-
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.
Prepar3D V3.3 released a few days ago.
- Thread starter lionheart
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,964
- Country
Thanks for that blog post.
So MCX's GP Wizard can export as p3dv2, and these use negative z-bias layers.
Also "No z-write" and "no shadow" need to be selected.
I assume a .mdl with FSX materials from GMAX (or blender) can be run through in the same fashion without having to use the P3D SDK in MAX. I'll have a look later.
I have MCX 1.3, but can't see an option to set up the path to P3d's SDK and there is no p3d v2 option in the GPW.
So MCX's GP Wizard can export as p3dv2, and these use negative z-bias layers.
Also "No z-write" and "no shadow" need to be selected.
I assume a .mdl with FSX materials from GMAX (or blender) can be run through in the same fashion without having to use the P3D SDK in MAX. I'll have a look later.
I have MCX 1.3, but can't see an option to set up the path to P3d's SDK and there is no p3d v2 option in the GPW.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5
- Country
maybe I can get this answered here 
if your doing ground polys in ADE, will it be conpatable?
if your doing ground polys in ADE, will it be conpatable?
It will also be interesting to see what any forthcoming P3Dv3x "fix du jour" will do to the 'tentatively functional workflow' for- and results achieved with- G-Polys, cited by Peter Hornfeck in this thread: 
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/p3d-v2-2-issue-or-a-ground-poly-wizard-issue.430103/page-2
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/p3d-v2-2-issue-or-a-ground-poly-wizard-issue.430103/page-2
Lagaffe
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 960
- Country
Good work Alex,
I had just read your blog and it's perfect.
This post answers to some questions I asked myself after reading the SDK P3D, the SDK is ... very short in explanations.
So I will implement your method on my current scene LFAF - Laon-Chambry that allowed me to understand the technique of ground polygons based on FS2002 GPs.
I think that is enought for me to make the jump from FS2002 GP to P3D native GP. Thanks you.
PS: For the seasonal problem, I think that the new version of SODE [v1.3.3] can solve the problem
=> http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/sode-ground-polygon-shift-wet-surfaces.437438/#post-745325
I had just read your blog and it's perfect.
This post answers to some questions I asked myself after reading the SDK P3D, the SDK is ... very short in explanations.
So I will implement your method on my current scene LFAF - Laon-Chambry that allowed me to understand the technique of ground polygons based on FS2002 GPs.
I think that is enought for me to make the jump from FS2002 GP to P3D native GP. Thanks you.
PS: For the seasonal problem, I think that the new version of SODE [v1.3.3] can solve the problem
=> http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/sode-ground-polygon-shift-wet-surfaces.437438/#post-745325
- Messages
- 34,019
- Country
maybe I can get this answered here
As far as I know the ADE ground polygons use the FS2002 techniques as well, so that would mean they don't work either.
I hadn't read that P3D v3.3 broke the FS2002 ground polygons before, that explains the recent interest in doing it with the GPW in the P3D v2 mode
- Messages
- 1,201
- Country
Awesome. That means that most freewares and a lot of pay sceneries will never work.
I wonder if its the developers that need to break apart from P3D. Most simmers I know are not even keeping up to date with P3D (still using v2). So as a developer you have to learn all these new methods just to be able to reach a very limited market base, and you have to make several versions of the same sceneries. I mean it's still fun, but who has the time..........
Has anyone done a market research of of how many simmers are faithfully keeping up with P3D updates? I personally only do it because I get it for free, otherwise I'd still be on V2.
I wonder if its the developers that need to break apart from P3D. Most simmers I know are not even keeping up to date with P3D (still using v2). So as a developer you have to learn all these new methods just to be able to reach a very limited market base, and you have to make several versions of the same sceneries. I mean it's still fun, but who has the time..........
Has anyone done a market research of of how many simmers are faithfully keeping up with P3D updates? I personally only do it because I get it for free, otherwise I'd still be on V2.
- Messages
- 34,019
- Country
Hi,
I'm not against changes, actually MS should already have created a proper alternative for the FS2002 techniques when they released FSX. Carrying those old techniques on is a burden and for the developers at LM it must be hard to keep all that old stuff working as well.
But the MDL files with zbias are not a proper alternative in my case. Because you still give the developer of the addon the burden of making things match the curve of the earth. They should create some specific type of ground polygon that will follow the curve of the earth automatically.
On the positive note, I added the P3D v2 MDL output to the GPW a while back. That functionality might be tested a lot more now. So if people find things that can be improved let me know.
I'm not against changes, actually MS should already have created a proper alternative for the FS2002 techniques when they released FSX. Carrying those old techniques on is a burden and for the developers at LM it must be hard to keep all that old stuff working as well.
But the MDL files with zbias are not a proper alternative in my case. Because you still give the developer of the addon the burden of making things match the curve of the earth. They should create some specific type of ground polygon that will follow the curve of the earth automatically.
On the positive note, I added the P3D v2 MDL output to the GPW a while back. That functionality might be tested a lot more now. So if people find things that can be improved let me know.
=rk=
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 4,702
- Country
Never is a long time. You could just as easily devote that conclusion to the popular emergence of a new platform, like when X-Plane appeared. I think you overlook your own skill and passion that will give you an advantage when adjusting to new software. If it does not, maybe it is time to pass the torch to new talent. Just saying that I think you do good work and I can't picture it being thrown out the window over changes that improve the simulation.
- Messages
- 34,019
- Country
True, since FS2004 mdl file already stopped working, it's a wonder the FS2002 ground polygons kept working that long.
Of course it doesn't matter if you make them with ASM or SCASM or something else. It's just that these old bgl opcodes are not supported anymore. Given that since FSX the mdl and bgl structure has changed so much that's just logical.
- Messages
- 2,153
- Country
I think the major issue is that not a single scenery developer stopped using the older methods. Or if they did attempt it... they never mentioned to Lockheed-Martin that there were capabilities via ASM/SCASM that Prepar3D would no longer support unless L-M made changes/enhancements to the underlying sim's scenery capabilities.
There was quite the scramble to redo scenery installers so that they would recognize the different versions of Prepar3D, but apparently no effort at all to actually make the scenery itself truly compatible.
Then everyone cried foul when it no longer worked. I believe v2 to v3 release was, what... 2 years?
There was quite the scramble to redo scenery installers so that they would recognize the different versions of Prepar3D, but apparently no effort at all to actually make the scenery itself truly compatible.
Then everyone cried foul when it no longer worked. I believe v2 to v3 release was, what... 2 years?
- Messages
- 1,510
- Country
End users are misinformed. What broke FS2002 GPs at v3.3 was a fix that they made to the new z-bias technology where these GPs are now capable of displaying shadows. Since they are now capable of displaying shadows (3 years after the tech was introduced) they've just now become a viable alternative to FS2002 GPs with the exception of seasonal provisions. So let's set this straight - scenery developers haven't had 3 years to get on board with the new tech - they've had a little over a week. I'm frankly getting really tired of hearing about how developers have been dragging their feet on this, we knew a month after v2.0 was released that the z-bias GPs didn't work for our purposes, they've only now been (partially) fixed.