-
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.
Quick question
- Thread starter GHD
- Start date
Unfortunately, there's no "one size fits all" value. There are several issues to consider.
First, from an autogen suppression (avoidance of) viewpoint, where is the edge of the bounding box (you have to envisage it) relative to any expected autogen? Bounding boxes are oriented in cardinal directions. Depending on the orientation of the GPs, a bounding box can have a lot of "wasted" space (i.e., space not occupied by GPs). By breaking your GPs up into groups, you reduce the size of the bounding boxes and, hence, the "wasted" space. However, reducing group size to where it is smaller that the largest GP is pointless since the bounding box will always be as large or larger than the largest GP it contains. If you reach that point and you're still getting autogen suppression, the only alternative is to split the GP instead.
Once the concept of multiple groups was introduced, an obvious enhancement was to limit the visibility range of polys and lines within a group (to improve FPS) - especially lines. Visibility is measured from the edge of the bounding box, so multiple groups will allow better phasing in and out of the ground poly visibility.
In my own case, I generally use a bounding box size and line visibility size of 500m, meaning my lines are in view for a maximum of 1000m. I generally leave my poly visibility at "unlimited" since polys coming in and out of view is usually apparent. But, if you have a bunch of small polys and want maximum FPS, you might try reducing poly visibility as well.
On the other hand, multiple groups results in larger file size and greater overhead, so you shouldn't do it unless its needed. Any only you can be the judge of that,
Hope this helps,
Don
First, from an autogen suppression (avoidance of) viewpoint, where is the edge of the bounding box (you have to envisage it) relative to any expected autogen? Bounding boxes are oriented in cardinal directions. Depending on the orientation of the GPs, a bounding box can have a lot of "wasted" space (i.e., space not occupied by GPs). By breaking your GPs up into groups, you reduce the size of the bounding boxes and, hence, the "wasted" space. However, reducing group size to where it is smaller that the largest GP is pointless since the bounding box will always be as large or larger than the largest GP it contains. If you reach that point and you're still getting autogen suppression, the only alternative is to split the GP instead.
Once the concept of multiple groups was introduced, an obvious enhancement was to limit the visibility range of polys and lines within a group (to improve FPS) - especially lines. Visibility is measured from the edge of the bounding box, so multiple groups will allow better phasing in and out of the ground poly visibility.
In my own case, I generally use a bounding box size and line visibility size of 500m, meaning my lines are in view for a maximum of 1000m. I generally leave my poly visibility at "unlimited" since polys coming in and out of view is usually apparent. But, if you have a bunch of small polys and want maximum FPS, you might try reducing poly visibility as well.
On the other hand, multiple groups results in larger file size and greater overhead, so you shouldn't do it unless its needed. Any only you can be the judge of that,
Hope this helps,
Don
- Messages
- 12,243
- Country
Thanks Don.
First of all, I find that using groups reduces the time for the asm creation and compile phase.
On a 2600m x 1000m airfield I am using a group size of 100m and it seems acceptable. If I use 500m, I find that in FSX, the lines disappear at certain view angles. In P3D V2 both values are fine.
First of all, I find that using groups reduces the time for the asm creation and compile phase.
On a 2600m x 1000m airfield I am using a group size of 100m and it seems acceptable. If I use 500m, I find that in FSX, the lines disappear at certain view angles. In P3D V2 both values are fine.
Then I guess the number is 100m for you.
GP elevation is, by definition, the elevation of the ref. point. The smaller the group size, the closer will the GPs be to the ref point. Hence, the less likely will be "ripples" in the terrain (which I believe are responsible for GPs disappearing at certain angles.
Don
GP elevation is, by definition, the elevation of the ref. point. The smaller the group size, the closer will the GPs be to the ref point. Hence, the less likely will be "ripples" in the terrain (which I believe are responsible for GPs disappearing at certain angles.
Don