time. Using the copy / past, edit, and move might be much quicker and the FWX should line up perfectly with the RDX.

Refer to the Topo I posted above; note that the distance from KBHM Terminal center to the top of the Topo map is 7km (3.779688 Nautical Miles).

I remember seeing that map but I can't remember in which post you posted it. You probably linked it.

Decide what Radius you wish to match to IRL.

Do you mean from that Topo map you've posted or linked?

If visibility is better to get work done using Google imagery, continue with that; we can fine tune mis-alignments later with MSVE loaded instead.

Virtual Earth is okay and if it's quicker and less work, I can go ahead and use it now rather than having to come back later and align them.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Do you mean from that Topo map you've posted or linked?

Yes.

[EDITED]

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/questions-about-qgis.460216/post-935708

[END_EDIT]


BTW: Do you have versions of the ANG Facility 3D models you plan to use for the KBHM Historical version yet ?

If not, no problem; but it would be a good idea to do a test of MSFS 2020 at KBHM and identify what you may wish to add or otherwise change for an IRL non-Historical version.

If you have KBHM terminal and any other 3D models placed already for the Historical version in FSX, we can do a test of display for those legacy file format objects within MSFS to see how and where they render compared to FSX, and I can plan needed terrain changes for MSFS 2020.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

BTW: Do you have versions of the ANG Facility 3D models you plan to use for the KBHM Historical version yet ?

No, I haven't created a 3D model for the ANG from the 1970s. I didn't have any photos of the hangars from that time, but I can check and compare to see if the same hangars still exist. I only have current models of the ANG facility, that is, the hangars, that I created for MSFS2020 a few years ago.

If not, no problem; but it would be a good idea to do a test of MSFS 2020 at KBHM and identify what you may wish to add or otherwise change for an IRL non-Historical version.
If you have KBHM terminal and any other 3D models placed already for the Historical version in FSX, we can do a test of display for those legacy file format objects within MSFS to see how and where they render compared to FSX, and I can plan needed terrain changes for MSFS 2020.

I saved the 3D models I created for KBHM 1970. Let me see if I can zip them and post it here or MediaFire.

Ken.

 

[kmanning]

Hi Gary,

Any particular format you want from the models?

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

A ZIP file on MediaFire.com that is linked to this thread should work; feel free to attach the link to a DM if you prefer to keep your 3D models private.


As to the 3D models, if you have them mapped with texture Materials and placed as FS Scenery Library Objects in project folder chains, that is ideal.

A mix of FS9, FSX, P3D, MSFS 2020 or 2024 add-on formats will not likely matter, as AFAIK, MCX should allow for a fairly easy process of conversion.


Sketchup projects that are- / can be- Geo-located such as *.SKP or a Sketchup Google *.KMZ are preferred if 3D models are still only a 'W.I.P.'.


But any mix of files in various 3D model exchange formats with- / without- any mapped texture Materials not yet in FS2Kx or MSFS format are OK too.


If a mix of files in various 3D model exchange formats, Collada *.DAE would be preferable over *.OBJ to avoid 'enforced triangulation' ...if available


As to any KBHM 3D models in *.OBJ that you have not yet removed triangulation from, I may be able to show you Sketchup plugins to help in doing that.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

A ZIP file on MediaFire.com that is linked to this thread should work; feel free to attach the link to a DM if you prefer to keep your 3D models private.

Okay.

As to the 3D models, if you have them mapped with texture Materials and placed as FS Scenery Library Objects in project folder chains, that is ideal.

I have all my scenery projects saved in a my Scenery Project folder and they also include the textures.

Sketchup projects that are- / can be- Geo-located such as *.SKP or a Sketchup Google *.KMZ are preferred if 3D models are still only a 'W.I.P.'.

I have them manually Geo located.

If a mix of files in various 3D model exchange formats, Collada *.DAE would be preferable over *.OBJ to avoid 'enforced triangulation' ...if available

Most of them are both DAE and KMZ, except for those in Blender. By the way, when you open those for Blender, be sure you use Blender 3.1 because this is the original version I've used and they may not open in other versions. If you double click a file, Blender will open but you may not see anything. Drag and drop it into Blender 3.1.

As to any KBHM 3D models in *.OBJ that you have not yet removed triangulation from, I may be able to show you Sketchup plugins to help in doing that.

I may have a project that is in .obj format but I don't know how triangulation relates to .obj files. I didn't even know triangulation had anything to do with .obj file. I would like for you to show me plugins that remove triangulation at a later time.

I have the projects ready and I should have the links for you in a couple of hours by PM.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

I'll be on the road for a few more hours, and will check on this thread / DM's later.

UPDATE: I have now downloaded the files via your DM links provided.

Clearly you have been "busy", and may already have all the needed KBHM historic airfield buildings.


I am also checking to see how best to provide for the buildings in 1970's Meadwood Heights after the terrain extensions are ready to be tested.


Do you have the designated previously cited Geo-located B+W historic aerial imagery BMP of KBHM imported in Sketchup onto sliced flat ground plane Polygon(s) that can be used for tracing footprints of buildings in Meadwood Heights using Sketchup's drawing tools ?

If not, I'll look into getting such a Sketchup *.KMZ project to you ASAP.


Otherwise, perhaps Arno has the ability to work with B+W aerial imagery in ScenProc to save us some manual labor making Autogen for a FSX scenery version of historic KBHM ?


Alternatively, MSFS 2020 can display most custom FSX 3D objects and provide aerial imagery, Biomes ("Autogen"), and modifiable terrain mesh.


IMHO, the future direction of your KBHM project depends on your decision as to whether you are ready/willing/able to do the work FSX requires.


Considering MSFS 2020 can require less work, and the fact that it is vastly superior in visual quality to FSX, do you prefer FSX due to AI Traffic issues ?

GaryGB