• 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.

Creating photoreal scenery in FSX

L

lalex

Messages
10
Hi,

I've used the standard FSX SDK (SP1) to create a photo scenery but the success was only partial:

1. Used GeoTIFF files
2. Used a project file similar to the SDK example
3. Dragged that onto the Resample.exe tool
4. Got a singe (BIG) BGL which incorporates all the cells (that is cool!).
5. Copied that in a Addon Scenery/XXXX/Scenery folder and defined in the Scenery Manager within the FSX.

Now come the bad part: while the photoscenery is clearly there, I can only see it only beyond the "Level Of Detail Radius" value. In tyeh immediate vicinity of the aircraft the default scenery shows through. The larger the value of the LOD Radius slider is, the farther away that photoreal visibility is and vice-versa.

See the pic to get the general idea:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-2/1244039/Photorealbug.jpg

Any idea how to fix this?

Thanks,
Al
 
Hi Arno,

Yes, same problem but the LOD "games" do not work. The best result I get is with LOD = Auto but then I have one "hole" around the aircraft which is replaced by default Landclass textures.

That means that the solution found in that thread is not a real "solution" - it was pure luck (and some FSX sliders adjustments which normally should not need to be touched to fix a scenery bug).

Another sign that the thread did not point to a real solution is the fact that old FS9 photoreal sceneries do work with FSX without any special sliders juggling.

Anyway, I'm still trying to fins a solution and as usual, the FS SDK documentation seems to be against the developers.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread though.

Al
 
Hi Al,

Maybe you can post the INF file you are using? I have not seen this problem with the photo scenery I created myself using the new resample.
 
Hi Arno,

Since yesterday I have played quite a lot with the SDK and I believe that now I understand this part of the photo-real scenery creation.

As you have suspected in some of your earlier posts, it seems that if we do not use the correct LOD value, then all sort of strange things may happen - such as the "holes" which show through the underlying higher resolution default scenery, or "rings" of photoreal in a sea of synthetic tiles.

In my case I use 15m/pix texture. This value is not in the table but I chose the next best which is LOD 12. This still gave me a hole - but smaller. Now I went one step further to 2,13 (which corresponds to 4.75m/pix).

This value gave me a clean photo-real at ALL LOD, texture size (even 7cm) , etc. settings in the FSX Setup window, exactly as it should be.

This says that the Auto LOD value does not select the best value after all.

I am working on a very big area so the 2,13 values generate @84,000 cells, but I use a CompressQuality value of 87 so I'm getting a reasonable file size - @800MB. It takes @1 hour to finish this.

BTW - I went for a fully uncompressed mode just for fun. This took 3Hrs and generated a 4GB file. FSX did not display anything - I might have reached some FSX or NTFS limit. Anyway, the workaround is to split this scenery into three or more parts. Tried it and worked well.

I have decided to go for the compressed version however since there is no visible difference between the uncompressed and compressed version, and besides, I have also the night texture and water mask to consider, right?

Anyway, I am pleased now and I hope that this can help others with the same problem I had.

Best regards,
Al
 
Don't forget the seasons for best result everytime in the year.
So you have to duplicate you picture 4 times whith colors changes.
 
lalex said:
Hi Arno,

Since yesterday I have played quite a lot with the SDK and I believe that now I understand this part of the photo-real scenery creation.

As you have suspected in some of your earlier posts, it seems that if we do not use the correct LOD value, then all sort of strange things may happen - such as the "holes" which show through the underlying higher resolution default scenery, or "rings" of photoreal in a sea of synthetic tiles.

In my case I use 15m/pix texture. This value is not in the table but I chose the next best which is LOD 12. This still gave me a hole - but smaller. Now I went one step further to 2,13 (which corresponds to 4.75m/pix).

This value gave me a clean photo-real at ALL LOD, texture size (even 7cm) , etc. settings in the FSX Setup window, exactly as it should be.

This says that the Auto LOD value does not select the best value after all.

I am working on a very big area so the 2,13 values generate @84,000 cells, but I use a CompressQuality value of 87 so I'm getting a reasonable file size - @800MB. It takes @1 hour to finish this.

BTW - I went for a fully uncompressed mode just for fun. This took 3Hrs and generated a 4GB file. FSX did not display anything - I might have reached some FSX or NTFS limit. Anyway, the workaround is to split this scenery into three or more parts. Tried it and worked well.

I have decided to go for the compressed version however since there is no visible difference between the uncompressed and compressed version, and besides, I have also the night texture and water mask to consider, right?

Anyway, I am pleased now and I hope that this can help others with the same problem I had.

Best regards,
Al
Click to expand...

Hi,

FSX is limited to displaying no more than 2gb bgl files, but no problem, just use the "SplitFileLOD = 11" in your info file and you will get a number of bgls that may total all together far above 4gb and fsx will display all of them!

I would be interested in your results of comparisons of the compressed vs. uncompressed and the above mentioned method will allow for that.
 
Hi,

Didn't use the Split directive since it is not explained well. The quality difference between 100 and 87 is not visually noticeable but the resulting comression is impressive.

Right now I'm struggling with making the underlying (default) scenery disappear. I have created the photo-real map and a water mask and they compile well. The strange thing is that where water should be, I ges to see the default scenery. As a result, I see the unrealistic and innacurate shore lines of any lake, etc. I have in the scenery.

I use the FSXKML tool and it works but I am not too succesful in making the default scenery disappear.

I am slowly but surely getting mad at the almost sadistic lack of SDK documentation that is thrown in. While it is clear that the new SDK is vastly improved over the old one, the documentation is just as bad! Yep - a bit of venting!

cu,
Al
 
marcoh said:
Don't forget the seasons for best result everytime in the year.
So you have to duplicate you picture 4 times whith colors changes.
Click to expand...

<g> Didn't forget, but happily, I am working on a subtropical area so not many changes there. I think I can get away with only one season.

Al
 
lalex said:
Hi,

I have created the photo-real map and a water mask and they compile well. The strange thing is that where water should be, I ges to see the default scenery. As a result, I see the unrealistic and innacurate shore lines of any lake, etc. I have in the scenery.
Click to expand...

Hi Al.

The watermask is a misleading name. You'll get the water characteristics ( wave action, etc... ), but no water color. To get that, you'll need to make a vector waterpoly, and then you'll be good... but if that is what you want, a BLEND mask will serve the same purpose, to allow the water poly to show.

This is all different than FS9 and earlier.

Dick
 
lalex said:
Hi,

Didn't use the Split directive since it is not explained well. The quality difference between 100 and 87 is not visually noticeable but the resulting comression is impressive.

Right now I'm struggling with making the underlying (default) scenery disappear. I have created the photo-real map and a water mask and they compile well. The strange thing is that where water should be, I ges to see the default scenery. As a result, I see the unrealistic and innacurate shore lines of any lake, etc. I have in the scenery.

I use the FSXKML tool and it works but I am not too succesful in making the default scenery disappear.

I am slowly but surely getting mad at the almost sadistic lack of SDK documentation that is thrown in. While it is clear that the new SDK is vastly improved over the old one, the documentation is just as bad! Yep - a bit of venting!

cu,
Al
Click to expand...

Just use the water effect mask, you would be suprised.

I use the water from the photoreal, sometimes the color may seem off, it seem to green, to black (ponds etc.) but masking for just the water effects gives the the greatist look. It is blending the sky and cloud colors, reflections, wave effects. Plus you are getting the best coastline and don't have to redo any of the default.

I just use a blend mask where my photo water meets default as well as shore line to large bodies of water, Lake Ontaio, Oceans etc.
 
rhumbaflappy said:
Hi Al.

The watermask is a misleading name. You'll get the water characteristics ( wave action, etc... ), but no water color. To get that, you'll need to make a vector waterpoly, and then you'll be good... but if that is what you want, a BLEND mask will serve the same purpose, to allow the water poly to show.

This is all different than FS9 and earlier.

Dick
Click to expand...

Thanks Dick, Player2

Another day has passed and at least another 10x 1.5Hrs compilations <G>.

Why so many? Because of the new ways FSX treats water. Yes, I used the water colour from the satellite photo but I had some problems.

It seems that the water color had a color/hue component that was generating strange magenta fringes around the edges where the water/land/blend were together. I tried different blend files, compression and sampling method but it took me some time to discover that the culprit was the water color in the photo-real texture itself.

This was not happening everywhere so I set out to re-color the water in the photo-real texture and experimented with various hues of navy-blue/see-green and amounts of saturation. FSX seems to apply an internal water algorithm to turn water more blue and brighter so I set out for a really unsaturated, low luminosity hue. Now everything works like a charm.

I was about to post my findings yesterday but I noticed another thread explaining the FSX water so I deleted the content. I did not find any thread dealing with potential problems (the magenta fringes) so I guess that this info adds to the common knowledge. Things seem to pick up much faster than usual around here so next time I must read more carefully before barging in and posting regardless :)

Anyway, now I'm off to the night textures. Now THAT will be a lot of work! That needs to be done manually. I am NOT looking forward to that.

Any hints about how to work-out a night texture out of a day photo-real? Now would be the perfect time for me to listen to any advice I can get.

/Daily rant about the SDK documentation/
There is no mention about various error messages issued by the various tools. I got several cryptic messages that basically told nothing, but a bit of sleuth work found the problem. It is amazing that such a complex environment covering a staggering amount of topics - from GIS, through graphics and up to mathematics and programming - lacks a suitable documentation.

Here is an idea: if somebody could write a book "FSX SDK Bible" I will be the first in line to buy it. Any takers?

THANK YOU!

Al
 
Hi Al.

The resample process-coloring is a good find.

There is a Source command of "SamplingMethod", that might affect that magenta coloring. Gaussian is what we're supposed to use, from what I can gather.

I do remember a night coloring discussion at AVSIM... maybe 2-3 years ago.

Dick
 
rhumbaflappy said:
Hi Al.

<SNIP>

I do remember a night coloring discussion at AVSIM... maybe 2-3 years ago.

Dick
Click to expand...

Looked for that thread and used Google for several hours but everything I found was either related to night lighting textures for Gmax 3D objects or ads for this or that product having great ground night textures (sic!).

I guess that if nothing better appears soon, I will be reduced to doing those textures by hand, growing a pet CTS at the same time <g>. Oh boy!

Al
 
Hi again,

Back from working on the night textures and all I can say - D**N! My hand hurts and teh results are, well, pass me the barf bag please!

Any help, hints on how to do it easier and better are not only welcome, but desperately needed!

Thanks.
Al
 
Terrabuilder

I have found Terrabuilder quite reliable for creating photo terrain. I haven't tried anything else, but this program worked well for a novice scenery designer like me. You need to know the lat/long of the edges of your images, but if you have that, it is easy to use and predictable.
 
sstobbe said:
I have found Terrabuilder quite reliable for creating photo terrain. I haven't tried anything else, but this program worked well for a novice scenery designer like me. You need to know the lat/long of the edges of your images, but if you have that, it is easy to use and predictable.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Thanks for the input but please note that I have no problem with creating photo-real scenery for FSX (anymore), but in finding good ways of creating night textures out of day photo-real ones. In other words, is there a better way instead of painting them manually in Paint Shop Pro or Photo Shop?

I've also used Terrabuilder in the past but it seems not to be supported anymore. Maybe Misha Katulik is working on an FSX version, but I could not find any news on this anywhere, including on their website. For now I use the SDK and it works (despite its lack of documentation).

Best,
Al
 
nogueira said:
How are you creating photo-real scenery? Please tell us!!!

Thanks

Octavio
Click to expand...

Octavio,

First I read the SDK "documentation", then I followed the steps that I explained in the first post starting this thread. Then I had problems which are solved also in this thread <g>. PLEASE READ THE THREAD :)

Basically you must start with good satellite/aerial pictures and know the exact coordinates. As far as I know the pics must be square of any resolution. Then you need to know the pixel size in degrees. Once you have that, you just use the example .inf files that appear in the SDK and use your own values.

Answering your question beyond this would mean to re-write the fre**in' SDK documentation. Ask a specific question and I, like anybody else here will be glad to answer and share the knowledge w/ you.

Al
 
I've read the SDK documentation and tried the resample examples but no result.
I drag an example over the resampler,I see a quick dos box and nothing seems to happen. I think I need a bgl file in ...Resample Examples\Output.

Or should i read some more, hard to find info..

(I have SP1)
Ok it's solved, seems like u have to use 2 explorers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top