• 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.

MSFS24 How to remove default helipads in MSFS2024?

Hi John:

I tested the mega download package in MSFS 2024, and I do still 'fall through' the surface of the replacement floating dock.

IIUC, since that is intended to no longer be used as a Helipad, it is not crucial to most end users of your add-on.

It was interesting to see (default ?) floating docks nearby were already 'hardened'; typically in FS these objects are not hardened.

I'll check back here in the morning (almost 4 A.M. here).

GaryGB
 
Hi John:

I just tested the latter Mega download linked immediately above.

There are issues with the method used to implement a top hardened surface: the "platform" is elevated above the Face.

In the image below, a Cabri default Helicopter has been slewed to its lowest possible position over the Face of the dock.

cam9_replacement_floating_dock_elevated_hardened_top_face_cabri-1-jpg.100672


I do not know if it is possible in Blender to achieve a top hardened surface "platform" without it being elevated above the Face.


I know that with MCX one can easily achieve the goal of a invisible top hardened surface "platform" ...not elevated above a Face.

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


Thanks for your efforts; the replacement floating dock looks great despite any invisible extension of its top "platform". :)

GaryGB
 

Attachments

  • CAM9_Replacement_Floating_Dock_Elevated_Hardened_Top_Face_Cabri-1.jpg
    CAM9_Replacement_Floating_Dock_Elevated_Hardened_Top_Face_Cabri-1.jpg
    322 KB · Views: 148
Last edited:
I will rework it. I placed a collision box over the dock and positioned it so that the top of the box looked like it was at the same altitude as the top of the dock. Obviously the 'build' does other things. I will lower the box say 400mm which is my guestimate from your image. What do you think?
 
I appreciate the offer of a guess, but I am not certain how one might measure the 'true' distance of the elevated collision box.


IIUC, Blender has a Ruler tool with Millimeter graduations on it that may show any elevation of a collision box above a top Face.


Personally, I would rather export that 3D model as a separate MSFS glTF after processing it via MCX' Attached Object Editor.

The AutoPlatform feature accessed in the MCX' Attached Object Editor is relatively quick and easy.

IIRC, by default, AutoPlatform essentially copies a selected Face and converts it to a "invisible" hardened concrete surface.

The hardened (sur-)Face is mapped back onto the 3D model, aligned with the original Face, thus no elevated collision 'Face'. :wizard:

GaryGB
 
jgarnold said:
I am now using a different method (Blender MSFS material parameter Road Collision). Please try this one

https://mega.nz/folder/NQxgwLYA#kJwCyjGbjnQKrKXyichXMw

I managed to test it and the helicopter skids end up perfectly on the dock.
Click to expand...

Congratulations... perfectly aligned, as intended. :cool:

cam9_replacement_floating_dock_aligned_hardened_top_face_cabri-1-jpg.100671


PS: Just a quick question likely unrelated to replacing the former Helipad and setting its surface platform altitude:

Will there also be further work to align the roadway altitude that runs along in front (back ?) of the flying Beaver ?

cam9_roadway_elevated-1-jpg.100673


Thanks again for making this available to the FS Community for both 2020 and 2024. :)

GaryGB
 

Attachments

  • CAM9_Replacement_Floating_Dock_Aligned_Hardened_Top_Face_Cabri-1.jpg
    CAM9_Replacement_Floating_Dock_Aligned_Hardened_Top_Face_Cabri-1.jpg
    301 KB · Views: 117
  • CAM9_Roadway_Elevated-1.jpg
    CAM9_Roadway_Elevated-1.jpg
    316.2 KB · Views: 109
Last edited:
GaryGB said:
Will there also be further work to align the roadway altitude that runs along in front (back ?) of the flying Beaver ?
Click to expand...
No unless 2024 has the correct altitude of the area.
The international airport the road etc is at sea level and so without the terraforming the piers under the decks are under water and the decks are at water level and it looks stupid. I considered adjusting the altitude of CYVR but its too large. I also tried a few different 'falloffs' to try and make it blend better but couldn't.
I had a look at the terrain in 2024 (without my airport scenery with the terraforming and it is no better ie NOT correct.
Consider the actual terrain from Google satellite 3D view (showing a bank along the river which looks around 2 or 3 metres high - note the height of the piers under the Flying Beaver) with the Asobo terrain (which has no bank along the river) below. How can Asobo get it so wrong?

BTW I just checked to see if I could 'massage' the terraforming and then remembered that I tried before. Even setting falloff to 2000 the actual falloff never changes from what appears to be 0 and I wonder if that is because Asobo has done something to the terrain there. I will ask around.
1787120166470.png


1787120290704.png
 
Last edited:
Hi John:

[EDITED]

It appears Asobo may consider Sea Island as a W.I.P. area, as IMHO, they do not deliver terrain detail inferred to be available in the default scenery since MSFS 2020 World Update II in November 2020.


SRTM and ASTER GDEM V3 (1) Arc-second elevation data indeed shows incorrect river, shore, & road elevation of "0" at CAM9.

This tells me Asobo may not have used Canada's CDEM 23-Meter elevation data (decades old) in lieu of SRTM / GDEM @Sea Island.

Sea Island was engineered to accommodate CYVR since 1930; how / why would Asobo feed us this kind of "BC" ('BS') terrain ?

AFAIK, this area was inferred as having been upgraded to a higher resolution terrain since November 2020 via World Update II:

https://www.flightsimulator.com/release-notes-1-11-5-0/

usupdategraphic_dem-scaled-jpg.65562


IIUC, this above map shows Vancouver area "should" be using at least 23 Meter or better resolution (...or is Sea Island "Green" ?)

If Sea Island is in a "Green" area at ~64 Meters resolution, is Asobo doing over-sampling of SRTM 90 Meter (3) Arc-Second data ?

If so, WTH are they doing when SRTM / GDEM 30 Meter (1) Arc-Second or preferably CDEM 23 Meter is available to be used ?


Oh, wait... is it that tricky wording that uses "photogrammetry" (as a substitute for a regional terrain mesh resolution update ?)

https://www.flightsimulator.com/world-update-xi-canada-now-available/






Google Earth displays correct elevations on shores where water ends at high tide; but water 'surfaces' shown is not high tide.

A lower level of the tidal range seems to have been used in Googles imagery; BING MAPs shows an intermediate tidal height for its Fraser River water body.


There is new LIDAR data for this area since 2022 that merits consideration; it may not have been released until March 2026.

In my GIS app, I see the new LIDAR data for this area has detailed and accurate elevation data on the river, bank, & road.


CYVR / Sea Island may need a simple TerraForming using vectors and Falloff; but one must ensure they are the local base layers.


IIRC, TerraForming now behaves differently, with all layers above the base layer not having access to Falloff:


Possibly these scenarios offer insights on new quirks of Terra-Forming with vectors (discovered in a context of 'Rectangles'):

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-party-photogrammetry-area.459478/post-930253

NOTE: Substitute Terra-forming Rectangles in layers may allow for straight upper edges instead of a sloped flatten:

"IMPORTANT! When stacking terraforming rectangles, the falloff will only be used for the lowest priority rectangle. All rectangles on top will have their falloff behave as if it was set to 0 and so give the sharpest transition possible"

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Developer_Mode/Scenery_Editor/Objects/Rectangle_Objects.htm


The above example deals with use of terraforming rectangles; but IIUC, terraforming polygon priority may also work comparably.

Another pertinent thread:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...g-a-large-non-flat-airport.450254/post-865482


Use of Google query strings cited in my post below in this thread may explain this further (it is not clearly explained in SDK docs).

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...fault-helipads-in-msfs2024.460350/post-941703

[END_EDIT]

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
I am trying to decide whether or not to spend any more time on the CAM9 project as I need to check that all my other uploaded packages on flightsim.to for possible need for alteration for 2024 and the 'weird' terrain caused by terraforming (with incorrect falloff) is unlikely to be noticed by the average 'pilot'.

Also trying to use a keyboard and mouse with my arm in a sling on my dominant arm/hand is difficult to say the least.

I might, repeat might, add some more terraforming polygons around the existing at different altitudes to try and smooth out the non existing falloff. I can't see using rectangles would be very easy as the shoreline is not a straight line.

Lastly fsdeveloper need to upgrade their servers or whatever as every time I select something new even just a page it takes up to 30 seconds to display. No other web site does that to me. So slow its not funny.
 
Your reply was funny, however. :-)

But please take time to recuperate before allocating a 'higher priority' in preparing replies to my posts here on this latter sub-topic for CAM9.

We should properly move our entire discussion on CAM9 out of this thread started by the OP, and into its own thread elsewhere.


I'll contemplate how to assign proper "priority" to what might be most helpful, when I get some time to unpack a potential 'collision with an invisible boundary' ...as I formulate a reply later. 😉

[EDITED]

I have been pondering aliased / jagged edges / abrupt drop-off of the roadway adjacent to Flying Beaver Bar and Grill at CAM9.

cam9_roadway_elevated_nsew_tmf_quad_grid_aliasing-1-jpg.100701


Note MSFS' TMF Terrain Mesh Quad Grid vector poly-line N-S-E-W orientation is manifest for the object rendered at run time.

One may not see this even if using a 'legacy' vector terraforming method or data storage format in ESRI shape files versus XML.

Unless, AFAIK, one has a local terraforming vector layer "priority" assignment property and associated 'stack' processing issue. :idea:

[END_EDIT]


I plan to research whether / how to assign a lower priority to custom terraforming vectors than the priority already assigned to MSFS' 2024 default, so they will be allowed to utilize 'falloff'.


Bearing in mind both Polygons and Rectangles are vectors, think of this quest for a possible CAM9 terrain fix, as a "race to the bottom" to straighten out the scenery using curves made of straight (poly-)line segments. 🤣

I elicited a pertinent explanation of MSFS' Priority system via these Google query strings:

Code: 
MSFS Scenery Editor Priority number

Code: 
MSFS terraforming polygon falloff priority

GaryGB
 

Attachments

  • CAM9_Roadway_Elevated_NSEW_TMF_Quad_Grid_Aliasing-1.jpg
    CAM9_Roadway_Elevated_NSEW_TMF_Quad_Grid_Aliasing-1.jpg
    353 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
I doubt if its an easy fix if fixable at all.
Consider the following image where I added a terrain polygon with falloff 2000 to an area on the opposite side of the island and CYVR.
Note how the falloff problem is only on the side of the polygon where CYVR is. The other 3 'sides' have correct falloff.

I queried this on mamu discord channel and no one there had a solution.

I have added a terraforming polygon to other Asobo airports and they worked correctly.

There's something weird here and I don't plan to do anymore to CAM9.

1787266564191.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top