• 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.

Blender Exporting doesnt convert images to divisible by 4. Leaves as original .png

Hi all. Hoping this is a simple one.
When I use blender to create (from scratch) a building, the export to ms gitf doesnt convert the image properly.
I read msfs has to have it in a divisible by 4 size (512 or 256 etc). But my export just puts the original .png into the ..\texture folder.
FS then, of course, wont import it. It imports the model fine but it has no textures... just a white building.
Any help with this would be much appreciated.
I can run through it in a video and post it if seeing what I do helps.
 
Hi all. Hoping this is a simple one.
When I use blender to create (from scratch) a building, the export to ms gitf doesnt convert the image properly.
I read msfs has to have it in a divisible by 4 size (512 or 256 etc). But my export just puts the original .png into the ..\texture folder.
FS then, of course, wont import it. It imports the model fine but it has no textures... just a white building.
Any help with this would be much appreciated.
I can run through it in a video and post it if seeing what I do helps.
Not that big of a deal but I don't like seeing incorrect information being spread around. You want texture dimensions in power's of "2" not divisible by"4", just an FYI. Assuming your textures aren't sized like this, Blender's export tools don't resize images in the correct size, you need to provide correct sizes from the start. Need to include the texture with blend file if you want someone to be able to help.
 
Thanks for guidance @YohanNaz . So can I use 1 texture, like the one attached here, as long as its size is multiples of 2? Or do I need to 'chop it up' into smaller ones?. Thanks heaps for providing some help. I really appreciate it.
 

Attachments

  • PIYDtextures.png
    PIYDtextures.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 32
Thanks for guidance @YohanNaz . So can I use 1 texture, like the one attached here, as long as its size is multiples of 2? Or do I need to 'chop it up' into smaller ones?. Thanks heaps for providing some help. I really appreciate it.
Don't think of it as multiples but power's.. (2⁸ would be 256 and 2¹¹ 2048) as long as you have the sizes in the proper dimensions it'll work. The texture you attached is 2351x2284 and definitely not going to work. You could create a new base canvas in whatever program you use at 2048x2048 then copy your texture into that canvas and resize to fit. There are several ways you could do it but a single 2048x2048 would probably be best. Here's one I did as an example, all you need to do is adjust your UV's a little if at all.
**EDIT**
Need to say that even though what I wrote above is technically correct it's not "required" to work in MSFS. Recently posted by Rhumbaflappy here I see that divisible by 4 and at least 8x8 are the requirements. Wanted to make sure I updated this so folks can see there are many ways. But, sticking to what I mentioned regarding power's isn't a bad thing if you have Substance Painter or other apps like that in the pipeline.
 

Attachments

  • PIYDtextures2048x2048.zip
    1.5 MB · Views: 28
Last edited:
Ok so.... I made the changes as per above and it seems to export properly.
I run the scenery editor in MSFS2020 and all appears to be good... the folders/files created etc proplery... but, the model isnt in the objects list.
When the model want correct, I got it in the list, but now it doesnt show. This is doing ma head in bro!

EDIT:
Got it. There was a word error in a file. All working brilliantly. Thanks for the help
 
Last edited:
the powers of two can be 512x512 or 512x1024 or 512x 2048 or 1024x2048 or 2048x2048 or 4096x512 just to make it simple an bigger than those and its a headache, so just remebr those numbers on and 256 too :)
 
1024x732 works, 2464x2464 works, have over 70 objects being compiled in my modellib directory without an issue, not all are powers of 2. Powers of 2 may be slightly more performance friendly. It's cleanest to keep it as a power of 2, but if your in a rush and just want to re-scale something and not build or compress 2 UV maps together without wasting too much space, anythnig divisible by 4 appears to work fine. I only use this for testing objects and adding them into the game, final UV's will all be 4096x4096 with as many objects fit onto the same UV as possible

I have found the workflow is much more efficient to create the individual UV image map as a separate image for the item you're working on, and not bother with optimizing and combining the UV maps until you are 100% certain that you are satisfied with the design. Otherwise, you will be wasting time redoing the same UV maps over and over and over again.
 
Last edited:
The whole power's of two supposedly has to do with compatibility issues with older graphics cards. Programs like Substance Painter use power's of two for working resolutions. Why bother with other resolutions when you know 1024 or 2048 will work every time. I get that your're just testing with the other res but it doesn't make sense to me why. What ever works for you, we all have a very different way of getting to a similar result.
 
The whole power's of two supposedly has to do with compatibility issues with older graphics cards. Programs like Substance Painter use power's of two for working resolutions. Why bother with other resolutions when you know 1024 or 2048 will work every time. I get that your're just testing with the other res but it doesn't make sense to me why. What ever works for you, we all have a very different way of getting to a similar result.

Hey There...

Why did I do it temporarily, well only to see objects in the game a bit faster as I don't create my final UV maps until all my objects are made, because that way I can figure out which UV maps might have some extra space at the end. I also tend to edit stuff a lot more than I should and not be happy with the final results all the time, and I end up changing textures around quite often at times. I'm not using any third-party apps to create UV maps right now, but am pretty happy with my workflow.

Not saying my workflow is faster (no idea to be honest), just that it seems faster to me than worrying about getting every UV map done quickly with so many separate objects.
 
The UV's are the last thing I do before texturing, I'll model a dozen or so things before attempting UV's. Then, texel density will dictate how I'll lay out the UV's and try to combine things that I can. Sill learning a lot and couldn't tell you if my workflow is better but like you it works for me! :)
 
The UV's are the last thing I do before texturing, I'll model a dozen or so things before attempting UV's. Then, texel density will dictate how I'll lay out the UV's and try to combine things that I can. Sill learning a lot and couldn't tell you if my workflow is better but like you it works for me! :)

Yah, everyone has to find their own way. Actually your way sounds more efficient, but I don't know if I can model that much stuff at once without feeling an immediate need to see some textures. I am impatient.
 

n4gix

Resource contributor
Yah, everyone has to find their own way. Actually your way sounds more efficient, but I don't know if I can model that much stuff at once without feeling an immediate need to see some textures. I am impatient.
I tend to work pretty much the same way myself. I find it extremely difficult to work with what is essentially a "clay model"...
 
Hey There...

Why did I do it temporarily, well only to see objects in the game a bit faster as I don't create my final UV maps until all my objects are made, because that way I can figure out which UV maps might have some extra space at the end. I also tend to edit stuff a lot more than I should and not be happy with the final results all the time, and I end up changing textures around quite often at times. I'm not using any third-party apps to create UV maps right now, but am pretty happy with my workflow.

Not saying my workflow is faster (no idea to be honest), just that it seems faster to me than worrying about getting every UV map done quickly with so many separate objects.
I tend to work pretty much the same way myself. I find it extremely difficult to work with what is essentially a "clay model"...
Because the tools are so new to me and modeling is something I was able to pick back up quickly my focus has been there. Once I get more proficient with Substance my hope is to be able to modify my workflow to incorporate your approach. Makes sense to me to texture as you go on things that lack reference material or situations where it's really necessary to get certain things right. My Vulcan brain dictates that logically if I have massive amounts of reference then I can focus on the models 1st then go back and have a mad texturing session. We shall see how this works out for me but for now, this thread has inspired me to build a smaller model that won't require a ton of work so I can get a texturing fix! :p
 
I think you can do it either way, and it's not that big of a deal, just whatever works. I'm still new in a way too, given I don't do this for a living and I never have that much experience modeling tons of complex things, even though I have been doing this on/off for a few years (I haven't modeled that much stuff overall). Buildings are kind of on the simpler side for us less experienced folks too.

Texturing is on another level of hard, especially to get it to that "next level", not too hard to produce reasonable results, but trying to get anything to look reference level is pretty much a tricky process to say the least.
 
Last edited:

n4gix

Resource contributor
The chief problem is that if one has a completely untextured VC for example, it is next to impossible to even see many of the granular details well enough for even the most stout-hearted to gain any realistic impression of the whole.
 
The chief problem is that if one has a completely untextured VC for example, it is next to impossible to even see many of the granular details well enough for even the most stout-hearted to gain any realistic impression of the whole.
The level of detail and scope of work involved in what you do versus what I'm doing are very different indeed. One day I hope to advance to a level where I'm thinking on a similar plane as you when approaching such a project. Here's the project I was inspired to do, almost have it complete: Helicopter Handler
 
Top