• 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.

P3D v4 Bump mapping GP Editor

Shez , I don't know that I can do anything about that. ADE-GP's "job" is to set up a MAT3 record and make the associated files available. I have nothing at the moment to suggest that's not being done correctly. Do we even know for sure that the full capability of the MAT3 record is available for GPs in PV4?

All I can suggest is that you analyse the ADE_GP .mdl with MCX to see if you can see any error or, alternately, create a working GP model with MCX that I can compare with the ADE .mdl.

EDIT: While I probably don't need to remind you, I doubt that the default material specification would support bump or detail mapping. Hence, you should take a very close look at your specification of the associated material.
 
Last edited:
gadgets said:
Shez , I don't know that I can do anything about that. ADE-GP's "job" is to set up a MAT3 record and make the associated files available. I have nothing at the moment to suggest that's not being done correctly. Do we even know for sure that the full capability of the MAT3 record is available for GPs in PV4?

All I can suggest is that you analyse the ADE_GP .mdl with MCX to see if you can see any error or, alternately, create a working GP model with MCX that I can compare with the ADE .mdl.

EDIT: While I probably don't need to remind you, I doubt that the default material specification would support bump or detail mapping. Hence, you should take a very close look at your specification of the associated material.
Click to expand...
Don, quick question. Where is the MDL file? I opened the BGL file in MCX and it is interesting that with my material applied there is no bump or detail texture applied from the ADE GP output.
 
Yes. It is OK for now although the materials are still behaving in ways I am trying to figure out but I don't think it is to do with ADE-GP.

There are actually many more variables which are available in P3DV4+ including PBR. Have you given it a thought to maybe open up more options in the Material Editor?
 
There are actually many more variables which are available in P3DV4+ including PBR. Have you given it a thought to maybe open up more options in the Material Editor?
Click to expand...
You are the first to suggest the need. So, no, at the moment I have no plans to update. Sound like an interesting exercise however. What's the likely percentage of users who would find a use for PBR in ground polys? Can you suggest a few examples where PBR could offer capability not now available?
 
gadgets said:
You are the first to suggest the need. So, no, at the moment I have no plans to update. Sound like an interesting exercise however. What's the likely percentage of users who would find a use for PBR in ground polys? Can you suggest a few examples where PBR could offer capability not now available?
Click to expand...
I am not sure but certainly the AO, bump and detail maps can be put inside the texture. However, there is probably no need for the metallic map. I think developers like FSDT use PBR on ground textures.

My request came from looking at the expanded custom variables in MCX for P3DV4 and 4.4+. Using MCX on the GP also works so disregard if too difficult.
 
From a quick review of the SDK it would seem that, vis-a-vis ground polys, PBR is little more than a repackaging of textures. It would not seem to offer any significant new useful-to-GPs capability.

Now, perhaps, I've read too quickly. But, at the moment my assessment is that the risk of destabilization of ADE-GP outweighs the potential value of whatever incremental capability might result. That being said, I'm open to advice from others more familiar with the topic than me.
 
gadgets said:
From a quick review of the SDK it would seem that, vis-a-vis ground polys, PBR is little more than a repackaging of textures. It would not seem to offer any significant new useful-to-GPs capability.

Now, perhaps, I've read too quickly. But, at the moment my assessment is that the risk of destabilization of ADE-GP outweighs the potential value of whatever incremental capability might result. That being said, I'm open to advice from others more familiar with the topic than me.
Click to expand...
Don,

I have been working extensively with PBR textures and I feel if you time there might be benefit in PBR textures on the ground through the ADE-GP. I think the metallic and the AO plus bump maps really are more realistic than the old P34 style textures. I have not gone into P35 but with the blue channel functionality it would really enhance it further over a ground layout.

Just some thoughts. It still works through the MCX GPE so no worries if unable.
 
Shez, as I noted above, my concern in implementing PBR textures - aside from the amount of effort required on my behalf - is the potential destabilization of ADE_GP. While seemingly simple on the surface, the code in the GP editor is VERY complex, having evolved from its FS9 base over FSX and 5 versions of P3D, with remnants of some of these evolutions remaining. Plus, such development would also necessitate new texture and material editors.

I appreciate "high-fliers" such as you may be able to produce "prettier" airport markings with PRB textures. But I question whether the average ADE_GP user would either bother or even notice the difference. To my recollection, you are the only user to have expressed any interest. Without meaning to minimize your desires/needs, given that you note there is already another tool that you could use, I am VERY, VERY hesitant to undertake major surgery on ADE_GP. PRB would have to be incorporated as an option, since to doing otherwise would force existing users to revise their custom textures. Further, conversion of all the existing ADE-GP stock textures would require major effort.

At the moment I just don't think the incremental benefit for a few is worth the significant risk of destabilization of ADE-GP or warrants the effort I envision would be involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top