• 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.

MSFS Is there a limit on number of scenery objects which can be compiled?

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
33,881
Country
unitedkingdom
I m trying work out what I am to look at here. As Gary says the red spot represents the reference point of the model and this is not set in ADE but rather in the modelling program that creates the model. Changing it in the modelling program should change it in ADE but why would you want to do that?

The rotation handle in ADE appears when you select an object and is used to rotate the object by hand. Headings for an object can be set directly in the object properties. The handle position is determined by some code in ADE which should set it outside the footprint and/or bounding box. Dragging this causes the object to rotate around the reference point. If that point is not in the center of the model then the object will likely not rotate in place but describe an arc which you might not find very helpful or useful. In that case setting the heading by property might be better

There has always been an issue with the 'front' aspect of an object since what the designer considers the front the user might find not to their liking. Earlier versions of ADE had a function to allow the user to set the front aspect of the model in the display. I think that does not work in ADSE 2020 either hidden or removed. Things get worse since Asobo rotated their front of any they created object by 180 degrees and placing them in ADE 2020 originally resulted in them facing the wrong way. There is code to handle this in ADE but, of course, third party developers may (and probably will) use the community expected facing at which point ADE will rotate them when it is not needed.

There appears to be an issue with the handle placement code that may also be present in older versions of ADE. There is nothing a user can sensibly do to get it in a more helpful place by changing the model. It is something I need to fix and it is on my to list with ADE 2020

If setting headings in ADE is a problem then I would recommend using Two Way Editing to set this in Dev Mode and leave it alone in ADE
 
Messages
720
Country
australia
I am wondering if Gary is referring to the very large footprint (for a 30cm diameter pole compared to a 9 metre x 3 metre floationg dock). I am prepared to 'live with' the fact that the handle is not always placed away from the footprint as its no big deal. Also the oversize footprint is also no big deal although maybe rectifiable.
Here is the link for the sources files for Blender and ADE (rusty pole) where the footprint in ADE is a huge square (for a 30cm diameter pole).
https://mega.nz/folder/HgoC0Qha#fM_q9q7rz_d7EPXbNXHMiw
 
Messages
6,578
Country
us-illinois
Hi John:

Sorry if I missed something in this thread, but have you yet imported your glTF into Arno's ModelConverterX (aka "MCX") ? :scratchch


When I import your glTF into Arno's ModelConverterX (aka "MCX"), and toggle BoundingBox ON, I can see a 'square' outline.

If that 3D model is exported to a Collada *.DAE with mapped *.JPG or *.PNG textures, then imported into Sketchup ...it is 30 cm.


So IIUC, some 3D geometry exported by Blender into the *.glTF from which ADE derives a 2D footprint ...that you report being displayed as large and square in the ADE GUI.

If in fact the 2D footprint derived by ADE from your 3D model attached above, AFAIK, that would suggest ADE's derivation method is either incorrectly interpreting / deriving / writing out the results of ray-casting 3D model BoundingBox size units, or it is "detecting and processing" something internally, when importing your glTF ...that MCX does not render in 3D preview mode.


I have not yet installed a version of Blender to attempt loading your 3D model source.

BTW: Which Blender numeric version are you using ?)


PS: I do not see the "large" footprint in question in either MCX or Sketchup.

I recommend attaching your ADE-19 for MSFS-2020 *.APF project file, so we can see if the "large" footprint in question also is displayed in our installations of ADE-19 GUI.

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Messages
720
Country
australia
HI Gary

NO I have not used Modelconverter and didn't know/couldn't remember if it was necessary. I will now have a look at that. Strange though that the footprint for my 9 metres X 3 metre docks appears to be spot on. I was wondering if the height could have an effect and was going to create a much shorter pole and see if the footprint changed but hadn't got around to it.

The dimensions of the pole in Blender are 4 metres high and 30cm in diameter. Maybe the orientation got changed during the process of exporting as .dae and import into Sketchup? Once again I wonder why the footprint is accurate for the dock.

I cannot find a way to attach a file only images so have uploaded the .apf to the 'cloud' and here is the url https://mega.nz/file/uthhiIwT#HoNJBs4dBfo_COrxrn3CUAOtCE54wDH2WwlybApW3f8

Blender 2.92

BTW I am using ADE alpha_18? Application 20.18.7765.22355

Added later. I imported the pole into modelconverterx and clicked on 'display bounding box' and it displayed what appears to be a square 'box' not much larger than the actual pole which would be correct.


modelconverterx.jpg
 
Last edited:
Messages
720
Country
australia
I have found something.
FIrstly I created a NEW rusty pole using the previous pole and simply reducing its height - I did NOT start a new object. The new pole is 1 metre high, the existing pole is 4 metres high.
Have a look at the resulting footprint - it looks correct in size but NOT the 4 metre pole
Any thoughts?

SMALL POLE.jpg
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,578
Country
us-illinois
I cannot find a way to attach a file only images so have uploaded the .apf to the 'cloud' and here is the url https://mega.nz/file/uthhiIwT#HoNJBs4dBfo_COrxrn3CUAOtCE54wDH2WwlybApW3f8


BTW: I am using ADE alpha_18 - Application 20.18.7765.22355

Hi John:

I am unable to open your ADE *.apf project file linked above, in either ADE Alpha-19 or ADE Alpha-18:

ade_alpha-18_error_apf_project_file_cannot_be_read-jpg.74727


ade_alpha-18_error_this_file_does_not_contain_an_airport_ade_will_not_load_it-jpg.74728


[EDITED]

OOPS ! ...I requested incomplete info from you, John. :oops:

See Scruffyduck's explanation below: :pushpin:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...ects-which-can-be-compiled.452873/post-885328



Please link to (or attach) a ZIP of the entire project structure and contents by using the ADE Project Backup function. :scratchch


FYI: If you archive that (and/or other file types) inside a ZIP file, you can attach it to the FSDev forum if it is within size limits. ;)


PS: Is there a particular reason you are using ADE Alpha-18 instead of ADE Alpha-19 ?

I would recommend you to use ADE Alpha-19 ...available here:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/alpha-19-released.452236/post-880291


Also, I recommend using the latest "development" version 1.5x of Arno's MCX ...available here: :idea:

https://www.scenerydesign.org/development-releases/

[END_EDIT]

GaryGB
 

Attachments

  • ADE_Alpha-18_ERROR_apf_project_file_cannot_be_read.jpg
    ADE_Alpha-18_ERROR_apf_project_file_cannot_be_read.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 62
  • ADE_Alpha-18_ERROR_this_file_does_not_contain_an_airport_ADE_will_not_load_it.jpg
    ADE_Alpha-18_ERROR_this_file_does_not_contain_an_airport_ADE_will_not_load_it.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
33,881
Country
unitedkingdom
The apf file alone is not enough - you should have a complete project containing all the folders. The simplest way to get one is to use the Project Backup function in ADE 2020 which creates a zip of the entire project structure and contents.
 
Messages
6,578
Country
us-illinois
The apf file alone is not enough - you should have a complete project containing all the folders. The simplest way to get one is to use the Project Backup function in ADE 2020 which creates a zip of the entire project structure and contents.

Thanks for that clarification, Jon; I like the idea of having that ADE 2020 Project Backup ZIP feature available. :)

[EDITED]

Just used that backup feature on a test airport project in ADE-19 ...VERY COOL; Many Thanks for this feature ! :wizard:

[END_EDIT]


If '2-way editing' is not checked upon initial configuration of a (airport) project in ADE, do *.APF files work in "legacy mode" ? :scratchch

IOW, will we no longer have an option to store all ADE specific XML source code and vector source code in a ADE *APF file ? :oops:

GaryGB
 
Last edited:

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
33,881
Country
unitedkingdom
If two way editing is not checked for a project then ADE stores the airport design in the .ad20 file and generates source XML from that.

If two way editing is checked for a project then ADE stores the airport design in the xml source file (shared with Dev Mode). It generates the airport from that.

The .apf file is used to store basic data in both cases but the intention is to make that redundant in Two Way Editing and use the project xml file also shared with Dev Mode. In time the intention is to eliminate the legacy ap20 file so that ADE transparently shares the project structure and files with Dev Mode - but that is some way off

Not sure what an ADF file is
 
Messages
720
Country
australia
Just a quick reply as I have just got out of bed and will answer more later.
Regarding why I'm not using ADE 19 - because when I was aware of it I was of the understanding that it was a beta version and possibly have bugs.

No thoughts on why the footprint for the 1 metre high pole seems to be correct but not the 4 metre high one.

BTW I just downloaded that .apf file and did not get any error message when opening it with ADE 18 although nothing seemed to load as the edit window remained blank.

Also I had no idea that there was a later version on modelconverterX than the one release in April. When I download it the file name is exactly the same as the older one (modelconverterx_latest_development_release) which makes it very difficult to release that it is newer so maybe the release date should be part of the zip file name?
 
Last edited:
Messages
720
Country
australia
Attached is a project backup. Please note that it simply contains the 4 metre pole and 1 metre pole.
 

Attachments

  • SECHELTPOLES_Backup.zip
    22.1 KB · Views: 19
Messages
6,578
Country
us-illinois
Hi John:

This is what I see when I try loading up the above ADE file set; no difference in footprint size is seen thus far:

secheltpoles_ade_project_backup_loaded_from_apf-jpg.74740


AFAIK, "black box" footprints (of a default fixed size set by ADE as a 'fall-back value when 2D derivation of a custom footprint is not otherwise possible) ...are what one sees when a project is imported, and a 'placed' 3D model is not already in ADE Library Object Manager.


PS: This is just a wild guess, but:

* 30 cm = 12 inches

...and:

4 Meters= 12 Feet


Is it possible units are assigned incorrectly for 3D model axes when a ADE GUI footprint is derived from a BoundingBox ? :scratchch


BTW: MCX Development Releases are ZIP files, which when viewed, show file dates.

I re-name these ZIP files to ex: MCX_05-04-2021 before de-archiving them into a output folder chain. :idea:


GaryGB
 

Attachments

  • SECHELTPOLES_ADE_Project_Backup_Loaded_From_APF.jpg
    SECHELTPOLES_ADE_Project_Backup_Loaded_From_APF.jpg
    136.3 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
Messages
720
Country
australia
Hi Gary
FYI
I believe that I have found the reason for the incorrect footprint of that pole.

I hope that Jon and Arno are reading this.

I won't go into how I came up with this as it is too much to read and doesn't add anything.

I changed the 'datum' point in Blender (is that what it is called) so that there is virtually no part of the pole below the datum. I had placed the datum around 1 metre above the bottom of the pole to ensure that the pole would never be seen if with wave action the troughs below the wave height were low enough to expose the bottom of the poles - a bit over the top maybe and also maybe not necessary but I had notice "Dave's" floating dock had the datum above the bottom of his dock which results in the 44 gallon drums (used as floats for the dock) being 'buried' in the water instead of sitting on top of the water.

Well that begs the question, are the footprints not being displayed correctly, OR what is the maximum 'depth' to have the datum point at which will not result in any strange sights in MSFS? And do I get a 'merit badge' - just kidding.
 
Messages
6,578
Country
us-illinois
IIUC, you have the base / bottom of the 3D model exactly at the level of the ground surface plane in the 3D work space now ?

So the 3D object has no portion of its volume projecting below a horizontal plane at the "Origin of Axes" in Blender's work-space ?

GaryGB
 
Messages
720
Country
australia
No the base of the pole is just slightly below 'ground level' - see image below from Blender. I also have one of my docks (with car tyres along the side) slightly below ground level so that the tyres are half submerged so in that model maybe about 0.3 metres below ground level and the footprint for that also displays as I would expect.

datum.jpg
 
Messages
720
Country
australia
Gary
IT now seems to be something mystical. I created separate poles at 50cm, 30cm and 10cm 'deep' and all result in good footprints. I did in Blender simply by 'dragging' the pole on the Z axis upwards so that the part of the pole 'below ground' was 50, 30 and 10.

The original pole was NOT 1 metre deep but around 58 CM deep.

I then made the pole to be just a little 'deeper' (around 60cm) and it displayed an incorrect footprint just as the pole at 58cm deep also did.

I'm a bit over this and really don't want to test by trial and error any more.
Poles at 50cm, 30cm and 10cm (approx) deep have a correct footprint and those at 58cm and 60cm deep (approx) don't.
 

scruffyduck

Administrator
Staff member
FSDevConf team
Resource contributor
Messages
33,881
Country
unitedkingdom
Regarding why I'm not using ADE 19 - because when I was aware of it I was of the understanding that it was a beta version and possibly have bugs.

Err - this whole program is still in alpha so by definition it has bugs, unfinished code and missing functionality. It is close to a total rewrite from ADE 1.7,

Please also see my other post in which I report I have found a major bug in the handling and display of scenery objects. Those black footprints as Gary says are because ADE does not know about them either via custom models being added or in the LOM. The size of the footprint is 20x20 which is a default when the object is not known to ADE.
 
Last edited:
Top