MSFS20 ENSX - Stavanger EMS helicopter

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

After further consideration, IMHO, it is reasonable to test a release candidate build of the Heliport building to see how it performs in MSFS at run time, before allocating time and energy to a reduced complexity version of the circular staircase enclosure.

Due to the high contrast of the Street View imagery with the bright incident sun angle and sky background, I had an impression the metal stock of the enclosure was a square- rather than a round- tubular material.

I agree that object is a distinct visual asset that looks as though it may be unique to that location, AFAIK; so I now would not advocate changing it unless a need for MSFS FPS optimization proved to be a persistent motivator for edits at that scenery location.

It would seem that my initial test with a default tool 2-point arc line extruded to form a multi-Face safety net surface will not map an auto-tiling Material properly, as the Normals orientations are not compatible with auto-tiling.

So, since the Street view imagery does not show a droop of the material against the building that is very noticeable within the shadow of the Helipad, it seems practical to just use a 1-piece Face for each of the several sections overlying a support arm array, as that single flat Face method does map the auto-tiled Material properly.

This project as a whole is entirely yours, of course, so please ignore the filename I used to distinguish this file from (very) many others in my folders.


Thus, rather than testing other more obscure plugins for surface creation that do exist, it may be best for now to use a flat Face, and explore a way to enlarge the safety net image, so that the thickness of the cabling and net materials are more bold visually.

That is likely to require some work in a graphics application, however, so it is a trade-off between that learning curve, and spending more time finding a visually sharp top-down view of a real world safety net to be used for a custom auto-tiling texture.

If you are satisfied with the ex: chain-link fence texture sets accessible via websites, or the ones in MSFS itself, that may be easier.


I also like the safety net support arms, and upon closer inspection, I see where they are rectangular, and thus may not impact FPS.


Regarding finding / viewing / organizing texture resources, I suggest you download ASAP and install (2) very useful (free) utilities:

Everything​

Locate files and folders by name instantly

https://www.voidtools.com/

https://www.voidtools.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9787&sid=ed06bb7c1bb33fd8cbe412157f800b37

Find files by keyword (ex: texture types... window, glass, wall, fence, etc.) anywhere on any hard drive in your computer



XnView MP: Image management

The enhanced Image Viewer for (Windows/MacOS/Linux)

https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/

https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/#downloads


Browse with scalable thumbnail size, including within MSFS default package asset folder chains ex:

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\asobo-material-lib\MaterialLibs\Asobo_MaterialLib\Textures

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\asobo-modellib-texture\Asobo_Buildings\Texture

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base\texture

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base\scenery\Global\Asobo_Houses\TEXTURE

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base\scenery\Global\Asobo_POI\TEXTURE

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base-material-lib\MaterialLibs\Base_MaterialLib\Textures


...to mention just a few of the many occurring within the MSFS default package folder chains.


CAVEAT: Some texture formats are a 'new' DDS output by MSFS SDK compiler, and may require conversion back to PNG by MCX.

Why ?

Because AFAIK, the Sketchup PBR extension may not process that new DDS format to create a glTF (but MCX or Blender might).


BTW: There are many MSFS PBR specular and/or reflective window textures one may map as window panes for your building.


To create custom flowers and/or vegetation (which can sometimes be tedious using the "Magic Wand Tool" to isolate images of vegetation from the background before extracting them as an inverted / copied / pasted "selection" layer on top of an Alpha channel), 3D warehouse and MSFS default scenery assets are a good option rather than allocating time to use of the above tool in a graphics application.


I'll check back later to see if you had a chance to review and reply.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi Vetle:

After further consideration, IMHO, it is reasonable to test a release candidate build of the Heliport building to see how it performs in MSFS at run time, before allocating time and energy to a reduced complexity version of the circular staircase enclosure.

Due to the high contrast of the Street View imagery with the bright incident sun angle and sky background, I had an impression the metal stock of the enclosure was a square- rather than a round- tubular material.

I agree that object is a distinct visual asset that looks as though it may be unique to that location, AFAIK; so I now would not advocate changing it unless a need for MSFS FPS optimization proved to be a persistent motivator for edits at that scenery location.

It would seem that my initial test with a default tool 2-point arc line extruded to form a multi-Face safety net surface will not map an auto-tiling Material properly, as the Normals orientations are cot compatible with auto-tiling.

So, since the Street view imagery does not show a droop of the material against the building to be very noticeable within the shadow of the Helipad, it seems practical to just use a 1-piece Face for each of the several sections overlying a support arm array, as that single flat Face method does map the auto-tiled Material properly.

View attachment 94676

Please excuse me if I am misunderstanding here, but there is a material withing Sketchup to draw a see-through chain link for a flat area. Are you saying that it will not work as intended into the sim? I am quite happy with the material already available in Sketchup, I am just curious if it will import further...

This entire project is entirely yours, of course, so please ignore the filename I used to distinguish this file from (very) many others.

Well, with all the help you are giving me you will definitely be entitled in the credits!

If you are satisfied with the ex: chain-link fence texture sets accessible via websites, or the ones in MSFS itself, that may be easier.

Are you talking about the fence surrounding the base? If so, I believe this would be the "smartest" approach, considering it can be adapted to the terrain immediately, instead of having to redo the Sketchup model over again in case of it not fitting.

Regarding finding / viewing / organizing texture resources, I suggest you download ASAP and install (2) very useful (free) utilities:

Everything​

Locate files and folders by name instantly

https://www.voidtools.com/

https://www.voidtools.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9787&sid=ed06bb7c1bb33fd8cbe412157f800b37

Find files by keyword (ex: texture types... window, glass, wall, fence, etc.) anywhere on any hard drive in your computer



XnView MP: Image management

The enhanced Image Viewer for (Windows/MacOS/Linux)

https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/

https://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/#downloads


Browse with scalable thumbnail size, including within MSFS default package asset folder chains ex:

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\asobo-material-lib\MaterialLibs\Asobo_MaterialLib\Textures

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\asobo-modellib-texture\Asobo_Buildings\Texture

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base\texture

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base\scenery\Global\Asobo_Houses\TEXTURE

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base\scenery\Global\Asobo_POI\TEXTURE

[MSFS packages folder path]\Official\OneStore\fs-base-material-lib\MaterialLibs\Base_MaterialLib\Textures


...to mention just a few of the many occurring within the MSFS default package folder chains.


CAVEAT: Some texture formats are a 'new' DDS output by MSFS SDK compiler, and may require conversion back to PNG by MCX.

Why ?

Because AFAIK, the Sketchup PBR extension may not process that new DDS format to create a glTF (but MCX or Blender might).

Excellent. I will check in about this later.

BTW: There are many MSFS PBR specular and/or reflective window textures one may map as window panes for your building.

How do you consider the transparent windows within Sketchup? Are they easily importable into MCX and MSFS?

To create custom flowers and/or vegetation (which can sometimes be tedious using the "Magic Wand Tool" to isolate images of vegetation from the background before extracting them as an inverted / copied / pasted "selection" layer on top of an Alpha channel), 3D warehouse and MSFS default scenery assets are a good option rather than allocating time to use of the above tool in a graphics application.

Perfect! I've already spent some time within the warehouse, and it really saves me alot of time...

Please see the updated model, now with textures and an updated trolley:

 

[GaryGB]

Hi again, Vetle:

I have not yet tried the Sketchup 'default' chain-link fence texture as a source for the safety net texture Material, in place of the 3rd party chain-link PBR texture I downloaded from a web site, and/or the ones I saw in major MSFS content folders.

If the Sketchup default chain-link texture looks OK compared to others (for both the safety net and for 'surround' fencing in the Heliport grounds), then so much the better.


The Sketchup default window pane Materials do have a semi-transparent attribute, but those do not have the IMHO more desirable PBR attributes that are specular and/or reflective of light and objects within the surrounding environment; thus I recommend testing the MSFS default or 3rd party PBR textured windows instead for an even more realistic appearance.


Be aware that you will likely also want to implement night textures for windows as well: IIRC, MCX provides a way to add these to a 3D model's mapped texture Material set. but be certain that the texture set you select even has a "Night" texture.

There are MSFS generic night light 'wall' texture sets; I have not used them, and prefer creating custom emissive night textures


BTW: You can eliminate the vector aliasing ("jagged" / "stepped" increments) of the (Yellow) circular curve in the Helipad(s) by typing 64S and pressing <Enter> key immediately before or after drawing the Circle and/or Arc objects.

FYI: this assigns 64 sides for an 'entire' circle perimeter, when such objects are drawn in Sketchup via the 'Value Control Box' (aka "VCB") feature near Windows' System Tray.


Of related and incidental note is the fact that in 3D modeling, to implement "smoothing" via Normal calculations and altered lighting display of Edges, a minimum of ~22.5 degrees Edge Normal angle is typically required where (2) Faces meet.

IIRC, this means that the minimum number of sides required to implement 'smoothing' without shading anomalies is 16.

The more sides we use, the more 'smooth' we can make objects when rendered; a 'smooth' column / tube looks better in PBR.

http://web.archive.org/web/20151025192543/http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/114940


Also, another obscure feature in Sketchup is the ability to change the Camera focal length assignment using a photographic camera lens focal length / 35mm film size parametric conceptual model.

One can use the Magnifying lens ("zoom") tool to drag up or down on the workspace, then immediately type ex: 50mm <Enter>; this will assign a 'normal" lens focal length which may look more like what we pay attention to as we work in Sketchup and IRL.

The focal length range in Sketchup is from 12mm (extreme wide angle lens) to 2,500mm (extreme telephoto lens) and any assigned numeric value in between, although one typically uses standard focal increments seen in lenses for 35mm cameras..

As a professional photographer in a previous "under-graduate" career, I used 12, 18, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 135, 300 mm focal lengths.

If I need to draw a line over a very long distance, I use 2,500mm to zoom in on the source endpoint that I originate a line from.

In Camera > Perspective mode, I can zoom into the inside of small spaces and buildings to see better with a 12mm "fish-eye".

However, one cannot zoom inside objects very well (if at all) in Parallel camera mode.


NOTE: In some cases such as with complex 3D modeling projects, we may incur "clipping" of the displayed object at < 135mm focal lengths, so we can often fix that by assigning a 135mm or longer focal length, then zoom out as needed to work.

There are at least 2 plugin Ruby scripts that may help which are also available ...in case they prove to be needed:


When clipping occurs in Camera Perspective mode:

Samuel Tallet: https://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=clipping_fix


When clipping occurs in Camera Parallel mode:

Christina Eneroth (aka "Eneroth3"): https://extensions.sketchup.com/ext...d5c-9995-bfe047595f69/eneroth-unclip-parallel


Thanks for the offer to acknowledge my sharing feedback for your project, but it is not necessary, as I help folks for a hobby.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi again, Vetle:

I have not yet tried the Sketchup 'default' chain-link fence texture as a source for the safety net texture Material, in place of the 3rd party chain-link PBR texture I downloaded from a web site, and/or the ones I saw in major MSFS content folders.

If the Sketchup default chain-link texture looks OK compared to others (for both the safety net and for 'surround' fencing in the Heliport grounds), then so much the better.


The Sketchup default window pane Materials do have a semi-transparent attribute, but those do not have the IMHO more desirable PBR attributes that are specular and/or reflective of light and objects within the surrounding environment; thus I recommend testing the MSFS default or 3rd party PBR textured windows instead for an even more realistic appearance.

Well, regarding the chain-link texture in Sketchup it's working in Sketchup, but you have to be close to see the details OR bump the size up significantly resulting in very large sections which does not look realistic. I will try the 3rd party system and see how that works. Thanks for the tip!

Be aware that you will likely also want to implement night textures for windows as well: IIRC, MCX provides a way to add these to a 3D model's mapped texture Material set. but be certain that the texture set you select even has a "Night" texture.

There are MSFS generic night light 'wall' texture sets; I have not used them, and prefer creating custom emissive night textures.

Hmmm, I am a bit unsure on how to go about this. I have been thinking the ambient lighting from the sim itself might light up the building as well as the one I will import directly through MSFS with the SDK. I need to add spotlight to both platforms, as well as light on the building. I have therefore not thought about night textures. What do you think is the best approach to do this? Do I need night textures either way?

BTW: You can eliminate the vector aliasing ("jagged" / "stepped" increments) of the (Yellow) circular curve in the Helipad(s) by typing 64S and pressing <Enter> key immediately before or after drawing the Circle and/or Arc objects.

FYI: this assigns 64 sides for an 'entire' circle perimeter, when such objects are drawn in Sketchup via the 'Value Control Box' (aka "VCB") feature near Windows' System Tray.

Fantastic! I forgot about that issue and will correct!

Of related and incidental note is the fact that in 3D modeling, to implement "smoothing" via Normal calculations and altered lighting display of Edges, a minimum of ~22.5 degrees Edge Normal angle is typically required where (2) Faces meet.

IIRC, this means that the minimum number of sides required to implement 'smoothing' without shading anomalies is 16.

The more sides we use, the more 'smooth' we can make objects when rendered; a 'smooth' column / tube looks better in PBR.

http://web.archive.org/web/20151025192543/http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/114940


Also, another obscure feature in Sketchup is the ability to change the Camera focal length assignment using a photographic camera lens focal length / 35mm film size parametric conceptual model.

One can use the Magnifying lens ("zoom") tool to drag up or down on the workspace, then immediately type ex: 50mm <Enter>; this will assign a 'normal" lens focal length which may look more like what we pay attention to as we work in Sketchup and IRL.

The focal length range in Sketchup is from 12mm (extreme wide angle lens) to 2,500mm (extreme telephoto lens) and any assigned numeric value in between, although one typically uses standard focal increments seen in lenses for 35mm cameras..

As a professional photographer in a previous "under-graduate" career, I used 12, 18, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 135, 300 mm focal lengths.

If I need to draw a line over a very long distance, I use 2,500mm to zoom in on the source endpoint that I originate a line from.

In Camera > Perspective mode, I can zoom into the inside of small spaces and buildings to see better with a 12mm "fish-eye".

However, one cannot zoom inside objects very well (if at all) in Parallel camera mode.


NOTE: In some cases such as with complex 3D modeling projects, we may incur "clipping" of the displayed object at < 135mm focal lengths, so we can often fix that by assigning a 135mm or longer focal length, then zoom out as needed to work.

There are at least 2 plugin Ruby scripts that may help which are also available ...in case they prove to be needed:


When clipping occurs in Camera Perspective mode:

Samuel Tallet: https://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=clipping_fix


When clipping occurs in Camera Parallel mode:

Christina Eneroth (aka "Eneroth3"): https://extensions.sketchup.com/ext...d5c-9995-bfe047595f69/eneroth-unclip-parallel


Thanks for the offer to acknowledge my sharing feedback for your project, but it is not necessary, as I help folks for a hobby.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

One of the issues I am having now is the way textures are applied in Sketchup and then how they appear both in the sim and in MCX. I find it very unpredictable to determine which textures will look good and which is better of not used... .
Sometimes the color intensity is way off, flat surfaces boring and dull, suddenly very small icons instead of one whole texture and so on. Any way to predict and adjust this?

I also see that both windows and the chain-link fence render as transparent in MCX and in the sim, so currently the solution of using the standard is sufficient for now.

Please see the attached photos for comparison.

It's kind of a bummer when I feel satisfied with the texturin in Sketchup and then it's a pixelated mess in MCX afterward

 

[Nightstalkernor]

And todays work finished. Done some texturing and learning a bit more about how it works, and things that mess up the process. I am bit confused about the processing between Sketchup and MCX and then into MSFS still, about how it will actually look at the end, but at least I am more efficient in trial and error now than I was earlier today...so that's something...

Quite pleased with the overall result, but I need to tweak the metals that are way too shine, and try to fix most of the repetitive textures.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

Your project continues to look even better with each passing day ...great work.


FYI: Last night I deleted a post before clicking the button to submit, so I lost my reply (too many late hours recently).


Here is a test of concept for an image editing workflow that improves the visibility of the chain link safety net:

I processed this image to make it transparent:

A reference website stated the opening size for USA chain link fence should be 2 inches wire-to-wire.

https://www.chainlinkfencing.org/technology/measurechainlinkfence.html


There is a graphics workflow which can enlarge wire portions of chain link fencing via 'Magic Wand' Mask tools.


A good resource for textures, including the one I used for the test of concept above:

https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/chain-link-fence-pattern


FYI: Texture Haven retired its domain and transferred its assets to Poly Haven, so look at www.polyhaven,com for alternates.

If you are more comfortable not publicly distributing a current build of your project, feel free to send a link to me via PM here, and I would try to see what the cause is for the "pixelated" effect you reported (IIUC, that initially 'may' be a logo icon overlay on a image thumbnail instead of a full image).

I must leave for my travels very shortly, and will check in via phone browser, but will not have computer access until Sunday.

Best wishes for your project, and have a good weekend.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi Vetle:

Your project continues to look even better with each passing day ...great work.


FYI: Last night I deleted a post before clicking the button to submit, so I lost my reply (too many late hours recently).


Here is a test of concept for an image editing workflow that improves the visibility of the chain link safety net:

View attachment 94727

I processed this image to make it transparent:

View attachment 94729

A reference website stated the opening size for USA chain link fence should be 2 inches wire-to-wire.

https://www.chainlinkfencing.org/technology/measurechainlinkfence.html


There is a graphics workflow which can enlarge wire portions of chain link fencing via 'Magic Wand' Mask tools.

That is great! I will have to try the out the magical wand

A good resource for textures, including the one I used for the test of concept above:

https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/chain-link-fence-pattern


FYI: Texture Haven retired its domain and transferred its assets to Poly Haven, so look at www.polyhaven,com for alternates.

If you are more comfortable not publicly distributing a current build of your project, feel free to send a link to me via PM here, and I would try to see what the cause is for the "pixelated" effect you reported, that initially 'may' be a logo icon overlay on a
image thumbnail instead of a full image.

Thanks! I'll send you the link. However I found out what the issue was. First; I "forgot" to increase the size of the image because it seemed streamlined in Sketchup. However when transferring to MCX it was quite obvious that the textures repeated themselves. So it has been corrected. Also, I have been giving materials to a group, instead of the object faces themselves, resulting in not being able to adjust the above mentioned issue. So I think I got it figured out.

I must leave for my travels very shortly, and will check in via phone browser, but will not have computer access until Sunday.

Best wishes for your project, and have a good weekend.

Have a great thanksgiving, and thank you so much for all your input!

 

[Nightstalkernor]

I've been experimenting with textures within MCX. I think I should redo the texturing after seeing all the possibilities MCX can provide giving the model a good look with PBR, but also the texture quality/resolution itself. It's quite something to be honest, so I will redo it all. But that is just a joy!

I do however experience an "issue" with a cement-like texture covering the building itself to be quite bright reflective, and I am unable to adjust any values to see any effect. Maybe select a different texture?

Also, I see that the downloadable textures quite often contain more texture types than "normal", "Albedo", "Metallic", and "Emissive". Is it possible to replace any of these with say a roughness map included in the downloaded texture file? I've made a post about this here: https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mcx-what-texture-files-can-be-used-for-pbr.459414/

 

[Nightstalkernor]

We are getting closer!

Small tinkering left, especially in regards to the look of metal shinyness. I also have to make a decision if I should make the fences in sketchup before import, or with the sim assets...hmmm. I also see that the use of polygons will make it easy to adapt the msfs scenery to a model.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

Your model is shaping up very nicely.

I have the impression you may soon revise the (IRL) metal ramp grids, guard rails / grid panels and gate ...using transparency.

As we can see, a building shadow is cast / visible below the ramp grid, and ramp guard panels are metal grids or polymer nets.

AFAIK, a transparency attribute applied to a 2D mesh / grid texture is possible to do with MCX, or can be done in a graphics app.


Sketchup PBR plugin can edit to adjust (3) PBR attributes via 'sliders' in lieu of creating a fixed "Comp" multi-channel Material .

After editing, one can "Render Scene In Viewport" using the included glTF PBR viewer linked via its toolbar icon.

Output is a glTF in SketchFab compatible Khronos 2.0 format, and can be processed to add MSFS extensions in MCX / Blender


Have you had an opportunity to install and test that "SketchUp PBR Plugin" plugin yet ?


https://sketchucation.com/plugin/2101-pbr

https://github.com/SamuelTallet/SketchUp-PBR-Plugin#documentation

https://community.sketchucation.com...based-rendering-v1-5-9-19-apr-2020?lang=en-US

https://github.com/SamuelTallet/SketchUp-PBR-Plugin


The Sketchup *.glTF export requires use of this plugin (aka "Extension") by Samuel Tallet (aka "centaur"):

https://extensions.sketchup.com/extension/052071e5-6c19-4f02-a7e8-fcfcc28a2fd8/gltf-exporter



BTW: Sketchup *.glTF exports can be imported by Blender instead of the Sketchup *.OBJ export file, to use the PBR attributes.


Also, you could import glTFs exported by Sketchup via the above cited PBR plugin / extension into Arno's ModelConverterX.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/forums/modelconverterx.87/


The numeric range of values utilized by "Comp" channels is relatively small, but have a great impact on the rendered 3D model.

Certainly it will be an interesting possibility that Arno may be able to implement not only the creation of "Comp" multi-channel Material, but to also numerically adjust attribute contribution of those individual channels (...and see them live in MCX' 3D preview ?).


Remembering that MSFS will always be a render unique unto itself that we can only approximate in 3rd party glTF PBR viewers, some viewers may more closely approximate a preview external to MSFS at run time, which is more accurate to that of MSFS.

There has been a plethora of such viewers released in the last 2 years, and it would be good to have MCX proven the best of all.

Hopefully Arno's preview will prove more accurate than that of other glTF PBR viewers for MSFS Material creation / editing.

PS: I look forward to landing a MSFS Leonardo / Agusta-Westland AW-101 on ENSX helipad in the future (FSX A/C 'ported to MSFS ?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101

The wiki's state that the Helipad is rated less than the weight of the "Sea King" SAR Helo; so perhaps making the Helipad a SimObject with a conditionally played "creaking" sound upon contact ...may be possible in further development ?

I'm confident anything is possible at this location ...if a compact car can actually "fly" (see 2nd pic above the Satellite dish).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavanger_Heliport,_University_Hospital

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi Vetle:

Your model is shaping up very nicely.

I have the impression you may soon revise the (IRL) metal ramp grids, guard rails / grid panels and gate ...using transparency.

As we can see, a building shadow is cast / visible below the ramp grid, and ramp guard panels are metal grids or polymer nets.

View attachment 94791

View attachment 94792

View attachment 94793


AFAIK, a transparency attribute applied to a 2D mesh / grid texture is possible to do with MCX, or can be done in a graphics app.


Sketchup PBR plugin can edit to adjust (3) PBR attributes via 'sliders' in lieu of creating a fixed "Comp" multi-channel Material .

After editing, one can "Render Scene In Viewport" using the included glTF PBR viewer linked via its toolbar icon.

Output is a glTF in SketchFab compatible Kronos 2.0 format, and can be processed to add MSFS extensions in MCX / Blender


Have you had an opportunity to install and test that "SketchUp PBR Plugin" plugin yet ?


https://sketchucation.com/plugin/2101-pbr

https://github.com/SamuelTallet/SketchUp-PBR-Plugin#documentation

https://community.sketchucation.com...based-rendering-v1-5-9-19-apr-2020?lang=en-US

https://github.com/SamuelTallet/SketchUp-PBR-Plugin


The Sketchup *.glTF export requires use of this plugin (aka "Extension") by Samuel Tallet (aka "centaur"):

https://extensions.sketchup.com/extension/052071e5-6c19-4f02-a7e8-fcfcc28a2fd8/gltf-exporter

I did try the PBR plugin, but it took a lot of time to process so I've skipped it entirely. I don't know if I'm using it right, but I think MCX can accommodate my needs right now, and will also be quite the tool (hopefully) when released with COMP-texture editing. That will be great!

BTW: Sketchup *.glTF exports can be imported by Blender instead of the Sketchup *.OBJ export file, to use the PBR attributes.

I've tried to use Blender a couple of times, but I don't like the tecchie-focus it has - meaning a steep learning curve. What I really like about the tools I use currently, ie. Sketchup, Gimp and MCX, is that they are intuitive or relatively so. Blender is an entirely different animal in my opinion so far.

PS: I look forward to landing a MSFS Leonardo / Agusta-Westland AW-101 on ENSX helipad in the future (FSX A/C 'ported to MSFS ?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101

The wiki's state that the Helipad is rated less than the weight of the "Sea King" SAR Helo; so perhaps making the Helipad a SimObject with a conditionally played "creaking" sound upon contact ...may be possible in further development ?

I'm confident anything is possible at this location ...if a compact car can actually "fly" (see 2nd pic above the Satellite dish).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavanger_Heliport,_University_Hospital

I have two wishes for norwegian flight simming. That is the AW101 made by HPG, and Norwegian helipads! I will look into making the sound effect!

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

I made a new post regarding textures and what I find an extremely time-consuming process when a texture is not represented correctly in MSFS and I seem to have to go back-and-forth editing all textures while only one texture file needs to be edited:

MCX: Import already edited textures to continue/edit work

Hello. I am currently" struggling" a little bit in regards to textures. I find myself going back and forth between MCX, Sketchup and MSFS due to textures not looking right in Sketchup and MCX in how they are represented in MSFS. Metallic colors are one example where they are extremely glossy...

www.fsdeveloper.com

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Currently a "major" issue is that Sketchup may sometimes reverse faces, but both sides have the same color, resulting in an issue when importing the model to MSFS... Today I've had to go through the model and compare issues presented in MSFS, MCX and Sketchup simultaneously to identify any issues, but I seem to always miss something....

The issue regarding reflectiveness of metals seems to be solved by setting metal to 0. Gives a more "flat", and worn/correct look than the very flashy one.

 

[Nightstalkernor]

I am glad to say I managed to get the model into MSFS via the community folder. I am happy with the way it looks, but I do need to add some more details surrounding the scenery, fences for example. I am also a bit worried about the scenery size which currently is around 250mb. Considering I want to expand the project further with adding the surrounding hospital and parking buildings I wonder how much it will actually end up being. Any estimates?

Next I need to figure out the following:
-Adding night textures or lights to the model - preferably through the SDK itself.
-Adding details such as extinguishers, trolleys and other stuff.
-Fences
-Remove the grass underneath the asphalt
-Make the trolley and the roof a hard surface so that it's actually possible to land on them...
-Consider snow effect on certain materials?

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

Just a quick post to confirm I have taken a look at the file you linked via PM today.

I believe it would be useful to decide on what approach may be best for configuring terrain shape in the immediate vicinity of the 3D model, before planning to include either any custom 3D modeled fencing or placement of default MSFS fence objects.

Before any custom terra-forming is considered, I must ask if you have installed this, and have made the above screenshots with it loaded ?

NORWAY 20m DEM Part 1 - High Resolution Terrain Elevation Data from LIDAR Imaging​

https://flightsim.to/file/14804/nor...ion-terrain-elevation-data-from-lidar-imaging


PS: I will have additional info to communicate later today on your other cited goals / issues, pending your reply on the above.

Until I get back to this thread today, you may wish to 'harden' Helipad & Trolley surfaces in MCX with the Attached Object feature.

Landable Platform for MSFS

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/landable-platform-for-msfs.452755/post-884259


FYI: The settings used will likely be the same ones used by others for Helipad hardening via a "Platform" attribute in MCX, as seen in:

https://flightsim.to/file/54947/norwegian-helipads/feed/3


GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi Vetle:

Just a quick post to confirm I have taken a look at the file you linked via PM today.

I believe it would be useful to decide on what approach may be best for configuring terrain shape in the immediate vicinity of the 3D model, before planning to include either any custom 3D modeled fencing or placement of default MSFS fence objects.

Before any custom terra-forming is considered, I must ask if you have installed this, and have made the above screenshots with it loaded ?

NORWAY 20m DEM Part 1 - High Resolution Terrain Elevation Data from LIDAR Imaging​

https://flightsim.to/file/14804/nor...ion-terrain-elevation-data-from-lidar-imaging

No, I have not installed this. I am using the msfs native data. I have modified the terrain in the sdk via the terraformer function, so I believe there are possibikities to work around potential issues regarding this. I am unaware of potential problems which may occur though so I believe some trial and error must be expected.

PS: I will have additional info to communicate later today on your other cited goals / issues, pending your reply on the above.

Until I get back to this thread today, you may wish to 'harden' Helipad & Trolley surfaces in MCX with the Attached Object feature.

Landable Platform for MSFS

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/landable-platform-for-msfs.452755/post-884259


FYI: The settings used will likely be the same ones used by others for Helipad hardening via a "Platform" attribute in MCX, as seen in:

https://flightsim.to/file/54947/norwegian-helipads/feed/3

perfect! I will check this out. I saw from a video that there is a possibility to add collideable faces within the SDK so I might try that.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

I agree that MSFS SDK Terraforming may yield an acceptable result at ENSX to configure the default MSFS terrain reasonably close to IRL.

That will allow the MSFS Terrain textures to be projected onto the default ground surface, rather than attempting to use a 3D model.


Regarding the workflow to edit PBR attributes in mapped texture Materials:

Sketchup PBR plugin can edit to adjust (3) PBR attributes via 'sliders' in lieu of creating a fixed "Comp" multi-channel Material .

After editing, one can "Render Scene In Viewport" using the included glTF PBR viewer linked via its toolbar icon.

Output is a glTF in SketchFab compatible Kronos 2.0 format, and can be processed to add MSFS extensions in MCX / Blender


Have you had an opportunity to install and test that "SketchUp PBR Plugin" plugin yet ?


https://sketchucation.com/plugin/2101-pbr

https://github.com/SamuelTallet/SketchUp-PBR-Plugin#documentation

https://community.sketchucation.com...based-rendering-v1-5-9-19-apr-2020?lang=en-US

https://github.com/SamuelTallet/SketchUp-PBR-Plugin


The Sketchup *.glTF export requires use of this plugin (aka "Extension") by Samuel Tallet (aka "centaur"):

https://extensions.sketchup.com/extension/052071e5-6c19-4f02-a7e8-fcfcc28a2fd8/gltf-exporter



BTW: Sketchup *.glTF exports can be imported by Blender instead of the Sketchup *.OBJ export file, to use the PBR attributes.


Also, you could import glTFs exported by Sketchup via the above cited PBR plugin / extension into Arno's ModelConverterX.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/forums/modelconverterx.87/


The numeric range of values utilized by "Comp" channels is relatively small, but have a great impact on the rendered 3D model.

Certainly it will be an interesting possibility that Arno may be able to implement not only the creation of "Comp" multi-channel Material, but to also numerically adjust attribute contribution of those individual channels (...and see them live in MCX' 3D preview ?).


Remembering that MSFS will always be a render unique unto itself that we can only approximate in 3rd party glTF PBR viewers, some viewers may more closely approximate a preview external to MSFS at run time, which is more accurate to that of MSFS.

There has been a plethora of such viewers released in the last 2 years, and it would be good to have MCX proven the best of all.

Hopefully Arno's preview will prove more accurate than that of other glTF PBR viewers for MSFS Material creation / editing.

Hi,

Why would you need to go back to SketchUp to change a PBR setting? As far as I know you can't even set them in SketchUp.

So if you need to change a PBR setting you can modify it in MCX or if the texture needs changes you can apply these with your graphics editor directly on the PNG file that the package tool processes. That should shorten the cycle.

IIUC, Arno alluded to a MCX option of directly editing 'some' mapped PBR texture Material attributes without re-compiling a 3D model.

Hi Arno:

When editing "Comp" channels, will they be adjustable via 'sliders' with detents, or a incrementing 'spin' control etc ?

I shall be eagerly looking forward to seeing what you are able to implement for this much needed feature in MCX.

GaryGB

Not sure what you want to control with sliders. You can replace the channel in the texture by another channel from a file. I'm not planning to add graphics functions, manipulating the channel content is still done in your graphics editor.

It was not clear whether MCX would require re-importing the 3D model to see the results of such PBR attribute edits to "COMP" textures.


FYI: Later today I plan to test a method of creating and editing mapped PBR texture Material attributes interactively in a 3rd party application, ('free'), which also has its own PBR rendering viewer that can be rotated in 3D space to visualize ones PBR attribute edits 'live'.

Results save into a project data file, and IIUC, individual PBR texture Material files can edited without impacting other "Comp" Channels.

If one does not change the mapped Material texture file pixel array in Rows / Columns, or its extents of UVW mapping, this may work OK.


Assuming backups of source data for mapped textures and 3D models are meticulously kept, one can begin a test of optimizing the project.

I would first test the MCX Material Editor DrawCall Minimizer before generating LODs in the Optimization step.

One may also use Sketchup's "Make Unique Texture" feature before importing a 3D model into MCX to reduce mapped texture size.

If desired one may consider the effective "Pixel Per Meter" resolution of mapped textures as a function of user aircraft camera distance; this is another method to eliminate higher LOD-related MIPMAPs on 3D models that do not render if viewed from user aircraft cockpit distance.

Suffice it to say, that your current overall project size will be significantly reduced after implementing the measures cited above.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi Vetle:

I agree that MSFS SDK Terraforming may yield an acceptable result at ENSX to configure the default MSFS terrain reasonably close to IRL.

That will allow the MSFS Terrain textures to be projected onto the default ground surface, rather than attempting to use a 3D model.


Regarding the workflow to edit PBR attributes in mapped texture Materials:





IIUC, Arno alluded to a MCX option of directly editing 'some' mapped PBR texture Material attributes without re-compiling a 3D model.





It was not clear whether MCX would require re-importing the 3D model to see the results of such PBR attribute edits to "COMP" textures.


FYI: Later today I plan to test a method of creating and editing mapped PBR texture Material attributes interactively in a 3rd party application, ('free'), which also has its own PBR rendering viewer that can be rotated in 3D space to visualize ones PBR attribute edits 'live'.

Results save into a project data file, and IIUC, individual PBR texture Material files can edited without impacting other "Comp" Channels.

If one does not change the mapped Material texture file pixel array in Rows / Columns, or its extents of UVW mapping, this may work OK.


Assuming backups of source data for mapped textures and 3D models are meticulously kept, one can begin a test of optimizing the project.

I would first test the MCX Material Editor DrawCall Minimizer before generating LODs in the Optimization step.

One may also use Sketchup's "Make Unique Texture" feature before importing a 3D model into MCX to reduce mapped texture size.

If desired one may consider the effective "Pixel Per Meter" resolution of mapped textures as a function of user aircraft camera distance; this is another method to eliminate higher LOD-related MIPMAPs on 3D models that do not render if viewed from user aircraft cockpit distance.

Suffice it to say, that your current overall project size will be significantly reduced after implementing the measures cited above.

GaryGB

Thank you so much, Gary. Really appreciate all your time in this! I am using the drawCall minimizer with every MCX "treatment" of the textures. I have not yet used the LOD-function. I have identified the Make Unique texture feature which I might consider using on the larger objects. I don't believe it would be practical (correct if mistaken!) to do that on the helicopter trolley with multiple individual objects (the planks) with the same texture type but rearranged to not have the repeating textures effect. Making these textures would, if I understand correctly, result in alot of the same texture material.

Right now I am a little bit stuck with the terrain. I do not necessarily want the terrain to be present in the sim, but the pavement/roads and fences on it should be so I have to use some sort of guidance to place the roads and walkways on. I am currently experimenting a bit with different Sketchup plugins but I keep hitting an issue making it not really usable. However, I might just go with the conclusion that "good-enough" is "good-enough", and as long as the objects on top of the terrain is somewhat aligned to a terrain I can adjust within the SDK.

I have decided to include the surrounding walkways without roads, the parking on the north side, fences and signs. All of these need some sort of pinpoint on where to be "in the air" as long as I do not make accurate terrain, but I figured out a way to sort of accommodate this by using the sandbox tool, so we'll see where I get with this...

 

[Nightstalkernor]

I have made a forum topic within the Sketchup forums to address the bending roads and fence issue in combination with terrain: https://forums.sketchup.com/t/request-approach-to-making-objects-roads-follow-a-terrain/303337