• 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.

FSX:SE Best way to make 3D vegetation?

Marc L

Marc L

Messages
2,171
Country
france
Hey,
Im willing to creat some objects for my sceneries, and coming to the vegetatin, I wonder what is the best way to make grass and trees (I the the cross model with 2 plane, but when we look on top, we can't see it, Im looking for something volumetric like this:
how the planes must be placed on the model?

Im asking to know the best way though, so if there are others way to do, please, lemme know :)

Regards, Marc
 
It looks to be the same thing, just a lot more dense. I can very clearly make out the cross shapes, along with what appear to be more complex riffing on the same idea (some arrangements of plants almost look like a six-armed version of the cross). The density and high degree of overlap are what hides the individual shapes. The relatively minimal performance hit would probably be due to the fact that these shapes are peanuts in terms of vertex counts compared to the average "hero" object. The dense grass field, if the textures and objects are managed correctly (i.e. a massive image containing all elements and very few total models - that is, most of the geometry being a single object), is probably not adding much to the draw count, either.

The best way would be whatever method seems to provide the best compromise of performance and imagery to you. Maybe there are new things to try out. Let's brainstorm. Because we can have such high-res textures now, we can cover a lot of real estate with a single "arm" of one of those cross shapes if we choose our grass resolution carefully. Think about the implications of that in terms of producing a patchwork of flat polygons to create the illusion of a volumetric space. Not only that, but I bet a bunch of simple two-sided rings, if there were enough of them and a lot of overlap, could provide a convincing effect with an even further savings on vertex counts because of (ta-da!) all the vertices you'd now share at the boundary of each polygon. Let's say you had a ring of tall grass overlapping a ring of flowers overlapping a ring of medium grass overlapping a ring of of short grass overlapping a ring of crab grass. Let's say the rings were different sizes... you'd get a lot of mileage out of a fairly small vertex count, I think. If each ring had differing upper and lower bout diameters, then you could even get a bit of coverage from directly overhead as well. At the boundaries of the field, then, you could use more conventional cross-type shapes with differing numbers of arms to blend things in a bit... the wise thing to do would be to map these shapes to similar portions of the others.

I can't quite tell what they did there (it really does just look like a more dense variation on the traditional method), but those are some ideas that sprung out of my mind at that moment in time. Things that might seem obvious, but for whatever reason, just don't fit into the orthodoxy.

Although it is nice to see that ESP is finally catching up to MSTS 1.0. I hear P3D v4 finally has volumetric lighting, and only a decade late!

;)
 
Last edited:
Marc L said:
Hey,
Im willing to creat some objects for my sceneries, and coming to the vegetatin, I wonder what is the best way to make grass and trees (I the the cross model with 2 plane, but when we look on top, we can't see it, Im looking for something volumetric like this:
how the planes must be placed on the model?

Im asking to know the best way though, so if there are others way to do, please, lemme know :)

Regards, Marc
Click to expand...

Eric C is correct. There's also a lot of visual "imagination" on that video. Volumetric or planar vegetation looks great as long as it is tall, and in the background. The minute you see it from above, the disgusting diagonal patterns are obvious. Even on some of the better payware sceneries, when you climb into a 747 cockpit and taxi around you can see the diagonal patterns.
 
I'm curious on that as well, and started some test some days ago with this tool.... http://getskatter.com/ the tool allow 15 days trial days for testing. take a look.

With this tool you can define your vegetation planes and on an easy way the tool "plant" following some randown patterns that you can configure, then you can manage the *.dae file with MCX for exporting.

You can also georeference the project with sketchup import the aerial image with google earth and define more precise the areas for vegetation.

Let me know if this work for you....

have a nice day!!!
 
Last edited:
ESAboliching, this tool looks Amazing :O, I will definitly take a look at it, thanks
 
Last edited:
Marc L said:
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/best-way-to-make-3d-vegetation.440940/#post-781863

Nice; but unfortunately, I'm using SU 2017 (I keep updated hehe)
Click to expand...

Sketchup version-8 *.SKP and *.KMZ output files are able to be directly opened by Sketchup version 2017.


Sketchup version-8 also continues to have the largest quantity of (free) plugin Ruby scripts available.


FYI: Sketchup version-8 (32-bit) is the last version allowed to be used for both freeware and commercial purposes without a license.

The original version-8 package is the 'fastest' working build compared to newer "Make" or 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 and/or 64-bit versions, and can be downloaded here:

http://www.oldversion.com/windows/google-sketchup-8-0-16846



NOTE: Sketchup version-8 can be safely installed alongside Sketchup version 2017 in the same Windows user profile.


BTW: AFAIK, that is the last issued and most current updated Sketchup version 8 released:

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49608


NOTE: Sketchup version-8 can run on Windows-XP if desired, although some (optional) plugin Ruby scripts may use DLLs that require more recent Windows component functions, and some dialog GUIs may require newer versions of Internet Explorer.


PS: When Google transferred Sketchup to Trimble, some server addresses changed for the Geolocation feature, and a simple fix must be implemented by the end user in order for that to function properly: :alert:

https://help.sketchup.com/en/article/3000180


FYI: In May 2017, Trimble changed the Geo-location features and access rules for Sketchup; consequently type of features and access for Geo-location may vary by Sketchup version and currently applicable valid license.


Hope this helps anyone here who wishes to use Sketchup version-8 under its intended EULA . ;)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Yes blender has a scatter option. I've not exported with it yet though. It might be hard to define accurately the position of the grass without overlapping or being too far away from the asphalt. I will try with my next scenery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top