• 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.

MSFS20 Replacing Base Textures

C

Caspajack

Messages
21
Country
unitedkingdom
Hi all,

I've been trying to remove some of the base textures, where for example a building was, or an aircraft, when they become embedded into the ground.
I tried with a polygon but that doesn't seem to work, they still show. Is there some sort of priority going on?

I read in another post where they did it by using an apron poly and changing the textures to match the ground, would that be the correct way?

Anyone have another idea?
Thanks.
 
Yes that's the one I saw, and he uses an apron polygon which works but I wondered if that was the only way?
Just a normal polygon would seem the obvious option, so I though perhaps there was something I'd missed.

There are so many options and settings, it would be easy to miss a single click somewhere. ;)

Thanks for the reply,
 
We all use the same method: use an apron poly, choose a grass texture of more or less the same colour and then hide the photographed aircraft under that. Something I have discovered is that if you blend the edges of the poly, it merges quite nicely with the rest of the ground! It is then impossible to see where the "apron" begin and end! I have hidden quite a lot of blemishes in my airports like that!

There is probably another way, but this is the path of least resistance. Why make it more difficult for you?
 
I see your point, and I did watch the video by Bennyboy444 who explained that very method, which I have used to good effect.
My post was simply to find out if one of this illustrious group had managed to use a different method. I guess a polygon is a polygon no matter what name you give it.

I'm just surprised that the developers have not taken a more structured approach.
In fact I think the whole design GUI is dreadful, it almost looks like it was designed by a committee. I hope they give that a makeover at some point.
Perhaps take some pointers from the more experienced members of this forum! I'm sure that Jon (Scruffduck) could show them a better way.
 
They did give the GUI an update a couple of times ago, and broke things in the process. Here's the truth: Asobo and Microsoft do not use the DevMode to develop, if they did, they would have quickly discovered the problems with the SDK, the DevMode, and the sim. Their sim-development process is broken, and they need to fix that first, then updates will follow the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm.
 
Last edited:
We had a similar problem with the beta in FSX. The Aces were great at coding, but they were not scenery developers, and so they had no idea what it took to exclude scenery elements, and then repair or replace the default elements. It took some pleading in the beta to get some abilities added.

The FSX beta was very much one-to-one communication. The Aces were in the forum every day, directly communicating to the participants. Asobo let in huge numbers of beta 'testers', which was just a gimmick to drum up enthusiasm for the sim, not for actually testing much of anything. And they never directly communicated with the testers. I was not in the developer beta, but I assume it was the same. It does seem the commercial aircraft developers had Asobo's ear, and may still have it. I'm not so sure about scenery developers. I don't know if ORBX, Microsoft, or others use the Dev Mode, or if they have their own tools.

At any rate, it seems to me that Asobo is actually isolating themselves from interaction with people that actually use the Dev Mode, or the SDK. It's not on the top of their to-do list I'm sure. There are maybe 1000 active developers vs. 1000000 simmers. Economically, they will concentrate on the simmers. With Microsoft Flight, MS ignored the developers, and it died pretty quickly. Lesson should be learned: feed the developers to sustain the interest in the sim.
 
Once again, let's hope someone is listening.
Perhaps it will be left to the outside developers to create more usable software, like they did with FSX/P3D.
I used Abacus FSDS when I first ventured down this path, but haven't touched it for many years. The introduction of MSFS2020 was the catalyst to get me interested again.

I must say I like the sim, it offers a reality that IMHO is better than any of the other platforms.... I reiterate IMHO. Don't want to get into any heated arguments. :cool:
It would be rather dumb of Asobo to ignore the complaints of the freelance developers, because like those in X-Plane, they are providing lots of great scenery for the users. In some cases rivalling products from commercial developers. After all not everyone can afford the cost of commercial products either.

Yet, (as you said) it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft did that would it? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top