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.
And interestingly enough, I haven’t witnessed this on other computers my models are on. Not saying it’s not there, but I didn’t see it.
Whelp this is the problem, int it? Maybe you could set us up a copy of this model and I will graphically demonstrate that to which I refer, otherwise I think we're good here.For your reply, did you (somehow) get a copy of my model? Or are you speculating?
This is a good example about which I am referring, which you seem unaware. In the absolute purest of 3d terminology, you cannot compose a polygon as a square, or any complex shape, with more, or fewer, than three vertices. While certain 3d programs will recognize these "complex polygons," FSX and P3D most assuredly will not and - this is the important part - when the compiler encounters a vertex that cannot complete a triangle, it most assuredly leaves a void. So, if you are not "counting your triangles," so to speak, as this statement impliesI experimented one day by taking a simple cube. I made sure that it was totally made of quads, ALL 8 vertices were "welded", NO open gaps of any kind. I created an inner cube (NOT touching or close to the outer cube walls), and (using "LM" or night textures) made the inner cube brighter than the outer cube. Exported to MCX, then using MCX created the bgl for that cube and placed it at an airport. In FSX/P3D ONLY, the outer walls of the cube looked as if they were still triangles, and not a single plane. It still had light leakage where it should not have been and I still saw an edge as if it was being compiled as a series of triangles. I do NOT see this behavior in MCX when looking at the model! Only in FSX / P3D.
then you might want to reconsider what I wrote about carefully assembling each face. Make sure the wall, is only that. Count the polygons, there have to be exactly two, for each four sided face. It often helps to offset things like doors, so the edges don't line up. The whole idea of deleting hidden faces is good practice, but really shouldn't amount to any appreciable performance increase with a simple hangar. I write that because without this constraint, you can construct your doors as a complete assembly and set them aside, walls, reinforcements, etc. and not have to rely on their geometry being tied to that of the overall model.It still had light leakage where it should not have been and I still saw an edge as if it was being compiled as a series of triangles.
The walls of an object/model will always have 6 vertices (or more).
Where do you get your ideas? To avoid confusion, it should be understood that polygons and the number of vertices in simple shapes like triangles and quadrangles, do indeed follow intuition. That is to say that a three sided object, a triangle, has 3 vertices and it is how a polygon is defined in FSX and P3D. If you add one more vertex, that is coplanar with the other three, you can create a quadrangle. It will have two polygons, 4 vertices and will function as a wall.This could possibly corrupt your model's planes or walls, moving the vertices to compensate.