• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

ADE-GP Models?

Messages
5,214
Hi,

Well, here come my comments in double dutch then:).
About what Tom said, I already suggested it as a possibility earlier on but I do not know if it really gives the result expected (you guys can type faster than I can).
What I just noticed, putting in another poly on a lower altitude flatten, and changing the layer from 40 to 35, is that, as George said, you get indeed a second mdl (when imported in MCX).
The problem is that the original one incorporates both at the ARP elevation.
I can change the mdl altitude placement of the second one but it is overruled by the first mdl (they have different GUIds but the same name!).
Think I will study this a while longer. It is rather fascinating:).
Next come the texturing possibilities like rotating and the arc drawing etc. Just to let you know we are not there yet but making good progress provided Jon and Don keep up with us PITA'S and do not get sick and tired of all the things we want:D.

PS (so that you know it is me): thank you Don, problem with addon texture solved in 0.0.47. Good luck with the dentist.
 
Last edited:

tgibson

Resource contributor
Messages
11,327
Country
us-california
PS. I assume it is something in ADE that is determining this reference point as being the ARP? Creating ground polys by using MCX or hand editing asm files have no such ARP to start from, AFAIK. I believe they specify a lat and long for that. That does not have to be the ARP.

So I assume this location could be specified separately from the ARP? Again, this would be a feature for version 2, as far as I'm concerned (if it is really needed - not by me). :)
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
34,853
Country
unitedkingdom
Good catch, George. I wondered why the grid was offset from the models, and now I know why. I guess my multiple GP file idea will have no effect, then. You would indeed have to create overlay airports with their ARP's at different locations to get GP objects at different elevations.

That said, you *can* move the ARP in ADE and that will move the reference point of the GP objects (I just tried it). Perhaps this will allow you to specify the point at the airport that will be used to determine elevations?

Hope this helps,

Moving the ARP does nothing much to be honest. That will move the reference point of objects but, of course, the altitude of the ARP will not be changed.

What I could see is something similar to taxisigns which (certainly in FS9 but I cannot recall in FSX) are in groups with a single reference sign and the rest are offset from it.

Certainly in ADE we could define a 'reference point' This would be a separate object in ADE and could be placed as desired by the user. Several could exist. The user would place them over known altitude points. The GP objects in ADE would be modified to include the reference point they should use.

On Compile ADE would collect together the objects for a given reference point and pass them to the compiler. To be honest there is nothing now to stop ADE calling the compiler multiple times and generating multiple Bgl files - one for each reference point. I suspect this would not require any changes to the GP Library but could all be done via ADE since ADE passes the file name.

If y'all think that might work then I am sure I could program it 'quite soon'

This raises some interesting ideas since the user could move a reference point and change the altitude of the assigned GP Objects or even re-assign the GP Objects to a new reference point. A final idea would be to link reference points to flattens.......

Am I talking rubbish?? - let me know
 

GHD

Messages
12,243
Country
england
I think it is overkill Jon, I don't need multi-height polys.

But, Roby might think it is imperative :D
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
34,853
Country
unitedkingdom
We are all cross posting like mad ;)

Polys on top of a building George?
 

gadgets

Resource contributor
Messages
9,388
Country
ca-britishcolumbia
Gent, while "relaxing" in the dentist's chair, I had a an epiphany similar to Jon's.

The GP compiler compiles what is sent to it. If ADE were to send multiple sets of objects separately, the only additional thing the compiler would need is a unique ID for each set to include in the final file name. So, the issue becomes "How do you select the objects to be compiled together?" Jon has suggested one approach. Another, which would not involve the user specifying the reference point, would be, if there are any flattens in the ADE file, to collect all the GP objects over each flatten and reference them to the flatten (mid-point, vertex, it shouldn't matter). Any left over would be referenced to the ARP.

The more important question at the moment is whether or not this is desirable or necessary in the initial release. Since I'm hardly involved from a coding perspective, I'm not going to vote other than to say that if it would hold up the initial release materially, I vote to defer it. Almost certainly, following initial release, we're going to be met with requests for other enhancements.

Roby, you seem to be confusing layer with elevation. Layers control the display order of objects (i.e., which sits on top). It had nothing to do with elevation.

Don
 
Messages
5,214
Jon,

Moving the ARP does not affect its elevation but does influence the visibility of the gp polys (George gave me the clue to find what was wrong with my NSTU as it was over a lower flatten).
I do agree it is overkill for the time being to have more than one reference point.
But it is kind of a challenge to find out how it works and what further possibilities could come up by investigating.
Yep, we have been all crossposting like mad:D and I am not sure if I missed something relevant either. But all the bullsh.t apart, all those comments did solve my problem and probably of the ones to come once Don publishes the beta to use for all.
Wish there had been more people to get involved in it but I think you scared them off:D.
Edit: We crossposted again (how do you manage that from a dentist's chair?)
 
Last edited:

gadgets

Resource contributor
Messages
9,388
Country
ca-britishcolumbia
once Don publishes the beta to use for all.
Roby, what beta are you referring to. If the one to correct the Texture Editor exception, I posted that one (0.0.47) before going to the dentist.

The only outstanding issue of which I am aware is the display issue for George's brilliant idea which I hope to have fixed later today.

Don
 
Messages
5,214
The one you intend for your initial release, Don.
It is ripe for distibution, I think.
(sorry for my double Dutch:))
It is evening here too. Still have to mow the lawn now that we have a dry spell. Will have to put on some warm clothes.
 
Last edited:
Top