FS2004 Autogen disappear near airport ground polygon

#1
Hi all,
I'm figuring out with a new problem of my scenery . I created airport base photos with ground polygon method (export with fs2k2 gamepack) . I also used "Photo scenery marker" program to make a photo scenery . Of course the default autogen would probably be disappeared due to both things that i mentioned .
Then i tweaked these ground polygon files with the code :
Code:
    INSTANCE_CALL   OBJECT_0_RETURN, 0, 0, 0
Next, using Annotator in Autogen SDK to re-create trees, buildings . However, there were still missed the amount of autogen around my airport . Please check my attached photos .

Whats wrong with me :(
Thanks for reading and all comment are welcomed :)
 

Attachments

#3
Hi!

We have also encountered this isssue in our last project. Than we solved it with custom objects placed with xml (so not as autogen) on the area where autogen was killed (we call it moon surface).

We are working now on a different airport, this time we created the BG with Arno's wonderful ModelconverterX BG wizzard. We realised with this method the autogen is not killed around the BG. I do not know if Arno specificaly did something to prevent autogen exclusion or we had just luck with this airport but I recommend to you to give a try.
 
#4
@Tejal Bernardo : I've used ADE to excluded stock airprot's buidling and taxi signs by deleting them . That's all i have done with ADE

@tsgucci : i didn't use ModelconverterX from Arno, and does it work on FS9 :confused: I also think about some of my objects try to exclude the autogen but i just check with these ground polygon files which were used fs2k2 tweak method (INSTANCE_CALL) . For other 3D objects, i dont know how to check .

:confused::confused::confused:
 
#5
Hi!

MCX works fine for FS9 ground poly wizzard as well. We use it as it is much easier to handle as tweaking asm files.

If your objects are excluding the autogen (which I do not think) you can test it easily. Delete all bgl's which are containing the objects, just leave your ground poly file and check whether the autogen is excluded or not. You can do the other way around, delete the GP files and leave the objects file in.
Be careful! Sometimes we realised that autogen is not always excluded. If you re-load the scenery sometimes it is excluded sometimes not, but the majority is that its dissapears.
 
#6
this is an old problem with ground poly excluding the autogen, it's not ?, by the little I have read about the issue.
I think MCX had something to fight this problem, sorry but I can't help too much about this.
 
#7
Hi!

MCX works fine for FS9 ground poly wizzard as well. We use it as it is much easier to handle as tweaking asm files.

If your objects are excluding the autogen (which I do not think) you can test it easily. Delete all bgl's which are containing the objects, just leave your ground poly file and check whether the autogen is excluded or not. You can do the other way around, delete the GP files and leave the objects file in.
Be careful! Sometimes we realised that autogen is not always excluded. If you re-load the scenery sometimes it is excluded sometimes not, but the majority is that its dissapears.
Hi,
I've just downloaded MCX . I have a question, when i use fs2k2 method, i export each layer of ground polygon separately (airport base, apron, taxiways, taxiline ...) then i set number of layer for them (by tweaking the asm files). But with MCX, it is possible to export all of my layer from gmax into a unique file, then put it on MCX, so that i have to set the number of layer later ?
I deleted all my bgl files as your advice, and then i found that my ground polygon files didn't conflict to autogen . Thus i thought the cause is my 3d objects . How can i manage these files so as not to exclude autogen ?
Regards
 
Last edited:

arno

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#8
Hi,

You might want to try if the autogen comes back when you disable your ground polygon BGL. Just to make sure they are excluding them.

In the ModelConverterX ground polygon wizard you can set the layer you want for each texture. So you can just export all your polygons to one file and then set the layers in the wizard.
 
#9
Hi Arno,
Thanks for the reply . I've checked and found that my effect lights which were contained the large bounding boxes, were the cause of excluding my autogen ;) Then i have resized them smaller and i got autogen again :D
I've also used MCS for re-creating my ground polygon files and everything is okay . However, my taxilines with loft method had a problem with Ground polygon wizard . I couldn't export them completely and they were displayed in FS with several parts, not at all . I think maybe my taxilines were too many for exporting with fs2k4 gamepack .
I'm figuring it out
 

arno

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#10
Hi,

Might be a problem with many vertices, I'll see if I have a complex file to test it with.

Send from my phone using Tapatalk, so excuse the short sentences and possible typos
 
#11
Thanks Arno, yes you were right, i think taxilines might contain too many vertices, then i exported them separately and it worked .
More question : how can i mange a visibility of 3D object ??? I often export them and use MDL Tweaker to remove shadow, but i don't know how to set visibility for them as i have done with ground polygon via fs2k2 gamepack :confused:
 

arno

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
#12
Hi,

You would need levels of detail to control the visibility of mdl objects. You can't set a distance like in fs2002.

Send from my phone using Tapatalk, so excuse the short sentences and possible typos
 
#13
Hi,

You would need levels of detail to control the visibility of mdl objects. You can't set a distance like in fs2002.

Send from my phone using Tapatalk, so excuse the short sentences and possible typos
Hi Airno,
Thanks for quick reply . How stupid I am, can you show me the way to set LOD for my 3D objects ? Is it contained in FS2k4 gamepack ?
 
#14
The way I "do" LODs for making basic AI aircraft is to create a model as I want the user to see it close-up - with all details like aerials etc. I group everything together and call it something like Aircraft_LOD_100.

I clone that model and ungroup everything, and I hide the Aircraft_LOD_100 model so as to clear out the workspace. I then take off all the details that won't be visible at this level of detail (small wing steps, aerials, exhaust pipes etc) and re-group the objects, this time calling them Aircraft_LOD_090.

I clone that model and again ungroup everything, and I hide the Aircraft_LOD_090 model so as to clear out the workspace. I then look for larger parts of the model that I can optimise, such as simplifying a fuselage shape, wheel spats, prop spinner and blades - anything that creates lots of polygons at full detail. When that is done I re-group the objects, this time calling them Aircraft_LOD_050.

I clone that model and again ungroup everything, and I hide the Aircraft_LOD_050 model so as to clear out the workspace. This time, to avoid even more repetition, I'll skip to the "paper plane" part of the LOD model. For this ultra-simple model I draw new boxes or pyramids to take the place of the original aircraft components. Three boxes each the same size as the tailfin, tailplane, mainplane, and a 4 sided pyramid for the fuselage. I stretch the pyramid to be roughly the same height and length as the fuselage. I take off all the sides of these boxes to save a few polygons, and also angle the boxes very slightly to avoid them vanishing entirely if the aircraft is seen head-on. I then remove everything that was in LOD_050 (leaving the "proper" LOD_050 model that we have temporarily hidden), because I was only using those parts to assess the scale of the new boxes I was making for the bottom LOD. When that is done I group the boxes and the pyramid, this time calling them Aircraft_LOD_010. This rather ugly model won't ever be seen closely, because LOD_010 means it only appears at a distance, and costs almost nothing in FPS loss.

I then unhide Aircraft_LOD_100, Aircraft_LOD_090 and Aircraft_LOD_050 and get a messy looking thing on screen that I then export as a single model. In the sim, the LODs switch in according to the numbers I gave them. I assume that the numbers refer to percentages. Call part of a model Aircraft_LOD_090 and I think that version gets displayed when the aircraft is 90% of its full size, and 050 when it is half the size, and 010 when it is at 10%. Something like that, at least. You might need to alter the values for the LODs to get them to switch over at the best moment. For example with my aircraft, if an aerial is about to become invisible anyway (too small for the sim to render it) it is a good moment to switch down to a lower LOD and lose the aerial entirely. I know you're not modelling aircraft, but the same principle applies to other objects such as cargo pallets and vehicles. Even building details, in fact! A friend of mine designed buildings for an airport that used 3D text signage and also rails and pipework, and all of this was LODed so that it vanished the moment it wasn't going to be useful at that detail, either via a flat sign that also eventually disappeared, or just got taken away the moment it wasn't worth rendering. The basic buildings remained (most are simple boxes anyway, not really worth LODing).

If something like your taxiway lines are a frame-rate problem you'd probably have to build them in sections (eg all the lines in a particular part of the airport) and possibly have 2 LOD models per area (eg terminal area, cargo area and military area, for example - if they are all far apart you can't see the lines over in the cargo area from the terminal area, but the sim will still try to draw them). One LOD would contain all the lines for an area and there'd be a dummy LOD containing none of them. That way, the lines would get "switched off" beyond a certain distance from the centre of the model. How you sectioned out the lines to prevent them visibly appearing or disappearing would depend largely upon the airport configuration. That's just my thoughts, at least.
 
Last edited:
Top