• 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.

Autogen generic building height

arno

arno

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
34,622
Country
netherlands
Hi,

While testing autogen generic buidlings I came across something funny. I have set the properties to have maximum amount of buildings with 1-2 floors and minimum with more floors. But if you look at the buildings generated their sizes still vary a lot (although they have 2 floors).

You can see that the buildings with a bigger footprint end up much taller (same applies to the roof).

This is not what I expected. Although they have two floors, the building is much taller than the other 2 floor buidlings next to it. So it looks quite unrealistic.

Have others come across this? Is this a limitation of autogen?
 

Attachments

  • Image2011-10-14 2208.27.227.jpg
    Image2011-10-14 2208.27.227.jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 575
Yes .... I wonder if the file could be tweaked directly to overcome it.

It really can look horrible.
 
I think I might need to slice the footprint into segments, since some of them are actually a row of houses.
 
hcornea said:
Yes .... I wonder if the file could be tweaked directly to overcome it.

It really can look horrible.
Click to expand...

The AGN file does not contain the height, only the global settings. So I afraid tweaking won't do much.
 
Even being able to tweak the global settings for individual tiles may be helpful (I'm thinking more here of Photoscenery, where the annotator assigns the same texture and slider settings to every loaded tile)
 
Hi,

That's possible. With my tool I can set it for each AGN file. Although for my current test I still set them all the same.

On my blog somebody already suggested to use a vector attribute like height of building for that. Should be possible to get a better distribution by analysing the vector attributes in that LOD square.
 
That sounds very cool.

The annotator is such a "blunt" tedious tool, that any alternative methods would be fantastic.

One of the problems (of course) is that if you open the work in the annotator and save it again, any per-square customisations will be lost. I wonder if there is a way to parse single files to the annotator, and have it leave the others.

Alternatively, maybe have a backup "height data" table, that could be re-applied after you made changes in the annotator.

The mind boggles with possibilities ... but no programming skill on this end :o
 
Yes, opening them in Annotator again would probably "destroy" my settings again.

I plan to make a beta version of my tool available soon and then I will just improve it based on user ideas and feedback, just like I do with my other tools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top