MCX: Import already edited textures to continue/edit work

[Nightstalkernor]

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 ingame, but not as much in either Sketchup or MCX.

This creates an issue where I seem to have to import the whole model and it's "sketchup-textures" for a new conversion everytime. What is the best way to keep already edited texture files from having to go through another edit? Exporting the model from MCX and then importing it back again will presumebly not only adjust new texture files but also include the already edited which will be time consuming?

 

[arno]

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.

 

[Nightstalkernor]

You are correct about the PBR-textures. It may be I am doing something I shouldn't, but the issue is in two parts after some "diagnostics". Sketchup may sometimes reverse faces which result in an error in textures rendering while in MSFS. That is a different issue which I need to seperate from this thread however.

I guess my issue currently is that I do not really use any graphics editor other than making transparent chain-links and such. All texture editing is done within sketchup by adjusting a texture/material. So then I have to export a .gltf file from sketchup and then import the whole model and texture information again into MCX. And then I have to convert the texture within MCX so that they use the right values for import further into MSFS. I guess I can export the MCX-edited object and then import that one if anything needs to be changed?

 

[=rk=]

Hi maybe I can clear up some confusion. It sounds like you are using MCX to handle the duties I normally relegate to Photoshop! If you only knew how innovative that is..Anyway yes, MCX will do all of this and devs should be singing the virtues of the texture normalizer but that's another story. I strongly endorse you to edit your own textures, it is not just that you are only ever using other people's material, it is that your workflow is severely restricted by this bottleneck to the point it will overshadow your creations.

I am doing something I shouldn't, but the issue is in two parts after some "diagnostics". Sketchup may sometimes reverse faces which result in an error in textures rendering while in MSFS.

Sketchup is incredibly powerful and it is amazingly subtle. It does not arbitrarily reverse faces, we do that ourselves. If you are finding faces reversed you did not intend, it is because you are ignoring Sketchup's subtle clues. I have a model here I made just for us and it has some reversed faces.

FYI in Sketchup, the white faces are the front faces and the blue faces are the backside faces. Some people do it the other way, but as you've learned, textures look different between the faces and all default geometry is white on the outside. So that is how I do it.
On any given model that has mixed faces selected, Sketchup will always texture only the white faces first. We are all used to this, we drop a texture onto the tennis ball and only the outside gets textured. Now, if you are texturing something and nothing happens until you try again a second time, you are very most likely attempting to apply texture/color to backside faces.
I created backside faces intentionally and applied texture a second time to hide them. The way we reveal them is to go to View>Face Style and instead of checking shaded with textures, we select monochrome.

Next to the whole issue of popping back and forth in and out of MCX. I am sad to see you feel overwhelmed by Sketchup texture management. I use 3ds Max mostly these days and texture management there, compared to Sketchup is like doing graphics in victorian England. I feel like I went from one of the state of the art, to the other end. Yes, Sketchup keeps textures "on board," but there are an abundance of tools and plugins to manage them. While I am thinking of it, I suggest you look into "Cleanup3" and add that to your workflow.

It seems like there may be a bit of vagueness how textures, mapping and dimensions relate to models and UV. I'm very sorry if this is not the case, you can simply skip this paragraph. You'll want ot think of textures like a poster someone puts on a wall, or the wraps that get applied to cars. they're a digital photograph and they have very specific dimensions. The model contains all the mapping, it is not just geometry. When we change the dimensions of a texture, we throw off that UV mapping, but if the texture is scaled evenly, the mapping persists. Colors do not work that way and tiled textures have slightly different rules, resizing them out of ratio just changes the pattern.

To make headway on the bottleneck, I advise you to create a folder for your textures, per object, project, version of your flight sim or whatever and work out of that. When you edit a texture, you save it into that directory. On the Sketchup side, I am sure you know how to compose a material, by opening the panel, making a name and then navigating to the texture folder, or composing a color. That folder should always be your "base" folder and not just once when you first create it, each time you modify a texture with your MCX process, you can go back to your material panel in Sketchup, navigate to that edited texture, import it into your model and all the edits will show up on already textured geometry. Now be careful, if you are resizing textures you will lose your UV mapping, unless the resized textures have the exact same size ratio. If you're able to change image size pixel by pixel while maintaining size ratio, you'll find that most textures resolve to being divisible by four quite quickly. In fact, every possible combination of texture size ratio can be made divisible four times into whole numbers if no other way than by making it four times larger.

So, with new Sketchup models you go to your textures directory first. With new textures, you process them through MCX and then into your textures directory. With every Sketchup model you can replace the onboard textures with your archive textures.

Now Sketchup is really geared toward self education. I learned a few of these tricks by being frustrated and turning to YouTube, but many of these were small rewards for my own innovation. I'll not steal that joy from others, if it seems like I don't reply enough.

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi maybe I can clear up some confusion. It sounds like you are using MCX to handle the duties I normally relegate to Photoshop! If you only knew how innovative that is..Anyway yes, MCX will do all of this and devs should be singing the virtues of the texture normalizer but that's another story. I strongly endorse you to edit your own textures, it is not just that you are only ever using other people's material, it is that your workflow is severely restricted by this bottleneck to the point it will overshadow your creations.

Thank you so much for such an extensive reply, RK. I really appreciate it. I am totally new to this, but I really enjoy making models so I've kind of jumped into it and learn new things underway. My workflow can certainly improve! Therefore, please forgive my not-so-smart reply. I am currently not using photoshop due to the fact that I want to test out how I enjoy making scenery, and how intuitive or hard it is to learn how to make it. Therefore I am currently using Sketchup for modelling and texturing, MCX for textureconversion to png. and optimalization, and then export it as a gltf to the msfs project. What do you do in photoshop, and how to you apply the textures to the model?

Sketchup is incredibly powerful and it is amazingly subtle. It does not arbitrarily reverse faces, we do that ourselves. If you are finding faces reversed you did not intend, it is because you are ignoring Sketchup's subtle clues. I have a model here I made just for us and it has some reversed faces.

View attachment 94796



FYI in Sketchup, the white faces are the front faces and the blue faces are the backside faces. Some people do it the other way, but as you've learned, textures look different between the faces and all default geometry is white on the outside. So that is how I do it.
On any given model that has mixed faces selected, Sketchup will always texture only the white faces first. We are all used to this, we drop a texture onto the tennis ball and only the outside gets textured. Now, if you are texturing something and nothing happens until you try again a second time, you are very most likely attempting to apply texture/color to backside faces.
I created backside faces intentionally and applied texture a second time to hide them. The way we reveal them is to go to View>Face Style and instead of checking shaded with textures, we select monochrome.

View attachment 94797

Thank you so much for this informative explanation. I tried using the view->style-> Monochrome and that is exactly what I was searching for! A perfect way to identify what needs to be switched to the other way around or improved in other ways. Thank you. I previously checked each face necessary by changing their color and seeing if the face or back was colored......oh my...

Next to the whole issue of popping back and forth in and out of MCX. I am sad to see you feel overwhelmed by Sketchup texture management. I use 3ds Max mostly these days and texture management there, compared to Sketchup is like doing graphics in victorian England. I feel like I went from one of the state of the art, to the other end. Yes, Sketchup keeps textures "on board," but there are an abundance of tools and plugins to manage them. While I am thinking of it, I suggest you look into "Cleanup3" and add that to your workflow.

Cleanup3 added! Thanks. I will certainly look into its use.

To make headway on the bottleneck, I advise you to create a folder for your textures, per object, project, version of your flight sim or whatever and work out of that. When you edit a texture, you save it into that directory. On the Sketchup side, I am sure you know how to compose a material, by opening the panel, making a name and then navigating to the texture folder, or composing a color. That folder should always be your "base" folder and not just once when you first create it, each time you modify a texture with your MCX process, you can go back to your material panel in Sketchup, navigate to that edited texture, import it into your model and all the edits will show up on already textured geometry. Now be careful, if you are resizing textures you will lose your UV mapping, unless the resized textures have the exact same size ratio. If you're able to change image size pixel by pixel while maintaining size ratio, you'll find that most textures resolve to being divisible by four quite quickly. In fact, every possible combination of texture size ratio can be made divisible four times into whole numbers if no other way than by making it four times larger.

I am sorry, but I am having some issues visualizing this. I think I understand where you are going but please correct me if I don't. This is what I am currently doing:
I download textures from whatever source and place them all in the same folder for availability.
Then I add the said textures to the model followed by import into MCX and texture conversion (4096x4096, multiple by four, optimization and drawcalls).
Then I save the textures in a temp-folder where I also place the exported object .gltf, bin and xml files.

So, if I understand you correctly, I can place the textures after conversion back into the Sketchup model? For my own reflections regarding this; that will result in the model using the same textures which MCX have already gone through, so conversion will not take as long the next time I have to edit just one texture material?

 

[=rk=]

Ok this is good for understanding. The only texture editing you are doing with MCX is reformatting the textures. Remember I commented that the texture is like a poster? Formatting it, ratioing the side dimensions to 4096 pixels each, is changing the shape of the texture, of the map, because of software constraints. We don't need MCX to do this, it is an efficient algorithm Arno has applied that I interpret to be a sort of all in one conversion for aircraft models. It is certainly ok that you use that process for a very specific task of texture editing, but there are free solutions that are more flexible and efficient.

You ask what I do in Photoshop and I ask how people survive without it. I started out creating and editing images for a company website and eventually became the webmaster. It was a windsurfing company, not Cisco, but still, lots of action shots, editing out competitors logos, learned what a pixel was pretty quickly. Years later I discovered a sim into which I could apply my image editing enthusiasm. Eventually I grew frustrated with the canvasses and learned to model my own.

You've probably never explored this icon, "edit texture image in external editor." After you've registered your graphics software in the Sketchup preferences, it will export your image over to Photoshop, or Corel, even Irfanview and after you edit it, to will show up on your model with the changes and by "editing," I don't just mean reformatting. Imagine the tennis ball is a face and I have a photograph of myself, but the eyes don't quite line up, it's making me look like a chihuahua. No need to redo the model, just pop the texture over to Irfan or whatever you use, move the eyes a bit and voila.

Many of the procedures you ascribe to MCX are not related to textures, however. Bear in mind it is not called Texture Converter X and please recall I'd referred to UV mapping. The map is the poster of my analogy and MCX can only change its size ratio and export format. It can also append images together, but so can any image editing software. True graphics editors can change colors, can move pixels, edit defects, create alpha channels, so many things and all dedicated image editors will have some aspects of those basic functionalities. If one doesn't, another will.
The MCX texture normalizer does not change the texture at all. This happens with tiled textures and many Sketchup image projections. In the UV editor of 3ds Max, I see intricate patterns of a texture that has been exploded around the origin. The normalizer strips all those outer UV addresses to pack the textured polygons back into the 1,1 UV space, or as close as possible. This is all handled in the model mapping coordinates. The draw call minimizer takes all your textures onto one file, it does not redistribute the individual mesh mappings, it takes each mesh texture in its original height and width ratio and places those in a horizontal line by size largest to smallest. It then converts all the model mappings already present in the model to that one texture. Again, this is possible with most image editing software in conjunction with Sketchup. Just like you projection mapped your individual mesh, you can make a master texture of all your individual ones and you're not an algorithm, you don't have to place them in a line with at least the same amount of empty space in what will be a very large texture, you can move the "tiles" around to get tighter packing. Then, import that into Sketchup, move each mesh onto it's mapping and you've got it.

The images have the same texture resolution and were prepared in the draw call minimizer, the second image was further edited in Photoshop and is significantly smaller, plus I turned the polygon color swatches into a nice big field you can expand to project onto your model in Sketchup, its a little blurry, but that's a little color variation to use also.

I am not knocking MCX, it's incredibly versatile and for me is an indispensable bridge between Sketchup and 3ds Max, any export from 3ds Max comes in skewed and immensely resized to Sketchup, but if I export .3ds from 3ds Max, import that into MCX and re export .3ds, it is absolutely perfecto, so hats off to Arno there. He has a better .3ds exporter than Autodesk, shhh. That you are taking unadulterated images from the internet to make helipads is an exquisite and obscure form of art! You do not see the bottleneck I refer to, because you have not yet spread your wings and I am like Tantalus, stealing your joy of discovery. I apologize.

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Ok this is good for understanding. The only texture editing you are doing with MCX is reformatting the textures. Remember I commented that the texture is like a poster? Formatting it, ratioing the side dimensions to 4096 pixels each, is changing the shape of the texture, of the map, because of software constraints. We don't need MCX to do this, it is an efficient algorithm Arno has applied that I interpret to be a sort of all in one conversion for aircraft models. It is certainly ok that you use that process for a very specific task of texture editing, but there are free solutions that are more flexible and efficient.

You ask what I do in Photoshop and I ask how people survive without it. I started out creating and editing images for a company website and eventually became the webmaster. It was a windsurfing company, not Cisco, but still, lots of action shots, editing out competitors logos, learned what a pixel was pretty quickly. Years later I discovered a sim into which I could apply my image editing enthusiasm. Eventually I grew frustrated with the canvasses and learned to model my own.

View attachment 94814

You've probably never explored this icon, "edit texture image in external editor." After you've registered your graphics software in the Sketchup preferences, it will export your image over to Photoshop, or Corel, even Irfanview and after you edit it, to will show up on your model with the changes and by "editing," I don't just mean reformatting. Imagine the tennis ball is a face and I have a photograph of myself, but the eyes don't quite line up, it's making me look like a chihuahua. No need to redo the model, just pop the texture over to Irfan or whatever you use, move the eyes a bit and voila.

Many of the procedures you ascribe to MCX are not related to textures, however. Bear in mind it is not called Texture Converter X and please recall I'd referred to UV mapping. The map is the poster of my analogy and MCX can only change its size ratio and export format. It can also append images together, but so can any image editing software. True graphics editors can change colors, can move pixels, edit defects, create alpha channels, so many things and all dedicated image editors will have some aspects of those basic functionalities. If one doesn't, another will.
The MCX texture normalizer does not change the texture at all. This happens with tiled textures and many Sketchup image projections. In the UV editor of 3ds Max, I see intricate patterns of a texture that has been exploded around the origin. The normalizer strips all those outer UV addresses to pack the textured polygons back into the 1,1 UV space, or as close as possible. This is all handled in the model mapping coordinates. The draw call minimizer takes all your textures onto one file, it does not redistribute the individual mesh mappings, it takes each mesh texture in its original height and width ratio and places those in a horizontal line by size largest to smallest. It then converts all the model mappings already present in the model to that one texture. Again, this is possible with most image editing software in conjunction with Sketchup. Just like you projection mapped your individual mesh, you can make a master texture of all your individual ones and you're not an algorithm, you don't have to place them in a line with at least the same amount of empty space in what will be a very large texture, you can move the "tiles" around to get tighter packing. Then, import that into Sketchup, move each mesh onto it's mapping and you've got it.

View attachment 94817View attachment 94818

The images have the same texture resolution and were prepared in the draw call minimizer, the second image was further edited in Photoshop and is significantly smaller, plus I turned the polygon color swatches into a nice big field you can expand to project onto your model in Sketchup, its a little blurry, but that's a little color variation to use also.

I am not knocking MCX, it's incredibly versatile and for me is an indispensable bridge between Sketchup and 3ds Max, any export from 3ds Max comes in skewed and immensely resized to Sketchup, but if I export .3ds from 3ds Max, import that into MCX and re export .3ds, it is absolutely perfecto, so hats off to Arno there. He has a better .3ds exporter than Autodesk, shhh. That you are taking unadulterated images from the internet to make helipads is an exquisite and obscure form of art! You do not see the bottleneck I refer to, because you have not yet spread your wings and I am like Tantalus, stealing your joy of discovery. I apologize.

My current issue is that I don't understand the subject of texture editing, how it works and how important it is to make it in a way that is accepted by MSFS. I need some sort of program to do everything for me. I tried editing textures in Blender, but my model was exported in a way that Blender did not understand how to do anything about - so I gave up.

Another issue is that I do not really know how to do what you are explaining above. I understand the principals, but not how I actually perform. My lack of knowledge also results in me being unable to ask the right questions to actually get somewhere.

With that said, I am able to import the model with nice looking textures to MSFS, but as soon as there is some sort of issue which I need to address, be it some texture I need to change/edit, or adjust the model somehow I get these "fatal" non working errors if I take any shortcuts bypassing MCX's full conversion again. I just had to edit something with the model back in Sketchup and not touching any of the textures. I then imported the MCX-exported model back into MSFS with the same textures and suddenly it can't find the textures - model is all pink pixelated. So there is something essential about texture editing and how they are read that I do not understand...

Do you have any recommendetions to youtube videos describing exactly what you explained above?

 

[rhumbaflappy]

Save yourself time and headaches and just learn the basics of Blender. Blender can import dae files, but in the long run, you'll have more success just doing the whole model in Blender.

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Save yourself time and headaches and just learn the basics of Blender. Blender can import dae files, but in the long run, you'll have more success just doing the whole model in Blender.

I was hoping to avoid all the techy stuff. To me, Blender seems like an iPhone while I only want to use the SMS function... . But I have looked into it. I think maybe I would prefer making the model itself through Sketchup but doing all the texture editing stuff in Blender. There are lots of tutorials doing it this way, so it would probably be easier to investigate issues.

Anyways; I managed to get the model into MSFS community folder with the Sketchup->MCX->MSFS SDK process. I am happy with the result - texturing wise. As long as it works, I only need to find a way to not go through a totally new conversion after every change in the model....

 

[Pyscen]

Hello...

Nice work!! Unfortunately, there isn't a way to texture a model by way of SketchUp without having to edit the model also or vice versa.

You compared Blender to an iPhone when all that is required or needed is sending SMS, but the one thing that SketchUp doesn't do (without spending money) and Blender does is UV Unwrapping. This would allow you to edit the textures without having to completely alter the model. I understand the lack of knowledge to ask the right questions, I started with SketchUp myself, but Blender is easier when it comes to texturing.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

As you can see, in the open discussion setting of this particular FSDEV sub-forum, your thread evokes a number of responses by individuals with different approaches to FS development, from which, theoretically, at least, we can gain new insights on possible workflows to yield a result that "works" in FS.

In the (distant) past of over 20 years ago, for FS 3D scenery content creation, we only had 3D Studio Max (aka "3DSMAX") which is payware, GMAX (freeware), and a few other very minimally featured 3D modeling applications and utilities available for use.

3DSMAX classically and from the beginning, is not only very costly in terms of expense, but also in terms of the required learning curve.

Blender is the latest freeware alternative to 3DSMAX, which is also costly in terms of the learning curve required to use it.

Unfortunately, like IMHO, 'most' other Python coded applications and utilities, Blender tends to incur seemingly trendy, geeky, 'whimsical GUI indulgences' many Python coders appear to have a predilection for, with an adverse resulting impact on learning curve and "ease-of-use".

Sketchup was from the very beginning purposefully designed by its developers to be an alternative to other 3D modeling software that is neither costly in terms of expense, nor in terms of required learning curve, and was AFAIK, created by individuals who were actually intimately familiar with all the "Pros-and-Cons" of major 3D modeling software on the market at the time.

I tend to agree with your current perspective that FS 3D scenery content creation is simply "easier" (and "more fun") to do, using Sketchup and MCX to the extent possible without- or with "minimal"- utilization of Blender ...as just (1) one of multiple tools in one's 'toolbox'.

It is good, IMHO, to consider ones options at the outset of a larger, multi-site FS scenery project that may involve creation of multiple custom 3D models such as yours might optionally feature ...in the foreseeable future.

I believe it is not necessary, or prudent, to 'make a decision' immediately between either of a few available FS 3D scenery content workflows, that each have their own "gotchas" and/or "Pros-and-Cons".

It is still relatively early in your previously described learning process for FS development in general.

It is also still relatively early in your learning process for methods currently known to be compatible with the constantly evolving MSFS SDK, to have a sufficiently comprehensive familiarity with each of the prospective workflows under consideration ...to decide on (1) particular method of production versus another.

I would encourage working with what you currently enjoy, and gain new insights on alternatives over time as experience is acquired.

All that said, I would like to further analyze some of the "ease-of-use" issues you alluded to above and elsewhere.

I will be in communication again soon to see if I might offer some additional feedback and suggestions for your project.

I have a goal of identifying a (free) software that provides a more MSFS-rendering engine 'look-and-feel' / Direct-X 12 mode compatible, fully controllable and configurable, interactive preview of PBR texture content.

I hope that identifying such a software may minimize existing more complex / time-consuming processes.

Your 3D model looks great in MSFS; keep up the excellent work.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi Vetle:

As you can see, in the open discussion setting of this particular FSDEV sub-forum, your thread evokes a number of responses by individuals with different approaches to FS development, from which, theoretically, at least, we can gain new insights on possible workflows to yield a result that "works" in FS.

In the (distant) past of over 20 years ago, for FS 3D scenery content creation, we only had 3D Studio Max (aka "3DSMAX") which is payware, GMAX (freeware), and a few other very minimally featured 3D modeling applications and utilities available for use.

3DSMAX classically and from the beginning, is not only very costly in terms of expense, but also in terms of the required learning curve.

Blender is the latest freeware alternative to 3DSMAX, which is also costly in terms of the learning curve required to use it.

Unfortunately, like IMHO, 'most' other Python coded applications and utilities, Blender tends to incur seemingly trendy, geeky, 'whimsical GUI indulgences' many Python coders appear to have a predilection for, with an adverse resulting impact on learning curve and "ease-of-use".

Sketchup was from the very beginning purposefully designed by its developers to be an alternative to other 3D modeling software that is neither costly in terms of expense, nor in terms of required learning curve, and was AFAIK, created by individuals who were actually intimately familiar with all the "Pros-and-Cons" of major 3D modeling software on the market at the time.

I tend to agree with your current perspective that FS 3D scenery content creation is simply "easier" (and "more fun") to do, using Sketchup and MCX to the extent possible without- or with "minimal"- utilization of Blender ...as just (1) one of multiple tools in one's 'toolbox'.

It is good, IMHO, to consider ones options at the outset of a larger, multi-site FS scenery project that may involve creation of multiple custom 3D models such as yours might optionally feature ...in the foreseeable future.

I believe it is not necessary, or prudent, to 'make a decision' immediately between either of a few available FS 3D scenery content workflows, that each have their own "gotchas" and/or "Pros-and-Cons".

It is still relatively early in your previously described learning process for FS development in general.

It is also still relatively early in your learning process for methods currently known to be compatible with the constantly evolving MSFS SDK, to have a sufficiently comprehensive familiarity with each of the prospective workflows under consideration ...to decide on (1) particular method of production versus another.

I would encourage working with what you currently enjoy, and gain new insights on alternatives over time as experience is acquired.

All that said, I would like to further analyze some of the "ease-of-use" issues you alluded to above and elsewhere.

I will be in communication again soon to see if I might offer some additional feedback and suggestions for your project.

I have a goal of identifying a (free) software that provides a more MSFS-rendering engine 'look-and-feel' / Direct-X 12 mode compatible, fully controllable and configurable, interactive preview of PBR texture content.

I hope that identifying such a software may minimize existing more complex / time-consuming processes.

Your 3D model looks great in MSFS; keep up the excellent work.

GaryGB

That's a great response giving me insight into 3D design. Thank you, and I will continue doing what I am currently doing while seeking different ways of doing new stuff underway. I am happy with the way it works at the moment, it just takes some time (and probably more than it should, especially in regards to textures) but as long as I am getting there the motivation will stay up. I really enjoy the process, so...

Thanks for all the feedback!

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hello...

Nice work!! Unfortunately, there isn't a way to texture a model by way of SketchUp without having to edit the model also or vice versa.

You compared Blender to an iPhone when all that is required or needed is sending SMS, but the one thing that SketchUp doesn't do (without spending money) and Blender does is UV Unwrapping. This would allow you to edit the textures without having to completely alter the model. I understand the lack of knowledge to ask the right questions, I started with SketchUp myself, but Blender is easier when it comes to texturing.

I see the Blender argument. However, now that I am already more familiar with how MCX works I feel confident that my frustrations with texturing the model through Sketchup and then treating it with MCX will be less in the future. I believe I need to get somewhere where I am able to understand textures more leading to becoming more efficient when i alter a model and/or its textures, but since I am able to identify errors underway and correct them (as with the possibility to see reversed faces within sketchup helped alot) the need to actually do the conversion process withing MCX is reduced significantly. But yeah...I should probably spend some time understand these things, but I need to take one thing at a time, and as long as my current workflow actually works I am as happy as can be...

 

[Nightstalkernor]

I need some help describing what to do next as I do not really understand how to approach the issue without doing the whole conversion process in MCX all over again:

Situation:
I have imported a sketchup-designed model into MSFS via MCX. Everything went fine, and all textures went in all right with the import. I noticed a missing texture and added a new generic white texture to the object. I also adjusted the model a little.

Problem:
I am now uncertain of what to do to import the updated model and the new texture without going through the whole conversion again. How can I continue?

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Vetle:

Perhaps it might help if you gave us a more detailed description of the sequencing in your workflow; that will allow us to better ID where the texture went missing in the first place.

Then we can better understand at what step in the sequence you added the "White" texture, and also exactly where- and how- you added that to the 3D model.


BTW: Have you been needing to repeat setting the Material Properties for mapped PBR textures in MCX Material Editor each time you re-import your 3D model after export from Sketchup ?

If so, you may be able to minimize the PBR Material property workflow phase inside MCX Material Editor by creating a "Material Profile" via the dialog boxes provided for that procedure inside Material Editor.

That way, when one re-imports a 3D model, it's Material Profile can be retrieved from a pick list in MCX.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

BTW: Have you been needing to repeat setting the Material Properties for mapped PBR textures in MCX Material Editor each time you re-import your 3D model after export from Sketchup ?

If so, you may be able to minimize the PBR Material property workflow phase inside MCX Material Editor by creating a "Material Profile" via the dialog boxes provided inside Material Editor, so that when one re-imports a 3D model, it's Material Profile can be retrieved from a pick list in MCX.

Yes! That has indeed been one of my large frustrations that I have to go over x-number of textures (especially the metal ones) and reconfigure them to be less specular. You keep providing the solutions to my problems! Thanks!

I have yet to understand how to do small changes both in textures and the model without going through the whole MCX-treatment process though, so I am in dire need of some help regarding that. I have managed to import the .gltf file and the following textures from the MSFS project itself, and adjust that way, but when I need to change something in the model I have to export the whole model from Sketchup including its textures, so when I import it into MCX I'm always starting over again....

 

[GaryGB]

Hi again;

FYI: I made a few minor edits to my post above for clarity.

It is possible the MCX Material Profile feature inside Material Editor may slightly reduce the number of steps to process a re-imported 3D model that was just updated and re-exported by Sketchup.

It is important to ID where a texture mapping goes missing; but IMHO, it is less likely to occur in the Sketchup phase, and more likely to happen in either the MCX- or MSFS DevMode compilation- phase.

One must inspect every line in MCX Event Log when re-importing a 3D model that has had a texture Material edit performed.

Even though Sketchup writes required info inside the glTF, IIUC, once re-imported into MCX, one must still "re-commit" that info into the 3D model 'URI' data for any / all mapped PBR PNG texture Materials.

That task is performed inside Material Editor when one re-assigns the output \Texture folder path, and re-converts the mapped texture Materials to the PNG format required by glTF file export, (while requesting Multiple of Four and minimum 8x8 pixel array configuration in all textures to be converted and exported to that target \Texture folder path) ...with permission to overwrite any existing texture Materials already present in that target output folder.

After MCX outputs the glTF to the (initial) target \Package Sources \Texture sub-folder, when one subsequently compiles that source data, one must additionally inspect every line in the DevMode compiler console log to look for errors that may explain any missing texture Material display.

Although it may be possible to edit PBR composite (aka "Comp") texture Material 'factor' values directly without MCX in a special PBR texture Material utility such as "Materialize", or using a graphics application with channel editing capability, either way, any such factor value attribute changes must be written into the texture files and saved.

I believe we may require further explanation by Arno of another possible way to reduce the number of steps involved in the process I outlined above for other changes involving PBR texture Materials.


PS: IIRC, you have referred to more often needing to edit PBR composite (aka "Comp") texture Material 'factor' values to reduce (perceived) "Specular" attributes, as compared to a different task of restoring / updating mapped texture Materials ...within MCX.


AFAIK, the MSFS SDK DevMode Scenery Editor schema works with glTF 3D models that use "Comp" (Composite) attributes via grayscale texture channels with assigned 'factor' values.

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/ht...r_Menus.htm?rhhlterm="normal roughness metal"

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/ht...spector.htm?rhhlterm="normal roughness metal"


Considering the fact that such edits have been a more frequent burden on your workflow, I recommend that you check whether you can perform any such PBR 'factor' value edits in the special PBR texture Material utility "Materialize" when desired / required, to minimize the time spent in MCX Material Editor.

Materialize:

https://boundingboxsoftware.com/materialize/


Alternatively, as Arno has previously alluded to, one may perform PBR 'factor' value edits in a graphics application capable of direct editing of channels in texture images.

If a PBR 'factor' value change is the only edit required for a mapped PBR texture Material, that can be done directly on the PNG in \Package Sources \Texture sub-folder.

However IIUC, one would subsequently need to still run the MSFS SDK DevMode compiler to update a Package with any edited source data.

GaryGB

 

[Nightstalkernor]

Hi again;

FYI: I made a few minor edits to my post above for clarity.

It is possible the MCX Material Profile feature inside Material Editor may slightly reduce the number of steps to process a re-imported 3D model that was just updated and re-exported by Sketchup.

It is important to ID where a texture mapping goes missing; but IMHO, it is less likely to occur in the Sketchup phase, and more likely to happen in either the MCX- or MSFS DevMode compilation- phase.

One must inspect every line in MCX Event Log when re-importing a 3D model that has had a texture Material edit performed.

Even though Sketchup writes required info inside the glTF, IIUC, once re-imported into MCX, one must still "re-commit" that info into the 3D model 'URI' data for any / all mapped PBR PNG texture Materials.

That task is performed inside Material Editor when one re-assigns the output \Texture folder path, and re-converts the mapped texture Materials to the PNG format required by glTF file export, (while requesting Multiple of Four and minimum 8x8 pixel array configuration in all textures to be converted and exported to that target \Texture folder path) ...with permission to overwrite any existing texture Materials already present in that target output folder.

After MCX outputs the glTF to the (initial) target \Package Sources \Texture sub-folder, when one subsequently compiles that source data, one must additionally inspect every line in the DevMode compiler console log to look for errors that may explain any missing texture Material display.

Although it may be possible to edit PBR composite (aka "Comp") texture Material 'factor' values directly without MCX in a special PBR texture Material utility such as "Materialize", or using a graphics application with channel editing capability, either way, any such factor value attribute changes must be written into the texture files and saved.

I believe we may require further explanation by Arno of another possible way to reduce the number of steps involved in the process I outlined above for other changes involving PBR texture Materials.


PS: IIRC, you have referred to more often needing to edit PBR composite (aka "Comp") texture Material 'factor' values to reduce (perceived) "Specular" attributes, as compared to a different task of restoring / updating mapped texture Materials ...within MCX.


AFAIK, the MSFS SDK DevMode Scenery Editor schema works with glTF 3D models that use "Comp" (Composite) attributes via grayscale texture channels with assigned 'factor' values.

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Developer_Mode/Material_Editor/Inspector_Menus.htm?rhhlterm="normal roughness metal"

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Developer_Mode/Material_Editor/The_Material_Inspector.htm?rhhlterm="normal roughness metal"


Considering the fact that such edits have been a more frequent burden on your workflow, I recommend that you check whether you can perform any such PBR 'factor' value edits in the special PBR texture Material utility "Materialize" when desired / required, to minimize the time spent in MCX Material Editor.

Materialize:

https://boundingboxsoftware.com/materialize/


Alternatively, as Arno has previously alluded to, one may perform PBR 'factor' value edits in a graphics application capable of direct editing of channels in texture images.

If a PBR 'factor' value change is the only edit required for a mapped PBR texture Material, that can be done directly on the PNG in \Package Sources \Texture sub-folder.

However IIUC, one would subsequently need to still run the MSFS SDK DevMode compiler to update a Package with any edited source data.

GaryGB

The issue I am having is when I have to import the model over again into MCX due to a small change in the Sketchup-model. Might be a visible change in how it's modeled, but also in regards to texture. Instead of an object being galvanized metal I want to make it aluminium. Both textures are used in the model from before so there are no new textures introduced to the model, it's just different objects within the model that is using a different - already used - texture.

I might simplify here, but is it possible for me to import the updated sketchup model but not the textures, and instead refer MCX to pick textures which have already been treated with MCX?

My current workflow:
1: Export the sketchup model to MCX as a .gltf file.
2: Import the .gltf file into MCX.
3: Enter texture editor within MCX and doing all the reducing drawcalls and other conversions necessary (which is the timeconsuming part, maybe 15mins for both the investigate + 15 mins for the actual reduce drawcall process)
4: Export textures to its respective folder within the modellib folder in MSFS projects
5: Export the model as .gltf with bin and xml files in the modellib model folder
--When change is needed in the Sketchup model--
Repeating the process mentioned above

 

[tgibson]

If you change the texture assigned to a part, you must re-export the aircraft. There is no shortcut for that.

 

[GaryGB]

Arno may know of some 'Uber-Geek' trickery to do what you describe, but I suspect for us mere mortals, as Tom asserts, one must re-compile the glTF and re-package it to update:

* all geometry coordinates for the 3D model

* all texture coordinates mapped by the named texture(s)

<...both of the above may have changed during edits ...as you state in your example scenario >.


See "Materialize" as cited above, for a way to pre-visualize impact of PBR 'factor' value changes interactively via sliders.

Materialize directly edits and saves the edits to the texture file, and also saves a type of "Profile" for each PBR texture file group


You may note by comparison, the 'PBR' plugin for Sketchup allows edits of the 'factor' value for (3) PBR texture types (ORM).


IIUC, one can copy those 'factor'-only changes to the PNGs mapped on a 3D model in \Package Sources \ Texture sub-folder.

Then one can re-compile the Project from MSFS SDK DevMode Scenery Editor.

That will output into the \Packages sub-folder.


All without re-importing / re-exporting via Sketchup and/or MCX (...but AFAIK only for this type of PBR edit).

GaryGB