• 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.

Mesh steep edges

I

igabc

Messages
219
Country
italy
Alright this is driving me nuts. I bother you guys only when I am really about to commit suicide... :banghead:

Everything was good yesterday. Then I kept working on the same area when today I checked the dam again, it was the mess you see in the last screenshot. I've been messing around with SBuilderX and BGL's so I am sure I mess it up. It was actually very easy to achieve that result. it was in fact the very first attempt by using LIDAR sources. It was so easy but I am not able to do it again.

First image is FSX default, the second one and the third one represent what I wanted to achieve. The last one is the mess I can't figure out.
2014-5-12_2-2-42-929.jpg


2014-5-12_2-5-13-37.jpg


2014-5-12_3-31-10-632.jpg


2014-5-12_21-23-45-975.jpg


The Elevation GeoTIFF is the same so I am sure that is not the problem.

Is anybody able to help me out? :stirthepo

thanks a lot!
G
 
Wow... 21 viewed the thread, not a single reply. I guess it's sci-Fi also for the top guys here. :(
 
Hi Gabriele:

Would I be correct that you are trying to eliminate the "stepped" edge of the water body in the last screenie ? :scratchch

2014-5-12_21-23-45-975.jpg


If so, you may have to eliminate an underlying default or 3rd party CVX vector water flatten (aka 'hydro polygon') that may have a different assigned elevation (with a smaller size ?), and which does not reach the shore in precise geographic alignment with the (larger ?) one you may also have created to match the photo-real aerial imagery.


You may simply need to disable the default or 3rd party hydro poly(s) with an CVX vector hydro poly exclusion BGL in order for your new hydro poly to display properly.


You may recall the general process from this thread:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mess-with-custom-water-poly.429369/#post-665143


Note that such "excludes" will disable display of all hydro poly content within the immediate LOD-9 / QMID-11 area at the same or lower layer positions in the FSX Scenery Library GUI.

One must then replace all needed hydro poly(s) for that same LOD-9 / QMID-11 area with a BGL which is placed in a layer above all other elevation-setting hydro poly BGLs which map to that same LOD-9 / QMID-11 area (...so that your own hydro BGL is at a higher layer position in the FSX Scenery Library GUI).

NOTE: 'Jump' coordinates for Google Earth and TMFViewer: 39.253166666666666666666666666667,-106.3715

Google Earth puts the 'Turquoise Lake' water elevation at 9,879 FT. (probably based on SRTM data)

You may also wish to examine in FSX SDK TMFViewer:

[FSX install path]\Scenery\0202\CVX19180.bgl

and...

[FSX install path]\Scenery\0202\dem0202.bgl


PS: I assume that the edge of the water near the shoreline is very dark / black due to your not yet having implemented a "blend mask" for the photo-real water texture (...to allow some of the shore area terrain textures to show through the transparency-enabling gray scale gradient in the blend mask) ?



BTW: Just for purposes of 'closure' on a topic which some of us took the time to reply to, I believe it would be appropriate for you offer some final clarification as to what your project goal actually was, so we can better understand what workflow was involved ...in this (prior) thread (thanks... that might help keep more of us motivated to reply to your other threads in the future ! ;) ):

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/th...-files-based-on-bgl-files.429425/#post-665626

Hope this helps ! :)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Alright Gary... I just replied to the old post you linked here and now I need to test something out following your suggestions, even though I think it was all I did already, which is why it was all good (pic # 2).

But since I am here, let me reply to you...

"Would I be correct that you are trying to eliminate the "stepped" edge of the water body in the last screenie ?"
Correct.

"If so, you may have to eliminate an underlying default or 3rd party CVX vector water flatten (aka 'hydro polygon') that may have a different assigned elevation (with a smaller size ?), and which does not reach the shore in precise geographic alignment with the (larger ?) one you may also have created to match the photo-real aerial imagery.

You may simply need to disable the default or 3rd party hydro poly with an CVX vector hydro poly exclusion BGL in order for your new hydro poly to display properly."

That's what I did. Both images above feature the same CVX exclusion poly. I also tried to change the elevation of them, but... no good!

"You may recall the general process from this thread: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mess-with-custom-water-poly.429369/#post-665143"
Yes indeed Gary, I recall and that was how I learned it. Thanks to Mike again!

"Google Earth puts the water elevation at 9,879 FT. (probably based on SRTM data)"
Tell me if I am wrong but, why should I care about what google says about the elevation of that area? I am using my own mesh with very precise elevation so, isn't it that grid what I need to take the elevation info from?

"PS: I assume that the edge of the water near the shoreline is very dark / black due to your not yet having implemented a "blend mask" for the photo-real water texture (...to allow some of the shore area terrain textures to show through the gradient in the blend mask) ?"
Correct
There's a blendmask (but not feathered on the dam)

"BTW: Just for purposes of 'closure' on a topic which some of us took the time to reply to, could you offer some final clarification as to what your project goal actually was..."
The goal is to have custom elevations in some areas I think deserve my attention to make a more valuable product in the end. I donàt bother with parking lots or other areas like that but when it comes to such landmarks (like this dam in Leadville, CO), or like the elevated runway at the airport in Forest Hill, MD

I am trying to avoid using 3D models and, as you can see, I found the way but I need to find out what causes that mess in those shores!

Alright let me go try again. Cross fingers!
 
Last edited:
Look... before go back experimenting... what if I don't add any watermask? to the photoreal ground textures? Will the problem be there anyway since there is FSX default water body right there? I mean... will the water polygon default in FSX effect the mesh even if I don't add watermask?
 
igabc said:
Look... before go back experimenting... what if I don't add any watermask? to the photoreal ground textures? Will the problem be there anyway since there is FSX default water body right there? I mean... will the water polygon default in FSX effect the mesh even if I don't add watermask?
Click to expand...

Hi again:

The default FSX water body data is indeed (much) better than in all prior versions of FS, but not as good as what may be provided by one's own custom or (some) other 3rd party addons ( ex: UTX; ...or FTX "Southern" Rocky Mountains (?) which is not released yet).

The default FSX water body data for "Turquoise Lake" does happen to have a fairly accurate shape, however, so that certainly is an option, assuming the elevation is also accurate compared to that of your LIDAR-derived highly accurate elevation data ...so that it may work compatibly in FSX at run time when rendered in conjunction with your own custom terrain data for that area.

[EDITED]

BUT... if you're going to use LIDAR-derived highly accurate elevation data for use in an area where the aircraft is less likely to be on the ground to see the higher detail LOD's / QMIDs of the terrain and shorelines of water bodies, why not also make a custom water mask for that particular shoreline since it will also be displaying your own custom photo-real aerial imagery?



However, to (now) directly answer your question, CVX vector hydro polys can be assigned an elevation, or they can otherwise be assigned a "mesh-clinging" attribute.

IIRC, use of the "mesh-clinging" attribute for hydro polys requires the end user to have the proper entries in the [FSX install path]\Terrain.Cfg file via SBuilderX installation or via the stand-alone package released by Richard Ludowise and Luis Feliz-Tirado.


CAVEAT: Installation of FTX Global may remove entries for legacy terrain objects / attributes which are added to the [FSX install path]\Terrain.Cfg file by SBuilderX installation or via the stand-alone package released by Richard Ludowise and Luis Feliz-Tirado, and may possibly also remove the entry for "mesh-clinging" water (I don't have FTX Global installed, so I can't verify this). :banghead:


When hydro polys have an assigned elevation, they will over-ride the underlying terrain mesh elevations and flatten the terrain surface to the elevation of the hydro poly itself.

So, if the lower water level seen in your screenie above is substantially above or below what it "should" be for your project, you may wish to exclude the hydro poly responsible for that anomaly and replace it with your own custom hydro poly as described in my post above:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/mesh-steep-edges.430098/#post-671250

FYI: Here's a range of elevations I found for the area under discussion:

3009.900 M = 9,874.97 Ft - water @ 25 M offshore (NED 10 M DEM)

3010.000 M = 9,875.298 Ft - water @ shoreline (NED 10 M DEM)

3004.000 M = 9855.613 Ft. - water @ mid-shoreline (NED 10 M DEM)
< yes, the mid-shoreline is interpreted by this data set as being lower than the water ! :yikes:>


3011.119 M = 9,879 Ft - water (Google Earth)

3011.424 M = 9,880 Ft - mid-shoreline (Google Earth)
-----------------------------------------------------------
0.305 M = 1.000653 Ft. - water level below mid-shoreline


3007.72 M = 9,867.818 Ft - water (LIDAR)

3010.500 M = 9,876.939 Ft - mid-shoreline (LIDAR)
-----------------------------------------------------------
2.78 M = 9.120707 Ft. - water level below mid-shoreline


Although one might expect some variation in water elevation relative to the fixed elevation of a dam / earthen shoreline with the time of year that a data set is generated, you can see that the NED 10 M DEM data set still has some anomalies yet to be fixed by USGS.

[END_EDIT]

Hope this info helps you establish a consensus as to what the elevation "should" be for the water relative to the Dam / shoreline, so you can decide on whether to go the extra distance to make a custom water poly.

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
"...why not also make a custom water mask for that particular shoreline since it will also be displaying your own custom photo-real aerial imagery?"
Of course Gary. Mine was a question just to discuss the way FSX works.

Roby and George... the lake in the images above have both blend mask and hydro-poly. But this is off topic.
 
No problem Gary. I was not trying to push you.

Alright I will try but all you wrote above is kinda what I did beside adding a new water poly to an higher level in the scenery library which is by the way not the problem here (the steep edges).

brb
 
igabc said:
No problem Gary. I was not trying to push you.

Alright I will try but all you wrote above is kinda what I did beside adding a new water poly to an higher level in the scenery library which is by the way not the problem here (the steep edges).

brb
Click to expand...
Hi again:

The steep edges are in part due to the apparent use of your higher (ex: LOD-13 / QMID-15) terrain mesh elevation BGL being displayed in FSX with the terrain "Mesh Complexity" slider set at 100 % complexity and the terrain "Mesh Resolution" slider set at 5 Meters or higher (meaning a smaller number of meters between elevation data points).

As you may know, such settings are required to actually display the higher LODs / QMIDs of the 1/9 Arc Second (aka "3 Meter") LIDAR-derived elevation data when resampled into a ex: 5-Meter terrain mesh BGL.

At run time in FSX, such settings necessarily also create a higher QMID grid density of vertices for the terrain, and allows greater precision when rendering edges of flattens, and for purposes of this discussion, the hydro poly in question (a type of "textured flatten" ! ;)) is likely one with an assigned elevation, which at the FSX mesh settings described above, impacts the terrain with a sharply-demarcated drop-off down to the level of the water.

Hope this helps better answer your original question ...which prompted opening this entire thread ! :D

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Yeah I knew that and it is not the case since I have all my sliders all the way to the right. Anyway, changing settings and tryin to compile at different resolution was part of what I've done before opening this thread.


"The steep edges are in part due to the apparent use of your higher (ex: LOD-13 / QMID-15) terrain mesh elevation BGL..."
Higher = higher resolution?
 
Congratulations... looks good ! :)

So, in the end, what did you have to do to get the sloped shoreline back at the water's edge ? ;)

GaryGB
 
I had to use 3 level of exclude polys in SBx as per your suggestion above. I really was about to give up then I tried with 2 separate scenery packages (2 scenery in library) and then finally I got to make it in a single one. I will send u the link to the download (~28MB) later today or tomorrow. I am now stuck in extracting the right portion from the autogen I made with ScenProc (thank you for ever ARNO NUMBER ONE!) made for the bigger Colorado area (remember the old post). I can't find a way so maybe I will have to re-run ScenProc for that little scenery.

Thank you so much Gary!
 
Hi Gabriele:

Thanks for sharing your "worked example" from this thread as a flyable scenery for the FS Community to explore and enjoy ! :cool:

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