Textured polygon tiles background and mesh blending ?

#1
Hi. I`m designing airport and after struggling with airport background tiles (solved) I noticed after compiling that textures new problem (another ;) ) . I`ve sliced image from SBX to 34 2048/2048px parts in Photoshop. In gmax I applied them to each segments. No problem with black lines between polys finally. But.. My airport is generaly flattened. But some tiles covers area beyond flatten polygon. Area is sloped with some hills and all. Is it possible to use that textured polygon to be not at AGL and blend with mesh like photoscenery does ? If so could you give me a tip what kind of programs I will have to use and what is a method. I suppose I ought to use elevation data and textured polygon and blend alltogether. I would not like to use photoscenery for many reasons especially because rendering time and worse resolution. Sorry for my english I hope it`s understandable what is my intention.
 
#2
Hello:

IMHO, a few questions need to be answered in order to evaluate how you might proceed with your goal of using custom photo-real textures on the ground in FS. :scratchch

* What is the airport ICAO, so we can see what terrain shape you will have to work with via the FS2Kx SDK or later versions of the FS SDK ?

* What was the "Zoom" level of the aerial imagery when it was downloaded in SBuilderX via the "Add Map From Background" dialog box, and then output as a BMP or GeoTIFF ?

* What is the current 'effective' texture resolution in pixels per Meter when mapped onto the ground within GMAX ?

* Do you plan to port this scenery into P3D version 2.x or 3.x ?

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#3
Hello Gary.

Airport ICAO IS LKMT Ostrava. I use Free MeshX. I alter terrain around airoport because there was cliffs around the area. I used SBX and made flatten ground polygon and edited each vertex and set appropriate altitude in order to avoid urgent slops of terrain.
As for as Imaginary I`ve download at LOD18 in BMP format. Texture resolution is 18432x12288px so it`s 9/6 tiles 2048/2048px each. In Gmax poly size is 5340m/3560m. I could use just this tiles with alpha channel where area is flat but I would loose resolution on surroundings. I would like to use scenery in FSX and Prepar3D V3 as well.
 
#4
Hello Gary.

Airport ICAO IS LKMT Ostrava. I use Free MeshX. I alter terrain around airport because there was cliffs around the area.

I used SBX (SBuilderX) and made flatten ground polygon and edited each vertex and set appropriate altitude in order to avoid urgent < abrupt ? > slops < slopes ? > of terrain.
Hi again:

LKMT will be an interesting and challenging project. :scratchch

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


Interested readers may view the LKMT project area using 3D terrain-enabled mode in Google Maps / Google Earth:


https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=49.696111,18.110833&q=49.696111,18.110833&hl=en&t=h&z=14

https://toolserver.org/~kolossos/earth.php?long=18.110833&lat=49.696111&name=Leoš_Janáček_Airport_Ostrava



There are indeed, small hills directly adjacent to the LKMT airport which are a distinct characteristic of local terrain shape.

Those hills may even be fairly well represented by use of the "FreeMeshX Global" terrain mesh or FSX, FSX:SE, and P3D by Nine-Two Productions, which AFAIK, provides FS terrain grid elevation data points at every ex: 38.4 Meters on the ground.

http://ninetwopro.com/


Those small hills directly adjacent to the airport are sufficiently low profile such that they 'could' also be modeled as 3D objects and textured via legacy FS2Kx "Ground Polygon" aka "G-Poly" methods.


However one would have to do this manually, as all currently available existing G-Poly utilities assume that one is making the ground object perfectly "flat" at an assigned elevation , and thus only offer output of "flat" G-Polys in legacy FS2Kx or P3D MDL-type BGL file formats.


But... since the small hills directly adjacent to the airport are also covered in trees, it is IMHO, less crucial that they be rendered in the higher detail associated with a typical FS2Kx "G-Poly" at the flight altitudes and visibility distances for take-off or landing, or even when taxiing nearby, as the ground textures will likely be covered by default or custom 3D tree models.


Additionally, one must also consider that tweaking G-Polys to both allow autogen tree or other autogen object display and to preventing flickering shadows / moire' patterns etc. is difficult to implement successfully, and sometimes cannot be implemented at all.


This latter consideration also makes it preferable to use a work-flow which would
:

* 'cut holes' in and/or otherwise segment and limit the extent of ...the airport area flatten polygon(s) to allow display of underlying terrain mesh for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport, as well as the surrounding terrain areas outside the airport.

* 'cut holes' in the airport area G-Poly(s) to allow display of custom photo-real aerial imagery textures compiled via FS SDK Resample for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport, as well as the surrounding terrain areas outside the airport.

NOTE
: These textures may be 'annotated' with custom Autogen buildings and trees (which are more FPS-efficient)



So, I would suggest that you may find it preferable to utilize:

* FS2Kx "flat" G-Poly method for paved and grass areas of the airfield and terminal area 'ground' surface to be navigated by user or AI aircraft and other vehicles

...and:

* Custom photo-real compiled via FS SDK Resample for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport, as well as the surrounding areas outside the airport (...for as many Kilometers as desired).


NOTE: P3D versions 2.x / 3.x requires use of a P3D SDK XtoMDL format 3D MDL file for G-Polys, thus a different method than used for FSX and/or P3D version 1.4



CAVEAT
: Use of downloaded Google Maps aerial imagery tiles may require costly licensing when utilized for payware and/or freeware scenery textures intended for use by 3rd parties, so I assume this project is exclusively for your own personal use. :alert:

As for as Imaginary I've download at LOD18 in BMP format. Texture resolution is 18432x12288px so it`s 9/6 tiles 2048/2048px each. In GMAX poly size is 5340m/3560m. I could use just this tiles with alpha channel where area is flat but I would loose resolution on surroundings.

In this case, at LKMT, the 'ZOOM' level in SBuilderX "Add Map From Background..." dialog for the Google aerial imagery tile server was likely "18", and the downloaded BMPs are also 'able to be compiled' by FSX SDK Resample at a maximum LOD of 18, when inspected in FSX SDK TMFViewer. ;)


Lets take a look at the effective resolutions we are discussing here for Google aerial imagery tile server textures downloaded / exported by SBuilderX:


North to South "Y-axis Dimensions" vertical (Latitude) aerial imagery tile array and pixel 'Rows':

18,432 px / 5,340 m = 3.4516853932584269662921348314607 Pixels / Meter on ground

5,340 m / 18,432 px = 0.28971354166666666666666666666667 Meters on ground / Pixel



West to East "X-axis Dimensions" horizontal (Longitude) aerial imagery tile array and pixel 'Columns'

12,288 px / 3,560 m = 3.4516853932584269662921348314607 Pixels / Meter on ground

3,560 m / 12,288 px = 0.28971354166666666666666666666667 Meters on ground / Pixel


0.28971354166666666666666666666667 Meters / Pixel correlates with 'effective' display in FS at a ground texture resolution of 0.15 Meters / LOD-18

...as discussed here:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flattens.425495/page-2#post-633002



To display such aerial imagery textures in FS at run time, one needs to set the FSX Menu GUI slider for texture resolution to at least 15 cm (...or optionally, at 7 cm)


[EDITED]

WHY ?

Because smaller span sizes of ex: 'Meters' or 'cm' on-ground mapped by greater numbers of pixels = higher resolution texture display in FS.


Provided that one properly configures the FSX texture slider, display of ground textures at this resolution is easily achieved via either G-Polys or custom photo-real aerial imagery textures compiled via FS SDK Resample.


A 'worked' example of this distance-related MIPMAP / LOD and texture resolution display relationship:

3.5cm per pixel

"The sim is stated as having up to 7cm per pixel photoreal resolution. But the FSX.cfg file can be edited to force 3.5cm per pixel resolution:"

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/3-5cm-per-pixel.21121/

[END_EDIT]


NOTE
: Example images shown by the OP in the thread linked above are of standard "terrain-mesh-clinging" custom photo-real aerial imagery made via FSX SDK Resample, and does NOT have shadowing / flickering / visible seams or gaps / autogen exclusion issues ...associated with G-Polys ! :teacher:



Also, because you are utilizing 2,048 x 2,048 pixel texture images mapped onto your G-Poly tiles, you will need to use a FSX.Cfg setting of:

[GRAPHICS]
TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=2048


...as discussed here:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/texture_max_load.434733/


IMHO, given the complexities required and potential complications likely to occur when attempting to utilize G-Polys in a "sloped" textured FS2Kx legacy format terrain surface for FSX, and the fact that such legacy objects are not likely to be displayed in P3D, it appears that it would be more practical to utilize the above suggested methods to make your LKMT scenery:

* FS2Kx SDK "flat" G-Poly method for paved and grass areas of the airfield and terminal area 'ground' surface for FSX

...and:

* P3D 2.x / 3.x SDK format MDL "flat" G-Poly method for paved and grass areas of the airfield and terminal area 'ground' surface for P3D

...and:

* Custom photo-real compiled via FS SDK Resample for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport and surrounding areas outside the airport for FSX and/or P3D.


Additionally, one must consider that there may be no major difference in perceived visual quality of displayed textures at aircraft altitude and horizontal distances during take-off or landing flight between the 2 above methods due to use of MIPMAPs and/or LODs by the FS rendering engine, since even though one might have set a G-Poly object for a visibility range of 10,000 Meters, lower resolution MIPMAP texture images may be seen in the user aircraft location at various distances from the ground ...regardless of ground texturing method used. :pushpin:


Again, these factors affecting displayed texture resolution at a distance ...are discussed here:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/texture_max_load.434733/

...and here:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/how-to-optimize-textured-ground-polygons.434101/



PS: AFAIK, there are many FS developers 'agonizing' over the what, when, where, how, and why of G-Polys right now. :yikes:


FYI
: Unless one intends to "force" display of full resolution ground textures at a distance via NOT using MIPMAPS, FS developers (and FS G-Poly utility programmers :wave:) are, IMHO, likely to experience less "agony" ...when custom photo-real aerial imagery BGLs compiled via FS SDK Resample are instead used for FS 'ground' textures ! :wizard:


Hope this information helps with your project ! :)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#6
Thank you GaryGB for this reply. That`s a lot of information that I need to think over and pratice your advice myself . I will respond soon. I will upload some images now
555555555555555.jpg
6666666666666.jpg
77777777777777.jpg
yyy333.jpg
yyy333.jpg
77777777777777.jpg
6666666666666.jpg
555555555555555.jpg
555555555555555.jpg
6666666666666.jpg
77777777777777.jpg
yyy333.jpg
kkkkk.jpg
kkkkk.jpg
. Some work has been done. Taxi lines and 3D objects won`t be so confusing I hope. We allready have taxiways and seasonal photoscenery blended with ORBX global better then most payware airports I know :) AFCAD and some ground work like blandchannel mask , watermask so we got lakes like on satellite imaginery. Proper ground poly seems to be challanging issue. Need some time :) Here you go some screens.
 
#7
Thank you GaryGB for this reply. That`s a lot of information that I need to think over and practice your advice myself . I will respond soon. I will upload some images now.
Some work has been done. Taxi lines and 3D objects won`t be so confusing I hope. We already have taxiways and seasonal photo-scenery blended with ORBX global better then most payware airports I know :) AFCAD and some ground work like blend-channel mask , water mask so we got lakes like on satellite imagery. Proper ground poly seems to be challenging issue. Need some time :) Here you go some screens.
Hi again:

The aerial imagery screenshots attached appear to be duplicated ? :scratchch

Possibly by referring to the "IMG" URLs in the "code" labels (copied from the BB Code Editor mode) that I have placed immediately above each image in my quote above, you might sort out whether any images are actually intended to be attached as 'duplicate' images, as IMHO, each subsequent attached copy of each 'original' image appears to be slightly lighter ? :idea:

Code:
[ATTACH=full]29852[/ATTACH]
[IMG]http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attachments/555555555555555-jpg.29852/[/IMG]
Code:
[ATTACH=full]29853[/ATTACH]
[IMG]http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attachments/6666666666666-jpg.29853/[/IMG]
Code:
[ATTACH=full]29854[/ATTACH]
[IMG]http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attachments/77777777777777-jpg.29854/[/IMG]
Code:
[ATTACH=full]29855[/ATTACH]
[IMG]http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attachments/yyy333-jpg.29855/[/IMG]
Code:
[ATTACH=full]29856[/ATTACH]
[IMG]http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/attachments/kkkkk-jpg.29856/[/IMG]

Over all, however, the photo-real textures look good in a FS flight session; keep up the nice work ! :)

GaryGB[/CODE]
 
Last edited:
#8
Sorry for that I noticed when I was send. First time I had send photos but I`ll taka care to not dupicate. When I manage the issue of this thread I will have to erase all the buildings on the tiles and it`s gonna be 34x4 seasons and blend with photoscenery so I concider to leave photosenery and make tiles with alpha just to match taxiways and runway and all elements of airport excluding slops and surroundings to avoid hard work over 130 tiles seasonal. But I have to consider what would be better and get deeper in GaryGB rely above.
 
#10
Hi Dick:

Indeed; I presented the above list of BB Code URLs with all linked images to assist the OP with sorting out what is- or is not- a "duplicate" image.

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/th...kground-and-mesh-blending.437844/#post-750246


FYI
: My goal was ultimately to see the OP edit his posted attachment above, so that this thread ends up with a single unique attachment for each image that the OP originally intended to show.

Following that 'corrective edit' by the OP, my plan was to edit and delete my own quote with the "duplicated duplicate images".


However, since there was some uncertainty (due to language issues and his status being a newcomer to this forum software) as to whether the OP intended to show "comparison" photos due to the perceptible differences of lightness between apparent originals and subsequent copies of his attached images, I thought it best to post as I did ...to assist him in sorting and editing his attachment down to only the minimal number of images he actually wanted to show us.


BTW: While I have your attention on this, does the "Upload a file" engine in this forum software:

* attempt to automatically alter attached (and not linked to external URLs) image parameters as to brightness / contrast / gamma etc. ?

* have some undocumented in-compatibility with the OP's file naming resulting in the attachment naming shown in the BB codes of linked images ?


Thanks for your further consideration and explanation with regard to this file attachment process. :)


UPDATE: As you can see, I have edited my post above, to allow the OP's posted images to stand on their own merits.

BTW
: I continue to await the courtesy of a reply to my questions above, and if you personally do not know the answer (or are for some reason not inclined to answer), I would still appreciate a reply to answer those questions by one of the other forum moderators here. :scratchch

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#11
Sorry for that I noticed when I was send. First time I had send photos but I`ll taka care to not dupicate.
Rafal, would you now please edit your post above, to reduce the total number of images shown to a minimum of "unique" attachments, so that there will be no "un-necessary" duplicates ? ;)

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/posts/750229/like


This editing can be more easily done via the "BB Code Editor" (the 'wrench' toolbar icon at the farthest right end of the icon toolbar). :pushpin:


NOTE: The forum thread post editing features can be toggled back and forth between BB Code Editor and Rich Text Editor modes until you have properly configured your post to your satisfaction (as well as the satisfaction of your interested readers ...and forum moderators).


And, if by any chance you had instead intended to show a comparison of photo-real textures when mapped to G-Polys versus when used for custom photo-real land class textures made via FS SDK Resample, please label each of those screenshot attachments accordingly ...so we can better understand what you are showing us. :idea:


Thanks for keeping us posted on this interesting project; and again, keep up the nice work ! :)

When I manage the issue of this thread I will have to erase all the building (images) on the photo-real tiles, and it`s gonna be 34 (tiles) x 4 seasons (per tile) and blend with photo-scenery, so I consider to leave photo-scenery and make tiles with alpha just to match taxiways and runway and all elements of airport excluding slopes and surroundings to avoid hard work (involving) over 130 tiles (of) seasonal (textures). But I have to consider what would be better and get deeper into GaryGB's reply above.
I am not quite sure what you mean by "tiles with alpha"; are you referring to making G-Polys with alpha transparency in the mapped textures to blend into the underlying custom photo-real land class textures made via FS SDK Resample? :scratchch


GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#12
Yes Gary that is what I consider . Underlyling photoscenery is seasonal and allready made and blended well at LOD 17 so it would be easier to make g-polys via gmax by all the interesting things like taxiways and runway, and erase buildings surounding airport and the image I had send was photoscenery with g-polys with black alpha channel excluding terrain. My goal is to make g-polys seasonall with sloppy terrain option blended with mesh. I`m not gonna to sorry once again for duplication when I said I won`t do this again couse nobody is perfect from the scratch. So one photo not duplicated in autumn I send right now. I hope this thread would be intersting. GaryGB you mantaioned if the airport will be freeware or payware. You said something about google maps but We would have to pay for ADE SBX and other we use . I appriete if you give me a tip if it make sense to try make it payware regardless off my predictions on how it would look . I agreed witn Mosnov aiport manager to make photos in oreder to mapp 3d buildings in gmax ( 3ds max seems to be costly for first airport ).
 
#13
Yes Gary that is what I consider. Underlying photo-scenery is seasonal and already made and blended well at LOD 17 so it would be easier to make g-polys via gmax by all the interesting things like taxiways and runway, and erase buildings surrounding airport and the image I had send was photo scenery with g-polys with black alpha channel excluding terrain.
If you intend to place 3D models on top of buildings in aerial imagery, your editing may only need to be minimal, because the building images will be covered up.


My goal is to make g-polys seasonal with sloppy terrain option blended with mesh.
Because the existing FS utilities for making G-Polys only output for "flat" surfaces, one would be at risk for a nightmare of experimentation, complications, and unpredictable results when displayed in FSX, if one were to attempt making G-Polys from sloped polygons based on legacy FS2Kx SDK methods for ground polygons that can be mapped with higher resolution textures than LOD-13 and also successfully displayed without anomalies in FS at run time).

I would NOT recommend attempting this "sloped legacy G-Poly" method. :alert:

Instead, as I suggested in my reply above in this thread, this will be easiest to do by: :idea:

* 'cutting holes' in and/or otherwise segmenting and limiting the extent of ...the airport area flatten polygon(s) to allow display of underlying terrain mesh for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport, as well as the surrounding terrain areas outside the airport.

* 'cutting holes' in the airport area G-Poly(s) to allow display of custom photo-real aerial imagery textures compiled via FS SDK Resample for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport, as well as the surrounding terrain areas outside the airport.

NOTE
: These textures may be 'annotated' with custom Autogen buildings and trees (which are more FPS-efficient) "cutting holes" into the G-Polys for so that the terrain mesh can protrude through in the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport, and for areas outside the G-Polys of airport paved surfaces etc.


[EDITED]

Additionally, please be aware that the legacy G-Poly methods using VTP Layer Numbers that work in FSX via FS2002 SDK code may NOT work in P3D 2.x / 3.x, although use of alternate and higher VTP Layer Numbers may allow such legacy SCASM/ASM G-Polys to work properly with shadows, etc. .

However, those methods may not be supported in future versions of P3D, so use of P3D SDK MDL-based G-Polys with "Z-Bias" Material Properties is considered "the way of the future", via textured 3D models exported by the P3D SDK "XtoMDL" compiler, preferably as MDL scenery object files with custom tweaks applied via Arno's MCX.


Another option, if you wanted to reduce your work load, would be:

1.) Using FSX / P3D SDK Resample, make a custom photo-real aerial imagery BGL that is textured with a transparent photo-real image (invisible 'diffuse texture' channel) to be draped onto the local FS terrain mesh in the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport.

2.) Make a 3D model of the terrain for the small hills directly adjacent to the airport.

a.) Map seasonal textures onto the faces of that 3D model at your desired resolution of ex: LOD-17 or higher.

b.) "Place" that 3D terrain object in its proper location within the scenery via BGLComp-type XML code using the "NoAutogenSuppression" parameter

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526978.aspx#SceneryObject


NOTE
: Be certain to "place" that 3D terrain object in its proper location within the scenery at a slightly higher altitude than the terrain mesh surface, so that there is a separation of at least 8 inches (0.21 Meters) between it and the underlying terrain mesh surface ...to avoid flickering / moire' graphical "Z-buffer fighting" anomalies.

The "invisible custom photo-real terrain texture" draped underneath the surface of the 3D terrain model can then be annotated with autogen by standard FSX / P3D SDK autogen creation and rendering methods, to take advantage of that higher rendering performance compared to placing trees via BGLComp-type XML scenery library object placement methods.


NOTE
: Seasonal textures on FSX / P3D MDL-format 3D scenery objects must be switched by methods outside the MDL code, via ex: batch files, a configuration utility, S.O.D.E. etc.


BTW
: To ensure that your terrain shape for the 3D terrain surface model 'matches' that of the terrain mesh underneath, you can:

1.) Import a copy of that 3D terrain surface model into MCX

a.) Export from MCX as a "sloped flatten" CVX- SHP2VEC-type BGL


2.) Be certain to "place" that terrain mesh "sloped flatten" in its proper location within the scenery at a slightly lower altitude than the "visibly-textured" 3D terrain surface object, so that there is a separation of at least 8 inches (0.21 Meters) between it and the 3D Model ('MDL-format') terrain surface object ...to avoid flickering / moire' graphical "Z-buffer fighting" anomalies.

[END_EDIT]


I`m not gonna to sorry (...going to apologize ?) once again for duplication when I said I won`t do this again because nobody is perfect from the scratch (on a first attempt). So one photo not duplicated in autumn I send right now. I hope this thread would be interesting.
Personally, I don't mind, and I do understand that attaching images can be somewhat confusing when one is new to the FS Developer forum software.

I have posted the BB Codes, URLs, and instructions which you can use for editing your post above; I don't know whether the forum moderators may still wish to insist on having you edit your posted links to attached images to minimize confusion to other readers, and reduce 'redundant image link' complexity in this thread.

But, please be assured that I do appreciate your taking the time to post the images, and I do find your project interesting, and I believe it has the potential to be an exceptionally good scenery for FS. :)


GaryGB you mentioned if the airport will be freeware or payware. You said something about google maps but We would have to pay for ADE SBX and other we use. I (would) appreciate (it) if you (were to) give me a tip if it makes sense to try (and) make it payware regardless of my predictions on how it would look.
AFAIK, utilization of aerial imagery from commercial sources such as Google Maps and Google Earth via the download feature in SBuilderX is IIUC, limited to personal use only, and may not be distributed in its original form (or in a form that is reasonably recognizable and similar to the original) ...outside of one's own computer.

Google Maps licenses such aerial imagery from other commercial sources, and that imagery is intended primarily for use via their own software such as Google Maps and/or Google Earth.

Google reportedly does not intend for their aerial imagery tiles to be downloaded via various methods for use by other means, and at best, are simply opting to not enforce their rules for "Terms of Use" when their servers detect tile downloads taking place.

FYI: It is possible to license aerial imagery from many parts of the world for commercial (payware) projects; however this is typically (prohibitively) expensive, unless one has access to ex: free sources from ex: governmental agencies etc., and such free imagery may often (but not always) be of lower resolution and quality compared to imagery licensed for a (costly) fee.


I agreed with Mosnov airport manager to make photos in order to map 3d buildings in gmax ( 3ds max seems to be costly for first airport ).
That is a good relationship to maintain, and may help you to make a very realistic version of that airport for FS ! :cool:


PS: I'm still looking forward to seeing the "one photo (not duplicated) in autumn" ...you mentioned in your reply above. ;)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#15
Thanks for the further update. :)


BTW: I forgot to ask this above with regard to your initial group of attached screenshots: are we seeing "cloud shadows" on the terrain textures ?

If so, are these screenshots displayed in the custom aerial imagery textures of FSX ...or are these screenshots instead based on display of the same aerial imagery as rendered within P3D ? :scratchch



PS: I edited my post above to elaborate on some other options for the areas of the small hills directly adjacent to the airport. :idea:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/th...kground-and-mesh-blending.437844/#post-750363


GaryGB
 
Last edited:
#16
I use P3D for last 1 year at least. So cloud shadows rendered by P3D engine with matched option to enable shadows of cloud. I don`t reccomednd FSX to nobody who meet P3D requirments but I know that many people use FSX and will for next 2-4 years so I make airport in order to be fully flyable in this 2 platforms and it`s possible. My PC is decent GTX 950 and I7 4770 at 3.7 GHZ . Gary if you use P3D as well ( V3.2 pro ) thats and interesting thing about compatiblity of add ones from FSX. Estonian tool is not essential :) I managed how it works and they make money for one entry in registry but it`s freeware legal program that make the same and was made in 2007 . I don`t know If I`m the one who know it ? :) I know it`s not about this thread but just let know that freeware tool is able to download and almost every scenery and aircraft you can install . I fly 767 Level-D in P3D V3.2 . I know how 3d objects are mapped so easly I double texture resolution and change gauges and the aircraft meet 2016 standards :)
 
#17
Hi Rafal:

I am definitely looking on with interest as P3D "evolves", but, due to limited available free time away from my existing real life and FS development commitments, I have not yet been willing to allocate time to working with Prepar3d in its current state of development.

But I would welcome any information about what methods are utilized to allow as many of one's freeware and payware add-ons to be ported successfully from FSX to P3D (including 2.x and 3.x versions of P3D if possible). ;)

Although I am aware of a number of ways this works in the MSFS / LM infrastructure of folder chains, configuration files, and Registry entries, I always appreciate opportunities to learn more. :)

GaryGB
 
#18
Gary I suppose you are on FSX . The tool I mentioned is called FS reg ulility 1.3. It`s small program that intention is to show where FSX is located. All intalators are looking for registry entry fot fsx and you can find it in regedit. When you install P3D there is no entry in registry for fsx so installators states "no FSX found" or something like that. It`s logic due to you have not FSX installed. So you run FS reg ulility 1.3 executable file and show where your fsx is and of course you give path of P3D folder and that`s it :) Done! . This program make this entry in your registry so every installator see that you have fsx and it`s located in folder you match in FS reg ulility . Estonian tooll works the same but you have to enable it everytime you try to install something FSX related. FS reg ulility make entry in your registry forever so there is no need to use it again :) Estonian tool have one advantage over fs reg utility that write files in app data but you can easly copy entries from app data roaming folder into Lockheed Martin . dll.xml and exe.xml . But usually to don`t have to make this when you install FSX related programs. You share your knowlande so I shere mine :) I don`t want to loose thread so I will send or write things related to LKMT Ostrava in next post. If you would like to contact me in other issue I would be pleased . My FB profile is Rafał Wątroba Cracow.
 
#19
Indeed, I recall that utility from TweakFS when it was released by a brilliant and generous author: Fermin Fernandez.

http://library.avsim.net/search.php...ernandez&Sort=Added&ScanMode=1&Go=Change+View

https://www.tweakfs.com/store/free_tools.php



I have been using the Flight1 freeware "FSX/FS9 Registry Repair Tool" in recent years, and since I now have Windows 64-bit, it is important that such utilities also be able to make an entry in:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\microsoft games\flight simulator\10.0


I have previously trusted add-on installers to be properly coded and well-behaved by providing up-front full disclosure and allowing 'informed consent' to decide for- or against- "that voodoo.. that they do.. so well", as well as retaining 'on-end-user-local-disk' logs of all install actions (...in addition to providing executable 'complete' uninstallers).

But, in more recent years it seems increasingly preferable to log all installs via utilities such as Revo Uninstaller Pro. :idea:


Refusal to provide executable 'complete' uninstallers, and apparent efforts by some FS add-on software providers to "obfuscate" logging of all install activities by ex: launching separate sequential installer processes may ultimately prove self-defeating, leading instead to more development, distribution, and widespread use of "meticulously vetted" freeware forensic tools and 3rd party uninstallers. :alert:


[EDITED]

PS: And of course this discussion has not addressed the potential liability to authors / publishers of software add-on or "upgrade" products that either fail- or are otherwise not able to be removed without- adversely impacting overall use of other existing product installations (...and regardless of whether or not such software is distributed under the auspices of sole proprietorships, small businesses, or large corporate entities), as in the case of Windows 10 "upgrades":

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...ainst-microsoft-for-forced-windows-10-upgrade

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2499104,00.asp

[END_EDIT]


Thanks for sharing your insights ! :)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Top