P3D support

[arno]

Hi all,

With the upcoming release of P3D v2 I am preparing better support for P3D in ModelConverterX (both for P3D v1 and v2).

For the moment I see P3D v1 and FSX as almost the same. So basically if you tell ModelConverterX that the FSX location is your P3D v1 installation it should all work.

Are there many people that work with FSX and P3D v1 side by side? In that case I might make sense to distinguish between the two versions.

 

[=rk=]

Sir, your tool is excellent and beyond reproach. Wes Bard, Program Lead for Lockheed's P3D, released a detailed statement I think anyone interested in developing should read (http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/lockheed-answers-community-questions-r1819). If I could quote 4 short sentences:
"..enables custom rendering for mirrors in the virtual cockpit, HUDs, custom panels and gauges, or even custom billboards and airport features in addon airports. We’ve really given developers access to everything we could in Prepar3D. And as always, if developers need new or different APIs we are happy to partner with them. We’ve also lifted the legacy polygon limits on models so that 3D modelers can build higher fidelity models for Prepar3D v2 than are possible in previous versions."
Sounds all crazy and awesome, true, but that last part about higher fidelity models - well my models never cheat on their spouses, but they always seem to be crammed with polygons that might or might not add detail and I am always trying to connive the compiler into assembling my little 20 mb model by doing things like cutting the 6 bajillion polygon outer skin into several sub-sixty k chunks, each with a slightly different shade; or including details as attached library objects -- and it would be so nice to just drop my eye-popper into the compiler; granted that it will only work in P3D V2...

I would be really grateful if you could implement that, thanks.

 

[n4gix]

Arno, you may as well add a separate option for Prepar3D since the Registry entry and path are different between v1 and v2...

Below is part of my NSIS installer script where I list the three possible choices for the Registry entries:

        ${If} $RadioButton1_State == 1
              ReadRegStr $INSTDIR HKLM "Software\Microsoft\Microsoft Games\flight simulator\10.0" SetupPath
	${EndIf}

        ${If} $RadioButton2_State == 1
              ReadRegStr $INSTDIR HKLM "Software\LockheedMartin\Prepar3D" SetupPath
        ${EndIf}
        
        ${If} $RadioButton3_State == 1
              ReadRegStr $INSTDIR HKLM "Software\Lockheed Martin\Prepar3D v2" SetupPath
        ${EndIf}

 

[arno]

Hi,

Yes detecting the different installations is no problem. But making a mdl or bgl for fsx or prepar3d v1 is actually the same. So I was wondering if people do consider it separately or not in their workflow. Given the changes in prepar3d v2 that version has its own tools and much be treated differently.

 

[hek293]

Arno, could you please explain a bit what you mean by 'support FSX and P3D v1 side by side' ?

 

[tgibson]

Hi,

I think he means that there would be "combined options" for those versions. That is, if you want to export as an MDL file one choice in the drop down box would be "FSX/P3Dv1 MDL File". If you vote no, this choice would instead become two separate choices, "FSX MDL File" and "P3Dv1 MDL File". But the MDL file produced would be exactly the same.

 

[jacklyon]

hi Arno

good to know you will support V2.0 also

its not clear to me yet if .mdl made it with 2.0 sdk compiler will work on fsx
i think not

maybe for the "wish list" of modelconverter
you can to put a check option in the menu to tell us wich improvement we loose if we go from a 2.0 model to fsx and to fs9

best regards

alejandri





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hek293]

Hi,

I think he means that there would be "combined options" for those versions. That is, if you want to export as an MDL file one choice in the drop down box would be "FSX/P3Dv1 MDL File". If you vote no, this choice would instead become two separate choices, "FSX MDL File" and "P3Dv1 MDL File". But the MDL file produced would be exactly the same.

Thanks
I'd think it makes more sense to create one for both. Some simple renaming to ''FSX/P3Dv1 MDL File'' should suffice to simplify things, pending the v2.0 separate MDL creation.

 

[BrBlazer]

I'm with the above poster. Unite FSX/P3D v1 and a seperate export for P3D v2. I've noticed some transparency setting that works good in FSX/P3D v1 flickers in P3D v2.

 

[ollyau]

I think he means that there would be "combined options" for those versions. That is, if you want to export as an MDL file one choice in the drop down box would be "FSX/P3Dv1 MDL File". If you vote no, this choice would instead become two separate choices, "FSX MDL File" and "P3Dv1 MDL File". But the MDL file produced would be exactly the same.

I'm getting the same combined option idea, but I'm reading it the other way around. Yes to make separate options for FSX and P3D v1, and no to have a single entry for FSX/P3Dv1.

Arno's second post clarifies side by side to mean developing separate models for FSX and P3Dv1. The first post asks whether or not people develop side to side, to determine whether or not to distinguish between the two sims (i.e. "Yes, I develop side by side, I'd like to have separate options." or "No, I don't, keep the options combined.")

 

[arno]

Hi all

Sorry for the late reply. I was a bit busy this week.

Yes, with side-by-side I mean that FSX and P3D 1.0 are seen as two versions.

For example in the Convert and Place Object Wizard you can now choose FS2004 or FSX. I will add P3D 2.0 to that, but does it make sense for the workflow of people to add also P3D 1.0?

Given the similarity between FSX and P3D 1.0, I am currently more on the line to merge those two versions as far as MCX sees it.