FSXA Questions About QGIS

[GaryGB]

Are those the ones I worked on or edited? If so, could you point them out. Just to let you know, the darker blue line vectors are the ones I've worked on. The default, or lighter blue are the ones I have not worked on.

I see only (1) Blue color used; at certain zoom levels they appear thicker- or thinner- than nearby portions of Road lines, even if near to KBHM.


I believe we will have to reinstate the SDK SHP2VEC TMFViewer color scheme for all FSX / P3D CVX Vectors to avoid confusion in the future.

Please review the examples of RGB color assignments in SBuilderX I previously presented to you in your thread regarding KATL cited above.


I will review and post precise RGB colors to be used in SBuilderX and/or Google Earth to match RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer for continuity.

I don't understand what you're referring to. I have already aligned the roads around the airport area. Do you mean I need to go back and aligned the RDX vectors again? I don't understand why they're not aligned. What about the FWX vectors. Did you capture the FWX vectors with a screenshot and coordinates? When you say "aligning and editing ALL the roads, do you mean I need to align every road that's in the shp file, even those miles away from the airport? I like to know why the roads I've already aligned are not aligned.

By "editing", I mean your derivation of FWX vectors from RDX vectors that have been already aligned by editing Polygons to create FWX Poly-lines.

If you do not plan to align CVX Vectors more than a specific distance outside KBHM, then your FWX will be derived from those distant RDX vectors.

By the way, there's one thing that concerns me. When I align these vectors, I'm using google earth, not Virtual Earth. I don't think that should make a difference, but I have noticed that when using google satellite, the image would change position slightly after I have made an alignment from a previous zoom, such as 18, 19, or 20. I have it aligned perfectly at zoom 19, for example, and when I zoom to 20, the line vector is off slightly, not because I've moved the vector line but because the image itself has shifted slightly. They also have a bad habit of not aligning their own maps when merging them and using different seasons. They are really crappy about this. But as I've said, the shift in the image is only slight.

Ken.

I assume you use SBuilderX to do your CVX Vector work, and when you refer to 'Google Earth', it shows a Google-api3-Satellite background Map.

You may zoom to various levels while editing, and thus may see a mix of seasons and variable alignment due to Google's tile projection methods.


While technically EPSG:3857 projected, Google "cheats" to locally warp "off-Nadir" imagery to fit into otherwise "on-Nadir" imagery to cover areas.

That may result in slight misalignments at various zoom levels within the same tile source and between different source aerial imagery tile sets.


But I believe your best ultimate goal to save work and achieve better overall scenery quality, may be to plan for alignment and compatibility with MSFS, which uses MSVE aerial imagery at zoom level-21.


While we can access a tile set from Google via SASPlanet that is output at zoom level-21 even if SBuilderX' tile downloader sees only lower zoom levels, it would save work correcting Google alignments by using MSVE aerial imagery for all alignment from the beginning.


FYI: MSFS 2020 displays FSX SDK BGLComp scenery library objects / G-Polys, but not FSX Resample SDK aerial imagery; it also provides all Autogen.

The MSFS Trees and vegetation are a significant enhancement in quality compared to FSX / P3D.


The MSFS Roads and utilities use Open Street Map (aka "OSM") source; the water body data set appears to be a new source created by Asobo, and has become the most precise I have seen available.

However, the water "Hydro" attributes are very subdued, and Village Creek is barely visible on KBHM airfield areas.


I will look at the 1959 Topo map Geographic coverage on ground n Nautical Miles, and shall make a Range Radius reference image for evaluating extent of coverage by custom FSX aerial imagery and terrain mesh.


GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

I see only (1) Blue color used; at certain zoom levels they appear thicker- or thinner- than nearby portions of Road lines, even if near to KBHM.

If I remember correctly, I did set all the road RDX vectors back to their original colors. It was the FWX Freeway traffic vectors that had the 2 color difference. I do this so that I'll know what's been aligned and what hasn't because there are so many of the roads that criss cross over each other. Regarding the thickness of the vectors, it being thinner or thicker, I set the width to match the exact number of lanes I'm working on. If it's a 2 lane, I set the width so that it covers only 2 lanes. If it's a 4 lane, it set it to cover 4 lanes. This is much easier to work with than leaving it at it's default of 50, which is way too wide. Is it okay to do that?

I believe we will have to reinstate the SDK SHP2VEC TMFViewer color scheme for all FSX / P3D CVX Vectors to avoid confusion in the future.

I don't understand what color has to do with it. Are you saying that the color scheme has an effect?

Please review the examples of RGB color assignments in SBuilderX I previously presented to you in your thread regarding KATL cited above.

Okay.

I will review and post precise RGB colors to be used in SBuilderX and/or Google Earth to match RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer for continuity.

That's interesting. I never knew that certain RGB colors had to be used in SbuilderX.

By "editing", I mean your derivation of FWX vectors from RDX vectors that have been already aligned by editing Polygons to create FWX Poly-lines.

What do you mean by derivation? To be clear, I did not use polygons to create FWX traffic vectors. I only used the Line tool to align with the image and select the number of lanes and the direction in the Properties.

If you do not plan to align CVX Vectors more than a specific distance outside KBHM, then your FWX will be derived from those distant RDX vectors.

I'm not sure exactly what area you saw a problem but I've checked my road vector RDX project and noticed that I did not go out as far as I did with the traffic vector FWX. With the road, I only went as far as Roebuck. With the traffic, I went as far as Trussville. So, I guess I need to align the rest of the roads to Trussville.

I assume you use SBuilderX to do your CVX Vector work, and when you refer to 'Google Earth', it shows a Google-api3-Satellite background Map.

Yes, I'm using SBuilderX and google-api3-satellite is the map I've been using. If you think it's better to use Virtural Earth instead, I'll start using it. I don't use it because the images are way too dark and it doesn't allow me to zoom in as close as google earth api3. It will only allow me to zoom in to 19. Since I've already been using google earth api3, should I continue to use it or will it cause problems if I switch to Virtual Earth?

You may zoom to various levels while editing, and thus may see a mix of seasons and variable alignment due to Google's tile projection methods.

I've noticed how the image seems to have been reprojected. Instead of looking straight down, it looks like I'm looking at it at an angle.

While technically EPSG:3857 projected, Google "cheats" to locally warp "off-Nadir" imagery to fit into otherwise "on-Nadir" imagery to cover areas.

That may result in slight misalignments at various zoom levels within the same tile source and between different source aerial imagery tile sets.

I've though about that myself.

But I believe your best ultimate goal to save work and achieve better overall scenery quality, may be to plan for alignment and compatibility with MSFS, which uses MSVE aerial imagery at zoom level-21.

Okay. That seems to make better sense and if it's okay for me to switch back to Virtural Earth. I haven't noticed any shifting when I go from one to the other. But Virtural Earth will not allow me to zoom to a level of 21. I can only go to zoom level 19. Why is that?

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

If I remember correctly, I did set all the road RDX vectors back to their original colors. It was the FWX Freeway traffic vectors that had the 2 color difference. I do this so that I'll know what's been aligned and what hasn't because there are so many of the roads that criss-cross over each other. Regarding the thickness of the vectors, it being thinner or thicker, I set the width to match the exact number of lanes I'm working on. If it's a 2 lane, I set the width so that it covers only 2 lanes. If it's a 4 lane, it set it to cover 4 lanes. This is much easier to work with than leaving it at it's default of 50, which is way too wide. Is it okay to do that?

[EDITED]

I have posted below, RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer as a reference for CVX Vector color assignment in SBuilderX and/or Google for continuity:


Airport Boundaries = FLX ( R-198, G-200, B-0 )

Hydro Polygons = HPX = ( R-1, G-19, B-225 )

Streams = STX = R-1, G-162, B-255

GPS Hydro Polygons = HGX = ( R-?, G-?, B-? ) < To Be Determined >

Roads = RDX = ( R-192, G-0, B-0 )

Freeways = FWX = ( R-1, G-162, B-255 )

Utilities = UTX = ( R-192, G-192, B-192 )

Shorelines = HLX = ( R-192, G-192, B-0 )

Railways = RRX = R-63, G-64, B-0

Parks = PKX = ( R-0, G-128, BB-0 )

Exclusions = EXX = ( R-1, G-282, B-255 )


For more information on default CVX Vector object GUIDs etc., see:

https://prepar3d.com/SDKv6/sdk/world/terrain/terrain_overview.html#The Shp2Vec Tool

[END_EDIT]

I don't understand what color has to do with it. Are you saying that the color scheme has an effect?

No; we simply want to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer colors to avoid confusion and allow viewing CVX BGL files for this project in TMFViewer.

That's interesting. I never knew that certain RGB colors had to be used in SBuilderX.

You do not have to use certain RGB colors for CVX Vectors; we are choosing those colors to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer.

What do you mean by derivation? To be clear, I did not use polygons to create FWX traffic vectors. I only used the Line tool to align with the image and select the number of lanes and the direction in the Properties.

We save work when we derive the FWX vectors from already aligned RDX vectors; the derived Poly-lines can be aligned to proper Road positions.

IMHO, to save work, we should first: align RDX CVX Vector Poly-lines; then edit derived FWX to match aerial imagery via copy / paste / edit / move

So, align RDX Poly-line > Copy / Paste > Edit attributes of derived Poly-line to FWX > Edit direction type > Move into proper position for Road lanes

I'm not sure exactly what area you saw a problem but I've checked my road vector RDX project and noticed that I did not go out as far as I did with the traffic vector FWX. With the road, I only went as far as Roebuck. With the traffic, I went as far as Trussville. So, I guess I need to align the rest of the roads to Trussville.

Refer to the Topo I posted above; note that the distance from KBHM Terminal center to the top of the Topo map is 7km (3.779688 Nautical Miles).

Decide what Radius you wish to match to IRL.

Yes, I'm using SBuilderX and google-api3-satellite is the map I've been using. If you think it's better to use Virtual Earth instead, I'll start using it. I don't use it because the images are way too dark and it doesn't allow me to zoom in as close as google earth api3. It will only allow me to zoom in to 19. Since I've already been using google earth api3, should I continue to use it or will it cause problems if I switch to Virtual Earth?

If visibility is better to get work done using Google imagery, continue with that; we can fine tune mis-alignments later with MSVE loaded instead.

Okay. That seems to make better sense and if it's okay for me to switch back to Virtual Earth. I haven't noticed any shifting when I go from one to the other. But Virtual Earth will not allow me to zoom to a level of 21. I can only go to zoom level 19. Why is that?

Different software configurations that access different cached tile servers online yields different caps on zoom levels.

SASPlanet (and perhaps QGIS' tile server ?) may access / output either native zoom level-21, or can up-sample zoom level-19 as zoom level-21.

Zoom level-21 aerial imagery loaded into SBuilderX from disk may improve viewed Map resolution, and may be used to make FS2Kx PR LC imagery.


However, if FSX scenery is loaded into MSFS 2020, FS2Kx SDK Resample PR LC imagery and terrain mesh BGLs do not display, thus are not needed.

Custom Autogen annotations of FS2Kx SDK Resample PR LC imagery BGLs also do not display in MSFS 2020, thus are not needed.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

[EDITED]

I have posted below, RGB colors used by SDK TMFViewer as a reference for CVX Vector color assignment in SBuilderX and/or Google for continuity:

Thanks Gary for the RGB colors as a reference for the CVX vectors. I'll assign them as shown.

No; we simply want to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer colors to avoid confusion and allow viewing CVX BGL files for this project in TMFViewer.

Okay, I understand now.

You do not have to use certain RGB colors for CVX Vectors; we are choosing those colors to maintain CVX continuity with SDK TMFViewer.

Got it.

IMHO, to save work, we should first: align RDX CVX Vector Poly-lines; then edit derived FWX to match aerial imagery via copy / paste / edit / move

So, align RDX Poly-line > Copy / Paste > Edit attributes of derived Poly-line to FWX > Edit direction type > Move into proper position for Road lanes

I think I understand. When I did each project, I was appending the RDX and FWX into SbuilderX as a separate project, one at a time. Using the copy / past, edit, and move might be much quicker and the FWX should line up perfectly with the RDX.

Refer to the Topo I posted above; note that the distance from KBHM Terminal center to the top of the Topo map is 7km (3.779688 Nautical Miles).

I remember seeing that map but I can't remember in which post you posted it. You probably linked it.

Decide what Radius you wish to match to IRL.

Do you mean from that Topo map you've posted or linked?

If visibility is better to get work done using Google imagery, continue with that; we can fine tune mis-alignments later with MSVE loaded instead.

Virtual Earth is okay and if it's quicker and less work, I can go ahead and use it now rather than having to come back later and align them.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Do you mean from that Topo map you've posted or linked?

Yes.

[EDITED]

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/questions-about-qgis.460216/post-935708

[END_EDIT]


BTW: Do you have versions of the ANG Facility 3D models you plan to use for the KBHM Historical version yet ?

If not, no problem; but it would be a good idea to do a test of MSFS 2020 at KBHM and identify what you may wish to add or otherwise change for an IRL non-Historical version.

If you have KBHM terminal and any other 3D models placed already for the Historical version in FSX, we can do a test of display for those legacy file format objects within MSFS to see how and where they render compared to FSX, and I can plan needed terrain changes for MSFS 2020.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

BTW: Do you have versions of the ANG Facility 3D models you plan to use for the KBHM Historical version yet ?

No, I haven't created a 3D model for the ANG from the 1970s. I didn't have any photos of the hangars from that time, but I can check and compare to see if the same hangars still exist. I only have current models of the ANG facility, that is, the hangars, that I created for MSFS2020 a few years ago.

If not, no problem; but it would be a good idea to do a test of MSFS 2020 at KBHM and identify what you may wish to add or otherwise change for an IRL non-Historical version.
If you have KBHM terminal and any other 3D models placed already for the Historical version in FSX, we can do a test of display for those legacy file format objects within MSFS to see how and where they render compared to FSX, and I can plan needed terrain changes for MSFS 2020.

I saved the 3D models I created for KBHM 1970. Let me see if I can zip them and post it here or MediaFire.

Ken.

 

[kmanning]

Hi Gary,

Any particular format you want from the models?

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

A ZIP file on MediaFire.com that is linked to this thread should work; feel free to attach the link to a DM if you prefer to keep your 3D models private.


As to the 3D models, if you have them mapped with texture Materials and placed as FS Scenery Library Objects in project folder chains, that is ideal.

A mix of FS9, FSX, P3D, MSFS 2020 or 2024 add-on formats will not likely matter, as AFAIK, MCX should allow for a fairly easy process of conversion.


Sketchup projects that are- / can be- Geo-located such as *.SKP or a Sketchup Google *.KMZ are preferred if 3D models are still only a 'W.I.P.'.


But any mix of files in various 3D model exchange formats with- / without- any mapped texture Materials not yet in FS2Kx or MSFS format are OK too.


If a mix of files in various 3D model exchange formats, Collada *.DAE would be preferable over *.OBJ to avoid 'enforced triangulation' ...if available


As to any KBHM 3D models in *.OBJ that you have not yet removed triangulation from, I may be able to show you Sketchup plugins to help in doing that.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

A ZIP file on MediaFire.com that is linked to this thread should work; feel free to attach the link to a DM if you prefer to keep your 3D models private.

Okay.

As to the 3D models, if you have them mapped with texture Materials and placed as FS Scenery Library Objects in project folder chains, that is ideal.

I have all my scenery projects saved in a my Scenery Project folder and they also include the textures.

Sketchup projects that are- / can be- Geo-located such as *.SKP or a Sketchup Google *.KMZ are preferred if 3D models are still only a 'W.I.P.'.

I have them manually Geo located.

If a mix of files in various 3D model exchange formats, Collada *.DAE would be preferable over *.OBJ to avoid 'enforced triangulation' ...if available

Most of them are both DAE and KMZ, except for those in Blender. By the way, when you open those for Blender, be sure you use Blender 3.1 because this is the original version I've used and they may not open in other versions. If you double click a file, Blender will open but you may not see anything. Drag and drop it into Blender 3.1.

As to any KBHM 3D models in *.OBJ that you have not yet removed triangulation from, I may be able to show you Sketchup plugins to help in doing that.

I may have a project that is in .obj format but I don't know how triangulation relates to .obj files. I didn't even know triangulation had anything to do with .obj file. I would like for you to show me plugins that remove triangulation at a later time.

I have the projects ready and I should have the links for you in a couple of hours by PM.

Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

I'll be on the road for a few more hours, and will check on this thread / DM's later.

UPDATE: I have now downloaded the files via your DM links provided.

Clearly you have been "busy", and may already have all the needed KBHM historic airfield buildings.


I am also checking to see how best to provide for the buildings in 1970's Meadwood Heights after the terrain extensions are ready to be tested.


Do you have the designated previously cited Geo-located B+W historic aerial imagery BMP of KBHM imported in Sketchup onto sliced flat ground plane Polygon(s) that can be used for tracing footprints of buildings in Meadwood Heights using Sketchup's drawing tools ?

If not, I'll look into getting such a Sketchup *.KMZ project to you ASAP.


Otherwise, perhaps Arno has the ability to work with B+W aerial imagery in ScenProc to save us some manual labor making Autogen for a FSX scenery version of historic KBHM ?


Alternatively, MSFS 2020 can display most custom FSX 3D objects and provide aerial imagery, Biomes ("Autogen"), and modifiable terrain mesh.


IMHO, the future direction of your KBHM project depends on your decision as to whether you are ready/willing/able to do the work FSX requires.


Considering MSFS 2020 can require less work, and the fact that it is vastly superior in visual quality to FSX, do you prefer FSX due to AI Traffic issues ?

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

Hi Gary,

I've completed my FWX and redone some of the RDX vectors, and I've assigned them the assignment colors you've posted above. I've have not edited every road in the cvx2420 file because that are just too many of them and takes a lot of time. I've just done those immediately around the airport. I went as far west as I-65 and as far east as Chalkville Mountain Rd in Trussville with both the RDX and the FWX. I've tried the copy and paste method but it was giving me too many problems. Just about every time I tried to copy and past, I would get an error message and I just got fed up with it. But even having separate RDX and FWX file, they should line up perfectly. Later on, I will add other roads and traffic vectors. The freeway traffic and the traffic around the airport is most important right now. Any road you see that is not assigned the correct color means I have not edited those roads. The traffic vectors were not as much work but the road vectors require a lot of work, which takes a long, long time. I'm not going to worry with the parks, railways, and the utilities. I'm ready to move on to the next project. I have the road and traffic vectors attached below.

Ken.

 

[kmanning]

Hi Gary,

I just happen to notice this post from October the 17th but I never got an e-mail when you posted it. I don't think I've replied to this post so I'll go ahead just in case.

Clearly you have been "busy", and may already have all the needed KBHM historic airfield buildings.

Yes, those roads vectors are the ones that were keeping me busy and taking so much time. The only historical buildings from 1970 are the ones from the photo image. I just wish it was a WGS 84. I can get it from Historical Aerial website but they charge too much to get a Geo-Tiff high resolution version.

Do you have the designated previously cited Geo-located B+W historic aerial imagery BMP of KBHM imported in Sketchup onto sliced flat ground plane Polygon(s) that can be used for tracing footprints of buildings in Meadwood Heights using Sketchup's drawing tools ?

I think I've sent you that B&W image.

If not, I'll look into getting such a Sketchup *.KMZ project to you ASAP.

Okay.

Alternatively, MSFS 2020 can display most custom FSX 3D objects and provide aerial imagery, Biomes ("Autogen"), and modifiable terrain mesh.

From what I've been reading, FSX 3D object files won't work in MSFS2020. One would have to re-construct the file format because MSFS2020 uses an object file, a bin file, and an xml file. I could be wrong.

Considering MSFS 2020 can require less work, and the fact that it is vastly superior in visual quality to FSX, do you prefer FSX due to AI Traffic issues ?

I prefer FSX for historical scenery and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery.


Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Ken:

I am just today getting a chance to start catching up on lost time due to 10 days of IRL household commitments.

Your latest attached SBuilderX CVX RDX / FWX Vector data set looks nicely detailed and precisely aligned in the immediate KBHM area.


It may be important to distinguish where the complexity may have arisen in your efforts to assign colors to CVX Vector extracts Appended as ESRI *.SHP files to SBuilderX.

Regardless of which color is currently assigned to those CVX Vector objects, they should already have a GUID assigned in the *.DBF file that is part of the ESRI *.SHP meta file for each object type.

Otherwise, are you instead referring to newly created poly-lines / polygons not derived by copying and editing existing CVX Vectors ?


A less complex option to achieve color continuity is as follows:

If a GUID is already assigned to each CVX Vector object in SBuilderX, then one should be able to select all such objects and compile a BGL.

That BGL can be processed using Patrick Germain's CvxExtractor to output ESRI *.SHP files for each CVX Vector type.

Those ESRI *.SHP files for each CVX Vector type can be Appended to a new SBuilderX project, and it is during that Append step, that the color for each group of objects of a particular CVX Vector GUID can be re-assigned to match the master color scheme used in FSX SDK TMFViewer.


PS: What error messages are you seeing when you work with copying / editing CVX Vectors in SBuilderX ?

GaryGB

 

[GaryGB]

The only historical buildings from 1970 are the ones from the photo image. I just wish it was a WGS 84. I can get it from Historical Aerial website but they charge too much to get a Geo-Tiff high resolution version.

The 1970 B+W aerial imagery discussed above in this thread 'should' be relatively easy to calibrate in SBuilderX and/or a GIS app.

I'll test it to see, and will advise.

I think I've sent you that B&W image.

Yes, I have your attachment(s) and (1) I got previously from USGS Earth Explorer / NASA - JPL; calibration may need alignment with MSVE.

From what I've been reading, FSX 3D object files won't work in MSFS2020. One would have to re-construct the file format because MSFS2020 uses an object file, a bin file, and an xml file. I could be wrong.

There are benefits to visual quality / realism at run time in MSFS if glTF with MS-Asobo's XML Extensions are used.

FSX MDLs (but not SCASM / ASM G-Polys) do display in MSFS 2020 (I have not tested / tinkered with doing that in MSFS 2024 yet); see:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/using-fsx-object-libraries-in-msfs.455643/post-934338

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/draw-order-of-gps.460365/post-936480

I prefer FSX for historical scenery and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery.

Please explain the basis for the preference; is it due to issues with FSX add-ons for flying or scenery not yet available in P3D / MSFS ?

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

Hi Ken:

I am just today getting a chance to start catching up on lost time due to 10 days of IRL household commitments.

Your latest attached SBuilderX CVX RDX / FWX Vector data set looks nicely detailed and precisely aligned in the immediate KBHM area.

I hope so. Most were aligned at zoom 20 using google earth. Sometimes, I zoom to 21 if I need to get closer to see where the edge of the road is. Although the width of the lines do no control how wide the road is in FSX, I use that to help with the alignment and assign them the number of lanes and direction.

It may be important to distinguish where the complexity may have arisen in your efforts to assign colors to CVX Vector extracts Appended as ESRI *.SHP files to SBuilderX.

Regardless of which color is currently assigned to those CVX Vector objects, they should already have a GUID assigned in the *.DBF file that is part of the ESRI *.SHP meta file for each object type.

I thought you wanted me to assign those colors to make it easier to define roads and freeway traffic.

PS: What error messages are you seeing when you work with copying / editing CVX Vectors in SBuilderX ?

I don't remember what the error message said. Let me see if I can get it to do it again and I'll let you know.


Ken.

 

[kmanning]

The 1970 B+W aerial imagery discussed above in this thread 'should' be relatively easy to calibrate in SBuilderX and/or a GIS app.

I'll test it to see, and will advise.

Okay. I don't know how one would go about calibrating the image without any coordinates. But I did send you the metadata, I think it's called, and it does indicate several coordinates. Did you receive that?

FSX MDLs (but not SCASM / ASM G-Polys) do display in MSFS 2020 (I have not tested / tinkered with doing that in MSFS 2024 yet); see:

So you're saying that it's possible to convert files from FSX to MSFS2020?

Please explain the basis for the preference; is it due to issues with FSX add-ons for flying or scenery not yet available in P3D / MSFS ?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by explaining the basis for the preference and what you mean by issues with FSX add-ons.


Ken.

 

[GaryGB]

I thought you wanted me to assign those colors to make it easier to define roads and freeway traffic.

It is true colors can make it easier to visualize/ distinguish different CVX Vector types, but we also want to enable use of SDK TMFViewer.

Colors used during SBuilderX' Append process to distinguish different CVX Vector types from each other now also matches SDK TMFViewer.

This allows display of BGLs (not just scenery source files) along with other scenery content that is display-able as layers via SDK TMFViewer.

I don't remember what the error message said. Let me see if I can get it to do it again and I'll let you know.

Use a screen capture:

{Shift}+{Print Screen} keys > Load Windows default MS-Paint > {Ctrl}+{V} keys = Paste into Paint > Save as: [descriptive name].JPG

GaryGB

 

[GaryGB]

Okay. I don't know how one would go about calibrating the image without any coordinates. But I did send you the metadata, I think it's called, and it does indicate several coordinates. Did you receive that?

I do have the aerial image and Metadata file you attached previously, as well as prior files I got from USGS Earth Explorer / NASA - JPL.

Prior tests of this series of B+W files and Metadata were not precise; calibration of the imagery may need coordinates aligned with MSVE.

I plan to test that and will advise you on how to modify those coordinates so display will be Geo-rectified into alignment with MSVE imagery.

So you're saying that it's possible to convert files from FSX to MSFS2020?

Generally, there is a way to do that, even if multiple steps and utilities are required.

But specifically, MCX can convert 3D models semi-automatically.


MSFS 2020 displays existing 3D models in FSX SDK XtoMDL format inside FSX SDK BGLComp-compiled BGLs.


See my screenshots I already linked above:

FSX MDLs (but not SCASM / ASM G-Polys) do display in MSFS 2020 (I have not tested / tinkered with doing that in MSFS 2024 yet); see:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/using-fsx-object-libraries-in-msfs.455643/post-934338

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/draw-order-of-gps.460365/post-936480

I prefer FSX for historical scenery and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by explaining the basis for the preference and what you mean by issues with FSX add-ons.

Please explain why you prefer FSX for historical scenery and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery.

Is it due to issues with FSX add-ons for flying that you use in FSX, not yet being available in P3D / MSFS ?

Is it due to issues with FSX add-ons for scenery not yet being available in P3D / MSFS ?

What other reasons compel your preference of FSX for historical scenery, and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery ?

Obviously we are all entitled to continue enjoying each version of FS for the unique experience it provides; I am just curious as to whether there may be some assumed inability on your part to achieve a successful port of something you prefer using in FSX ...into P3D or MSFS.

For example, the precision work you are currently doing with ESRI *.SHP files can be substituted, (if needed) for CVX Vectors that MSFS derives from Open Street Map (aka "OSM") source files, via the MSFS SDK DevMode Scenery Editor as 'primitive' Poly-lines and Polygons.

To do this in MSFS Scenery Editor, in the Edit menu, one activates the option to save vectors as ESRI *.SHP files.

(Otherwise, all such CVX Vector data for Poly-lines and Polygons is converted to data strings in the airport's XML code.)


IIUC, Terra-forming does essentially the same thing with certain portions of its vector source code implemented via Polygons.


https://docs.flightsimulator.com/ht...y_Editor/Menus/The_Edit_Menu.htm?rhhlterm=shp

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Introduction/Using_The_SDK.htm?rhhlterm=shp


Next, one saves the project, and at the extra prompt to save the *.SHP file, one sets a target path to a project folder.

Then, one edits the saved *.SHP to combine it with existing project *.SHP data.

When one loads the scenery project, it automatically imports the saved *.SHP file from the project folder.


In MSFS Scenery Editor 'Properties' dialog one assigns a "Attribute" to convert each such 'primitive' object into a compatible scenery object.

Since your precision work with ESRI *.SHP files of CVX Vectors are aligned to MSVE, they 'should' work better than OSM vectors in MSFS.

And if you wish, you can make a G-Poly of KBHM as a glTF at a higher resolution zoom-level than MSFS, which already uses MSVE imagery.


Those are just examples of options we have to port our scenery fairly easily from FS2Kx into MSFS ...if we wish.

We can display our FSX-format 3D models without conversion as placed in MSFS 2020 without having to deal with FS2Kx Autogen creation.

Although MSFS 2020 looks good at run time, IMHO, MSFS 2024 renders an even more realistic scenery experience than FS2Kx or 2020.


Regarding your historic and/or Land Class based KBHM version for FSX / P3D:

Were you still planning to use MegaScenery Earth Alabama imagery to cover the state of Alabama outside the KBHM area of your project ?

If so, you can do that by aligning the higher resolution imagery-aligned CVX vectors to match positions for that same MegaScenery Earth Alabama imagery source, by making a custom photo-real aerial imagery BGL for the FSX / P3D CVX2420 scenery area, as IIRC, we did previously identify the public data source used to make that MegaScenery Earth Alabama product.

https://www.simshack.net/products/megasceneryearth-alabama-complete-state-photoreal-877


Please be assured you have the option to make any version of your scenery project(s) "Any Which Way You Can".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Any_Which_Way_You_Can


I plan to assist you either way; but I would find it helpful to know what dissuades you from also porting your KBHM into MSFS.

GaryGB

 

[kmanning]

I do have the aerial image and Metadata file you attached previously, as well as prior files I got from USGS Earth Explorer / NASA - JPL.

Good.

Prior tests of this series of B+W files and Metadata were not precise; calibration of the imagery may need coordinates aligned with MSVE.

That's interesting. I figured after calibrating those coordinates, although an old image from 1970, would align almost perfectly with the current images of today, especially roads that existed in 1970 and still exist today, such as East Lake Blvd. Of course, portions of East Lake Blvd is inside the ANG and the airport boundary. But back in the day, that entire street was for traffic. I was searching on google earth about this. I put in the search something like, "Is it possible to align coordinates from an old imagery with current imagery," and found this video that may explain that issue. According to what I understand from the video, one must use Global Mapper to get the correct precise coordinates before importing them into SBuilderX to calibrate. I'm not sure if this video is related, but here's the link:

I plan to test that and will advise you on how to modify those coordinates so display will be Geo-rectified into alignment with MSVE imagery.

Okay.

Generally, there is a way to do that, even if multiple steps and utilities are required.

I think I read also read that in a google search, and it seems like someone mentioned that here.

See my screenshots I already linked above:

Yes, I saw them.

Please explain why you prefer FSX for historical scenery and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery.

I think this is what you're referring to. I have many add-ons that were created back in the days of FSX, such as 707s, 727s, DC-8s, DC-9s and many others that no one cares to creates anymore. We need a lot more of these add-ons because I know there are a lot of us old timers out there that demand a lot more of these older aircrafts. You can only have access to them if you've purchased them back in the day. FSS does have a Freight and passenger version of the 727-200 for MSFS2020, and I have it. One has the option to set it to where the flight engineer, or 2nd officer, dose his work flow while you, as the captain, perform only your duties. There are no really good 707s, DC-8s, nor DC-9s for MSFS2020. The other thing I don't like is that new add-ons hardly provide you with pdf documentations anymore. They're now mostly online, and I don't like having to go online to read a html document when it's much better to read it as a pdf on my own PC. I want files and add-ons directly on my PC, not streamed from the internet. Although it may be possible to convert old scenery add-ons to MSFS2020, it think it would require a lot of extra work but I still may try it at a later date. All I can say is that I prefer FSX and P3D for the time being. But I still do on accassions fly MSFS2020 and I have created a much better scenery for KBHM than what came with the product using Blender version 3.1.

Is it due to issues with FSX add-ons for flying that you use in FSX, not yet being available in P3D / MSFS ?

Yes, that's a part of it.

Is it due to issues with FSX add-ons for scenery not yet being available in P3D / MSFS ?

Yes, that's another part of it.

What other reasons compel your preference of FSX for historical scenery, and P3D and MSFS2020 for current scenery ?

I've been using FSX and P3D for years and one of the things I can think of is that switching views are much easier and faster in FSX and P3D than MSFS2020.

Obviously we are all entitled to continue enjoying each version of FS for the unique experience it provides; I am just curious as to whether there may be some assumed inability on your part to achieve a successful port of something you prefer using in FSX ...into P3D or MSFS.

I can't think of any inability to achieve a successful flight simulator scenery experience, other than getting the elevation correct.

Since your precision work with ESRI *.SHP files of CVX Vectors are aligned to MSVE, they 'should' work better than OSM vectors in MSFS.

I thought the OSM would be more precise. I was thinking that since it's hard to find a free accurate old sattlite view with streets, I could use an OSM from around the 1970s to align my roads.

Those are just examples of options we have to port our scenery fairly easily from FS2Kx into MSFS ...if we wish.

I may do that at a later date.

Although MSFS 2020 looks good at run time, IMHO, MSFS 2024 renders an even more realistic scenery experience than FS2Kx or 2020.

My brother purchased the MSFS2024 but I haven't purchased it yet. But he doesn't fly it very often.

Ken.

 

[kmanning]

It looks like you added some additional information.

Regarding your historic and/or Land Class based KBHM version for FSX / P3D:

Were you still planning to use MegaScenery Earth Alabama imagery to cover the state of Alabama outside the KBHM area of your project ?

It depends on what time period I want to fly. If I do a flight that is current, yes, I'll use the Mega Scenery Earth Alabama. If I do a fight from the 1970s, I turn the Alabama Mega Scenery off.

I plan to assist you either way; but I would find it helpful to know what dissuades you from also porting your KBHM into MSFS.

I assume you're referring to having the old 1970 airport imported over to MSFS2020. Actually, I would like to try and import the KBHM 1970 over to MSFS2020, but after we have completed the projects for FSX, if everything works okay to have them in FSX.


Ken.