FSX:SE MDL File Issue

#21
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816367

Ok. I converted the file I'm trying to use into a KMZ format. I then used MCX's "Convert and place object wizard," and imported said KMZ file. When I clicked, "OK," it filled in Lat/Long coordinates. I checked an online Lat/Long converter, and verified that the coordinates was the same as the model I'm trying to import. Is this the right route to take here?
Although you 'could' use the MCX "Convert and Place Object Wizard," it is not necessary when working with a 3D model imported from a Geo-located Sketchup *.KMZ file.

One can import the *.KMZ to MCX in "normal" mode (not via a Wizard ot other special tool), then:

1.) Click MCX toolbar icon for "Object Placement"

a.) Verify displayed location coordinates and related parameter values

b.) Click [Add] to 'commit' that placement to the pending BGL output file


https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816367

Unfortunately, because the wizard is a popup screen, I couldn't use the Snipping Tool to capture it. The model I wanted was not in the 3D Warehouse page. The one I wanted has the actual helipad marking on the top of the building, which will help me place the heliport in ADE.

Regards,
Kevin Davis

IIUC, you are looking for: :pushpin:

"Columbia+St+Marys+Hospital.kmz" ...a "KMZ from Sketchup" file format downloaded from:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/cdd878e06df577397688e67ac1793ffc/Columbia-St-Marys-Hospital


GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#22
Although you 'could' use the MCX "Convert and Place Object Wizard," it is not necessary when working with a 3D model imported from a Geo-located Sketchup *.KMZ file.

One can import the *.KMZ to MCX in "normal" mode (not via a Wizard ot other special tool), then:

1.) Click MCX toolbar icon for "Object Placement"

a.) Verify displayed location coordinates and related parameter values

b.) Click [Add] to 'commit' that placement to the pending BGL output file





IIUC, you are looking for: :pushpin:

"Columbia+St+Marys+Hospital.kmz" ...a "KMZ from Sketchup" file format downloaded from:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/cdd878e06df577397688e67ac1793ffc/Columbia-St-Marys-Hospital


GaryGB
Not sure what I did, but I was able to get the correct model.
 
#23
Hi Kevin:

I had initially posted an incorrect link pointing to the wrong 3D model; I edited that link later in the day yesterday. :duck:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816325


Note that I also just edited another post immediately above to verify the Altitude of the Helipad and the roof underneath it.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816368


BTW
: I plan to post some labeled screenshots of what may prove to be an optimal Altitude AGL for the Helipad structure and the adjacent roof surface elevation for the building wing on which it is located ...sometime today. :coffee:


Hope this helps a bit more. :)

GaryGB
 
#24
Although you 'could' use the MCX "Convert and Place Object Wizard," it is not necessary when working with a 3D model imported from a Geo-located Sketchup *.KMZ file.

One can import the *.KMZ to MCX in "normal" mode (not via a Wizard ot other special tool), then:

1.) Click MCX toolbar icon for "Object Placement"

a.) Verify displayed location coordinates and related parameter values

b.) Click [Add] to 'commit' that placement to the pending BGL output file





IIUC, you are looking for: :pushpin:

"Columbia+St+Marys+Hospital.kmz" ...a "KMZ from Sketchup" file format downloaded from:

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/cdd878e06df577397688e67ac1793ffc/Columbia-St-Marys-Hospital


GaryGB
Hi Gary,
Are the default parameter values usually sufficient? Since it loaded the KMZ model, I assume that the coordinates are correct. I'll verify it one more time in Google Maps to see if I need to make changes.
Regards,
Kevin Davis
 
#25
Hi Kevin:

I have checked several imagery sources, and all were taken "off-nadir" and are 'warped' to various extents, so it would be best to check and compare the Geographic coordinates in the FAA records and correlate that with the other online sources.

I am also going to see if the LiDAR surface model and terrain model data is available online for that area, to see if that can better confirm the actual Geographic coordinates of the Helipad.

Hopefully I'll have a confirmation on the Geographic coordinates of the Helipad today as well. :coffee:

GaryGB
 
#26
I clicked the
IIUC, Arno has some additional work updating MCX to correctly read and translate UVW mapping of the texture materials from the *.DDS 1-piece texture sheet / atlas (used for draw call minimization in the X-Plane rendering system ?) when transferred onto the MDL which MCX internally converts from X-Plane *.OBJ 3D models.

To the extent that I have tested this new functionality in MCX, that texture translation and re-mapping of Material onto the 3D MDL is incorrect.

I'm confident that Arno will be interested in fixing this particular MCX feature ASAP. ;)



Yes, IMHO, you are already "on the right track"; however, the Altitude position on the ground of the buildings must be manually adjusted ex: downwards by 19.5000 Feet / 5.9436 Meters within Sketchup prior to exporting to a *.KMZ file, in order to compensate for the 'extended base' geometry of 'this' 3D model qhich was intended for use partially submerged within Google Earth's 90 Meter SRTM-derived terrain model.

I'll try to post some images of what this involves ASAP. :coffee:


PS: FAA records:

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/menu/

https://www.faa.gov/airports/airpor...&County=&City=MILWAUKEE&Use=PR&Certification=


...show WS03 (aka FAA Identifier: "WS23") Heliport with an Altitude of 895.0000 Feet / 272.796 Meters (AMSL)

The default FSX / P3D local terrain mesh ground surface is 672.5702 Feet / 205 Meters (AMSL)

895.0000 Feet (AMSL) - 672.5702 Feet (AMSL) = 222.4298 Feet ...Heliport Altitude (AGL)

IIUC, this "estimated" Altitude AGL appears to be in-flight approach clearance for the highest adjacent part of the building. :scratchch


Google Earth's photogrammetry-derived 3D building model shows 807 Feet / 245.9736 Meters (AMSL) at the Helipad surface

Google Earth's 90 Meter SRTM-derived terrain model shows 669 Feet / 203.9112 Meters (AMSL) for local ground surface

807.0000 Feet (AMSL) - 669 Feet (AMSL) = 138 Feet / 42.0624 Meters ...Heliport Altitude (AGL)



[EDITED] After closer inspection...

Google Earth's photogrammetry-derived 3D building model also shows a NW staircase of 16 steps from roof to Helipad:

16 steps x 7.5 Inches each = 120 Inches / 12 Inches per Foot = 10 Feet / 3.048 Meters (AMSL) Helipad surface above roof

* Assuming texture material mapping scale is already 'close' to real life in the existing 3D model

...and:

* Assuming a walkway from the building to the Helipad is 'level' at 10 Feet / 3.048 Meters (AMSL) Helipad surface above roof

...the building roof under WS03 Helipad Altitude ...may require manual correction of 11- 1/2" less distance AGL in Sketchup. :pushpin:

[END_EDIT]


BTW: A "Platform" with a 'hardened / concrete' attribute may be added to the Helipad using MCX Attached Object Editor. :idea:


Although there are default and custom Helipads already with a built-in Platform to prevent falling-through on 'most'
landings, if one lands too hard, one can still fall through, so it is often helpful to add an additional Platform.

Since it is likely you would want to use the custom imagery Helipad texture, you may want to make a custom Helipad that has (2) built-in Platforms for a "hard" surface ...more accommodating to 'all' landings (unless you are very good Helo pilot !) :cool:.

GaryGB
Hi Gary,
I tried the "Auto Platform" feature, and MCX generated four different platforms within the model. One was actually the helipad, so I deleted the rest of the platforms it generated. Could this help? I attached the image after I deleted the other platforms.
Regards,
Kevin Davis
 

Attachments

#27
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816368

[EDITED] After closer inspection...

Google Earth's photogrammetry-derived 3D building model also shows a NW staircase of 16 steps from roof to Helipad:

16 steps x 7.5 Inches each = 120 Inches / 12 Inches per Foot = 10 Feet / 3.048 Meters (AMSL) Helipad surface above roof

* Assuming texture material mapping scale is already 'close' to real life in the existing 3D model

...and:

* Assuming a walkway from the building to the Helipad is 'level' at 10 Feet / 3.048 Meters (AMSL) Helipad surface above roof

...the building roof under WS03 Helipad Altitude ...may require manual correction of 11- 1/2" less distance AGL in Sketchup. :pushpin:

[END_EDIT]


BTW: A "Platform" with a 'hardened / concrete' attribute may be added to the Helipad using MCX Attached Object Editor. :idea:


Although there are default and custom Helipads already with a built-in Platform to prevent falling-through on 'most' landings, if one lands too hard, one can still fall through, so it is often helpful to add an additional Platform.

Since it is likely you would want to use the custom imagery Helipad texture, you may want to make a custom Helipad that has (2) built-in Platforms for a "hard" surface ...more accommodating to 'all' landings (unless you are very good Helo pilot !) :cool:.

GaryGB
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816415

Hi Gary,

I tried the "Auto Platform" feature, and MCX generated four different platforms within the model. One was actually the helipad, so I deleted the rest of the platforms it generated. Could this help?

I attached the image after I deleted the other platforms.

Regards,
Kevin Davis
Again, you are already "on the right track"; however, IMHO, the Altitude position for the surface of the roof on that building, and the actual Helipad (preferably as a separate 3D model "placed" 10 Feet above the top surface of the roof at ex: 138 Feet / 42.0624 Meters (AGL) ...must be manually adjusted.

You would not require a Platform for the roof surface of the building below the Helipad, if that Helipad is:

* a separate 3D model "placed"-

...or:

* a 'Face' extruded in Sketchup to-

...10 Feet above the surrounding top surface of the roof on the building underneath the Helipad.


Columbia St. Mary's Hospital, Milwaukee, From the southeast in Water Tower Park




Also, it is important to model the Helipad to its exact intended size in Sketchup, and one must NOT 'scale' that separate 3D model of the Helipad during BGLComp placement, as that causes Platform 'virtual objects' to 'fail',:alert:


Thus, you would only be adding ex: (2) Platforms to the surface of the actual Helipad as a separate 3D model super-imposed- / Face extruded- above the roof top surface ...but not for any part of the building underneath it. ;)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#28
Hi Kevin:

Ascension Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Helipad (...at the center point of the "H" on the WS03 Helipad)

FAA Identifier: "WS23") Heliport:

FAA - ARP Altitude: 895.0000 Feet / 272.796 Meters (AMSL)

FAA - ARP Latitude: 43-03-39.0000N (43.060833333333333333333333333333)
FAA - ARP Longitude: 087-52-51.0000W (-87.880833333333333333333333333333)


LiDAR data (correlated with ESRI World Imagery to verify position of center point of the "H" on the WS03 Helipad)

FILENAME=milw2010_5\w001001x.adf
DESCRIPTION=milw2010_5 GRID (w001001x.adf)

PIXEL WIDTH=5 feet
PIXEL HEIGHT=5 feet
ELEVATION UNITS=FEET
SAMPLE TYPE=32-bit Floating Point

Center Point location - Lat/Lon: 43.06095282° N, 87.88064710° W

Center Point Ground Altitude: 673.642 Feet / 205.3261 Meters


ESRI ArcGIS 'World Imagery'

SPCS ( NAD27 ) ( 2566340.55, 393876.86 us-ft ) - 205.315 m (Ground)

Center Point location - 43.06095280° N, 87.88064581° W


Elevation Grid DSM (derived from LiDAR Point Cloud & DEM)

FILENAME=20120908_2012_NCMP_WI_Michigan_59_e.laz

LIDAR POINT DENSITY=5.644 samples / m^2
LIDAR POINT SPACING=0.4209 m

Value Range @ WS03 Helipad "H" center point: 247.4 M / 811.6773 <--> 247.6 M / 812.3335 Feet

Center Point location - (Altitude Average) = 812 Feet / 247.4976 Meters AMSL)


812.0000 Feet (AMSL) - 673.6420 Feet (AMSL) = 138.358 Feet / 42.17152 Meters ...Heliport Altitude (AGL)


PS: When I get some time free, I'll post Sketchup Z-axis positioning corrections needed for the 'WS03' 3D model.


Hope this helps. :)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#29
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the information! Do I use the information you just posted the verify the parameters I set in MCX? In regards to the steps you listed in post #27, would I make the changes to the staircase height in Sketchu, or are you saying that I will need to make another model of the stairs themselves? The primary issues that I was having long before I discovered Pete's models were that I wasn't able to make a hardened platform for the helipad, and that the default 3d hospital building in ADE was floating in mid-air. Until reading this post, I had no idea that MCX is the software that is used to make those platforms. Because of this confusion, I believe that the ADE experts wanted to strangle me through my computer screen!
Regards,
Kevin Davis
 
#30
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816469

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the information!

Do I use the information you just posted (to) verify the 3D model (MDL 'placement') parameters I set in MCX (or ADE) ?
Yes.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816469

In regards to the steps you listed in post #27:

* would I make the changes to the staircase height in Sketchup ?
If you were to make the changes to the staircase height in Sketchup using Pete's existing building 3D model, it would require adding significant complexity of geometry and 'transparent' texture mapping to that 3D model, which is physically large in size and extent, and therefore will impact FS rendering engine performance for a larger distance surrounding the Helipad due to how the Level Of Detail (aka "LOD") display mechanism works in FSX / P3D.

FYI: There is a potential added hit on run time FPS when 'Platforms' are used, which would further impact FS rendering engine performance for a larger distance surrounding the Helipad.

If the Helipad and its adjacent walkways / staircase etc. are made as a separate 3D model, it will be physically smaller in extent relative to the overall physically large extent of Pete's existing building 3D model, and therefore the smaller Helipad will impact FS rendering engine performance for a smaller distance surrounding the Helipad itself ...due to how the Level Of Detail (aka "LOD") display mechanism works in FSX / P3D.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816469

...or are you saying that:

* I will need to make another model of the stairs themselves ?
I would personally make the staircase as part of a separate Helipad 3D model 'placed' above the roof of Pete's existing building 3D model ...as I alluded to above.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816469

The primary issues that I was having long before I discovered Pete's models were that I wasn't able to make a hardened platform for the helipad, and that the default 3d hospital building in ADE was floating in mid-air. Until reading this post, I had no idea that MCX is the software that is used to make those platforms.
MCX can attach Platforms via the "Attached Object Editor", which greatly simplifies the other multi-step methods that can otherwise be performed via one's 3D modeling application and tweaking the output source code for a *.X file that is compiled into a MDL with a 'Platform'.

Many thanks are due to Arno for making so many labor-saving features available in MCX. :wizard:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mdl-file-issue.444693/post-816469

Because of this confusion, I believe that the ADE experts wanted to strangle me through my computer screen!

Regards,

Kevin Davis
I believe we both know that the "ADE experts" were more likely sincere in their efforts to support the work-flow required to place MDLs via ADE because they assumed the MDL being 'placed' was intact and fully compatible for such placement via BGLComp. ;)


It does appear we have subsequently identified that the "partially-converted X-Plane 3D model" MDL output by MCX was not yet fully compatible for such placement by ADE via BGLComp.

Because we are now aware of an alternate 3D model that is more readily able to be "fully converted" by MCX after it is modified (IIUC, with the permission of "PeterX" as author of the building in question), IMHO, this thread topic has been resolved, and may not merit further discussion herein, of the sub-topic(s) which subsequently were identified above. :pushpin:


I recommend that you now open a new thread on ex: "Helipad for 3D Warehouse Model" in the Sketchup sub-forum here at FS Developer:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/forums/sketchup.112/


In that new thread, I can offer additional suggestions on the Sketchup work-flow to better implement the Helipad via Sketchup as alluded to above.

Additionally, I can offer suggestions on the Sketchup work-flow to prepare for implementing the required Platform(s) via MCX "Attached Object Editor" in that same forum thread.

I also believe it might be best that I plan to post the info I alluded to above on Sketchup Z-axis positioning corrections needed for the 'WS03' 3D model (required for proper 'placement' with either ADE or MCX) ...in that new thread in the Sketchup sub-forum here at FS Developer.


BTW: It may also prove necessary to modify "Crash Boxes" for the WS03' 3D building model (required for a proper Helo approach and landing without triggering a "crash" of the user aircraft with nearby 3D scenery objects during properly executed take-off and/or landing flights at the Helipad).

We can discuss that in a separate new thread opened in MCX sub-forum here at FS Developer:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/forums/modelconverterx.87/


May I presume we shall now continue our discussion on the above sub-topics in a new thread ? :)

Regards,

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Top