How do I change the elevation of default terrain

[jgarnold]

Indeed it takes my humble aging brain to think of such things and I have now set 'Is ground Level' to NO in ADE, built the package opened in in Devmode and added a terraforming polygon and set the height to 3 meters using the Gyzmo and achieved what I wanted. I now have to adjust the polygon sides to make it look reasonable. I really need to be able to set the altitude differently to make it easier to blend in the edges of the polygon to the existing incorrect terrain altitude as it all seems to be the same for a long way around that particular area AND there is a MSFS building there also which might be compromised.

I don't know if tides 'work' in MSFS?

What are you up to with what you have been working on?

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

Looks Good.

AFAIK, you could use separate Polygons for land / water that have a minimum (IIRC, 1 Meter ?) falloff value.

IIUC, that should allow the desired more vertical drop-off from land into water at the shoreline by the pier ?


I mentioned tides not because they exist in MSFS, but because they are as high as ~9+ Feet in Sechelt Inlet.

Porpoise Bay (07852)

www.waterlevels.gc.ca

Thus the peak water level as a "variable" MSL total, should not overflow the shoreline at Sechelt Porpoise Bay.


I have LiDAR data for the region that may be used to correct Sechelt water polygon and terrain mesh surfaces.

Shall I link you to test BGLs made for FSX, so you can view IRL Alt. values in FSX or P3Dv1.4x SDK TMFViewer ?


Tomorrow, I am planning to test adding Elevation values to SHP Polygons for the CAX3 test area to see if the Polygon primitives will render the surface at the assigned Altitude in MSFS if assigned Attributes in DevMode.

If successful, I also plan to test multi-faceted Polygons in a TIN via SHP files rather than via other data files.

But tonight I must try to catch up on some rest.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

Hi Gary,
I am not sure what the shoreline at that point at Sechelt is. If it is a sharp drop off to the water or nor as I do not have any photos which really show what it is like ie if a sharp dropoff or not. Looking at Google Earth it appears that the edge of the water (when the satellite image was taken - maybe at LOW tide?) is about 10 metres from the 'shore' (where the end of the pier is) which forms like a beach area which goes from water level to 3 meters so that is NOT a sharp drop off HOWEVER I have to use what MSFS uses and seems to show water right up to where the end of the pier is. If I wanted to maybe I should create a terrain polygon to show a sandy? surface from a bit further out and then add a terraform polygon with a 'falloff' of that distance ie 10 meters. Not sure if I want to go to that 'trouble' but knowing me if I run out of things to do I will do it. I am keen to release my scenery to flightsim.to but maybe I still can and then add those finishing touches and release an updated version.
[added later] I just checked the water and terrain showing in MSFS and sure enough they show that the water extends all the way to the area where the end of my pier is so maybe it was HIGH tide?
Anyway I will quickly have a look to see what 'terrain types' there are and consider adding a polygon to make the shore line further out. Its either that of lower my pier but of the many photos I have from the web the water level does NOT come up higher than how I have positioned my pier. All the other docks seen in the area are floating docks.

[added later] It seems 'removing' water could be quite easy although I'm not sure if I need an EXCLUDE polygon AS WELL AS a MATERIAL polygon to change some of the terrain from water to MUD SAND (material type) which looks the best option from what is available unless I create my own material.

I really don't want to attempt to recreate exactly how it looks in real life as who will even notice? It's like creating a scenery object. If every nail in the side of a building is modeled (as rivets are in an aircraft wing are) who will notice that detail as it will normally be 'viewed' in MSFS from a distance. Your opinion? Hope you had a good rest today.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

[EDITED]

I just measured the shore platform to which your Harbour Air Seaplane pier appears to be attached (part is not a level grade).

This is not the shore platform to which your large paved pier appears to be attached (at a level grade to roll cargo etc.).

[END_EDIT]

The shore Altitude of that platform according to calibrated LiDAR data is reported as 7.0 Feet AMSL (not AGL).

The exact 'slow-slew') transition to 0.0 Feet (A)-MSL is shown by position of the Finney Ground CH+ in this image:

The Finney CH+ Red / White bands are each 1 Meter; I hope this info may prove useful in your considerations.

Also, I agree that the shore is sloped in most areas except under the Pub building deck extending over water, as seen in GE-SV:

BTW: Here is the tide data for July, 28, 2022 when the current Google Earth imagery was taken:

https://www.tides.gc.ca/en/stations/07852/2022-07-28?tz=PST&unit=m


NOTE: Most analyses I performed in Sketchup with Date / Time calibrated for 3D model shadow alignment to imagery showed Google imagery is captured within max 45 minutes on either side of 12:00 Noon (usually ~15 Min.).

Out of curiosity, I may do a CAX3 3D correlative shadow analysis in Sketchup using this imagery tomorrow.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

Thanks again. If Google satellite imagery is usually taken around 12:00 noon then according to the tide information on that day it was around low tide. If that's the case then MSFS must be using the high tide water level as it appears to cover all the area shown in Google Earth. If I model using that data then I would need to lower the altitude of my pier so much that all the supports would be under water (and only the deck above water) and none of the photos and videos I can find show the pier supports underwater. Anyway who's to know or even care what the tide is at when they fly to or from my sechelt water airport and so I intend to add 'mud sand' polygon to cover the water. Watching a Youtube video by The Flying Theston an exclusion polygon in not required to simply change the vegetation type but not sure if that includes water areas. I asked another question separately about that but in the meantime I will experiment. Also experiment if I can change it AND add terraforming with one polygon. Lots of new stuff to learn and I have already with your support learned a lot.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

Based on an analysis I performed in Sketchup with Date / Time calibrated for 3D model shadow alignment to imagery showed the current Google Earth imagery at Sechelt Porpoise Bay was captured on July 28, 2022 at 10:30 A.M. (less often seen in GE imagery).

IIUC, calculated tidal height July 28, 2022 at 10:30 A.M. is 47.897872340425531914893617021277 Inches or ~ 4 Feet (A)-MSL.

I believe we need not factor date / time of the LiDAR scan, as it likely penetrated the shallow water at areas near that shoreline.

I thought you might find that to be of some interest ...along with the additional images I add to a post above this afternoon.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

Very interesting Gary and I wasn't trying to take anything away from what you have achieved. I think too that you mentioned large tides in that area. Some places in the world have huge tides such as at Broome on the west coast of Australia and also the Bay of Fundy in Canada.
You have indeed be very busy and proactive and the results are interesting.

I now have it worked out to create a water exclude polygon to cover the foreshore which Google Earth shows as like a dark sandy beach and to create another polygon with Mud Sand material to emulate the dark sandy area and will then add a terraforming polygon wirg a height of 3 meters and a fall off off 10 meters which should make the area a lot better.

Lately though I have noticed that every time I click on ADD (for a polygon) a vertex appears a little away from where I want my polygon and when I press CTRL and left mouse button for my first vertex a line is drawn and I see there is already that vertex I never placed. I then use that vertex as one I would have placed anyway and then drag it back to where I want it to be (hope I have described that clearly).
But its annoying and wonder why it is happening as I have never seen that happen before in other projects. All I can think of is that before all this I had added a 'scenery' polygon in ADE in an attempt to change the altitude of the land 3 meters and then removed it and now wonder something has been left behind by ADE.

 

[GaryGB]

I noticed the same thing when I did a quick test in DevMode at Sechelt Porpoise Bay to see if one can make 'sloped' Polygons.

A point appears nearby that I did not personally click to start my Polygon vertices; looks like a new bug.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

VERY interesting that it happens with you too. Maybe I will test it with another project in Devmode. Maybe too I will download the latest SDK version and test again.

[added a few minutes later]

I just checked with another project. The SAME thing happens (a vertex is automatically places at a distance). If this is a bug how is it reported I wonder?

 

[jgarnold]

Hi Gary

I just noticed what appears to be new photos posted by yourself of the water edge at Sechelt (did you add them to that post later as I often add stuff after posting a reply? ) Where did you find those? I did a Google search 2 weeks ago and never saw them and also looked for videos on Youtube to 'snatch' images from. You certainly have a knack for uncovering things.

Most appear to have been taken at high tide as MSFS also shows so maybe I will forget about changing the water line, leave it there and do a fall off of just 1 or 2 meters.
And there appears to be a small 'ramp' from the car park to the end of the pier which I should add to my pier model which will require a lower terrain height with terraforming. GOOD WORK GARY and THANKS.

The shoreline though under the pier extends further out so maybe I will add polygons to exclude some water there and new terrain material where the water was. But just how far do I go? As mentioned before who will notice and indeed who will know what the shoreline actually looks like. It would be for personal satisfaction only. I could even 'model' that concrete ramp for launching boats seen in one of 'your' photos, it could go on and on.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

In GE top down view, zoom in on the boat launch / pier area, then pull the "Golden Guy" figure off the top right compass gizmo.

You will see roadside and spot versions of street view imagery marked in Blue; drop the "Golden Guy" figure on the Blue "views".

I will be out for a couple of hours, and will check back again tonight.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

Thanks. I use the "golden guy" heaps of times but only ever down to a road (blue lines) I have never noticed those Blue 'views' before. I now see that the supports consist of THREE verticals (posts) with cross bracing on two on them. I had thought (and modelled) two verticals (posts) with cross bracing. Looks like more more 're jigging' my pier model for correctness.

 

[jgarnold]

Hi Gary, I contacted mamu about that wayward polygon vertex placement and he advised that he has not encountered it BUT gave this interesting link -
https://devsupport.flightsimulator....int-placement-offset-bug-in-scenery-edit.html

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

Thanks for the heads-up on that explanation; all we need now is a fix by Asobo for a now even more buggy SDK DevMode GUI.

We are being 'bumped around' like rubber balls, by multiple issues in MSFS' "buggy" (baby ?) SDK.


Ok, you guessed what was coming ...pejorative faux homage to Asobo's SDK coders:

"Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers"

< ...say it at least 5 times, very fast. > (...at least as fast as a fix should be forthcoming, perhaps ? )

Apparently, I am ready for a bit more rest.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

I too thought DEvmode may be a little more buggy recently as I thought that it is now taking noticable longer to load a project and also to build package.

There have been quite a few 'minor' MSFS updates recently too.

 

[jgarnold]

I have 'resurrected' this thread to reveal some interesting finds.

I have found that when adding just a water exclude polygon, ground elevations sometimes are revealed.

The edge of the water at Sechelt BC is incorrectly shown further 'inland' than where it really is.
I added a water exclusion (only) polygon and the water 'under' the polygon is then not drawn HOWEVER ground elevations appear and they are higher that the original water level. It seems to me IMHO that water flattens the area under it (that the ground elevations may be correct but water flattens it).

Is that true?

 

[=rk=]

You should consider that this code was written in 1990 for a different sim and then purchased, reworked and upscaled. It is entirely likely that things like exclude polygons and what have you that are left over from FS9 do work, but have unintended consequences. I've had odd behavior with polygons in general, over water. Water in MSFS is highly viscous, like syrup, or molasses. It is a solid liquid in the same way glass is. Except MSFS water has an oily surface tension that sucks up into and onto terrain. By my calculations, the water "mounding" is about 7 feet at shore and where I am working, 200 feet elevation, 200 miles inland, there is over 50 feet of discrepancy for SimObjects. Model objects just see shiny syrup glass. This discrepancy never existed in FSX and it's probably why we have no inland boats.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

As time goes by, and as threads grow longer (and greater in number), it can be challenging to recall all the content previously posted and discussed.

At least part of what you allude to may have its origin in changes imposed by Asobo to MSFS default rendering of Water Polygons, IIRC, since last year.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...evation-of-default-terrain.456363/post-909903

IIUC, when we exclude Water Polys, we eradicate the factors that interfere with display of the underlying MSFS terrain elevation point values.

Hi John:

Indeed, (...and, in theory), the use of MSFS SDK Polygons with assigned Altitudes for the vertex points should work.

The water at Sechelt is ultimately connected to the Pacific Ocean at Sea Level, and thus should be set at 0 Meters AGL / AMSL

If we do not assign Altitudes, MSFS rendering engine assumes it should merge co-planar Polygons and vertices fall back to the local terrain mesh; that MSFS local terrain mesh may- or may not- be correct.


Be aware that the default Falloff Distance values for Polygon types may have varying minimum extents for overlap, and that shaping terrain and/or shoreline slopes descending into water may require use of separate Polygons when precise shoreline drop-offs are required, but you wish to blend into adjacent Polygons on another side of a scenery area.

Also, in a (presumably temporary ?) attempt by Asobo to take some of the heat off regarding "water creep" up onto shorelines, all scenery by default seems to set water Polygons at the same Altitude as adjacent local shorelines.

Consequently, to see the terrain and water at MSFS' internally assigned mesh Altitudes which are closer to IRL, we must do this:

MSFS DevMode Menu > Options > Ground > Un-check: Enable Water Flattening (...each and every time we start a flight ).

After changing the latter setting, you will begin to see what the "lay of the Land" (and Water) actually is locally in MSFS terrain.

Additionally, one must set: <Esc> Options > General Options > Terrain Vector Data: Ultra ...for maximum detail.


Remember that we just had a SU-10 Canada scenery update, purportedly including a terrain mesh upgrade, but I have not checked to see which areas were actually updated with elevation data yet.

The base data previously in use for Canada was 23 Meters between elevation data points.

I'll check back after I see what Canada GIS now has available for the Sechelt area in case that may prove to be of interest.

GaryGB

PS: I want to find out how to permanently toggle the MSFS default water flattening OFF; AFAIK it is Asobo's "cover-up" for botched 3D world shorelines.

But, to be fair, most world shoreline data is still a Work-In_Progress as various GIS data sets are gradually compared / updated.

I understand that Asobo was in a rush to get terrain scenery data for MSFS ASAP, so they used Open Street Map data sets.

Thanks, Dick; I do recall your prior admonition to use separate Polygons until more is certain about how DevMode ends up working.

Multi-Attribute Polygons had been working for Months now; but I'll try that approach again this afternoon.


PS: Do you happen to know how to permanently toggle off: DevMode Menu > Options > Ground > Enable Water Flattening ?

GaryGB

 

[GaryGB]

You should consider that this code was written in 1990 for a different sim and then purchased, reworked and upscaled. It is entirely likely that things like exclude polygons and what have you that are left over from FS9 do work, but have unintended consequences. I've had odd behavior with polygons in general, over water. Water in MSFS is highly viscous, like syrup, or molasses. It is a solid liquid in the same way glass is. Except MSFS water has an oily surface tension that sucks up into and onto terrain. By my calculations, the water "mounding" is about 7 feet at shore and where I am working, 200 feet elevation, 200 miles inland, there is over 50 feet of discrepancy for SimObjects. Model objects just see shiny syrup glass. This discrepancy never existed in FSX and it's probably why we have no inland boats.

IIRC, there is a few threads from early MSFS RTM in 2020, that discussed the variable distances in Altitude between the "true" surface ground Altitude of the newer EGM2008 Geoid and the WGS84 ellipsoid ground Altitude of FS2Kx terrain at various places in the MSFS 3D world as rendered at run time.

There is also a description of where / how one can "slip under the edge" between these (2) ground surface layers and explore in MSFS user A/C.

I'll try to find these threads and post links sometime this weekend.


BTW: Apparently there is a EPSG GIS 'projection' type for a corrected WGS84 that incorporates the EGM2008 Geoid into a working 3D world "shape":

https://epsg.io/3855

"Zero-height surface resulting from the application of the EGM2008 geoid model to the WGS 84 ellipsoid. Replaces EGM96 height (CRS code 5773)"

IIUC, this could / should become MSFS' 0-Meters (A)MSL to be used for "sea level" in the 3D world; all sim Altitudes may then be 'relative' to this.

GaryGB

Geoid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Earth ellipsoid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Earth Gravitational Model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Geoid vs Ellipsoid: What’s the Difference

Learn the geoid vs ellipsoid difference and how accurate vertical datums and orthometric heights boost drone surveying precision.

www.propelleraero.com

 

[=rk=]

That is amazing stuff, Gary and you do some incredible research, this information even seems parallel to the elevation discrepancy experience. You could write a geographically based script to compensate for the shift...ChatGPT? The occasions when my AI boats slip under the surface are one of the ways I am able to see this "underworld," when I am following them, here I clicked to this buried effect in DevMode. MSFS looks pretty amazing from underneath!