What you see is not what you get - problem when using terraforming - fixed by recreating project from scratch

[jgarnold]

I have created scenery which includeS a building with ramps. The default terrain where the ramps start is not correct (flat) and so I added terraforming and adjusted the altitude so that the start of the ramps 'sit' on the ground correctly. When I build my project and then add to the community folder I find that the ends of the ramps are 'buried' in the ground (terrain).
This can be see in the following 2 images.
The first image when the 'package' is added to the community folder (the ends of the ramps are buried in the ground).
The second image is when I open the project and load into editor (the ends of the ramps are above the ground - note I had previously attempted to adjust the altitude of the terraform polygons by trial and error and still didn't get it right).

IS THIS A KNOWN PROBLEM?
OR HAVE I DONE SOMETHING WRONG?

Is there a method to ensure the altitude of terraform polygon(s) is where I want it?

[added later]
From trial and error I eventually got the altitude of the terraform polygons to line up with the (altitude) of the ends of the ramps (took 3 tries of adjusting the altitudes) HOWEVER now the altitude of the entire scenery object (building with ramps attached) is incorrect. It seems that reducing the altitude of the terraform polygons also altered the altitude of the scenery object they intersected with yet the building scenery object does NOT have 'snap to ground' set. It's frustrating!

 

[JDLinn]

I had this same problem with ramps and long "wooden" walkways. I found I was crossing over terraform polys that were different altitudes. These walkways were "in the air" above the ground. My "guess" is that they had no "reference point" to the poly beneath them. If you have two ground polys (different heights) and you suspend something over them, how would that something know what the "height" should be? So for fun (using Sketchup), I put a very thin pole straight down about 100 feet from the walkway. This sort of "stuck it in the ground" ... but I'm thinking that it "touched" the ground poly below it and gave it a height reference. The wooden walkway stayed where it belonged. I've done this one two separate scenery locations (one good example is RTMM Yes Bay Lodge) and in both the problem got solved. I am not an expert at these things, but it seemed to make sense to me .. if I was something suspended, how would I know how high I am if there were things at different altitudes below me ... which would I choose? With the pole sticking into a poly, the "something" had a reference point.

Doug Linn/RTMM

 

[jgarnold]

Thanks Doug. Firstly I was starting to think that no one had any ideas or had experienced this problem.
I tend to agree with what you state.
I have found that all my scenery objects placed BEFORE I placed the terraforming stays where it was placed BUT any scenery objects placed AFTER the terraforming have the problem (using the gizmo they are set to line up with other objects yet after a build they 'drop down' in altitude. I placed a new object since my post and it has the same problem.
I intend to experiment with where the ORIGIN point (in Blender) is so that I can leave 'snap to ground' selected and see what happens then.

 

[jgarnold]

FYI
I just did a test of adding a scenery object and leaving 'snap to ground' selected/ticked (I changed the origin point in Blender to a point slightly below the base of my scenery object so that I didn't have to adjust the 'height above ground level' in Devmode . The scenery object still appears at a slightly lower 'altitude'. That 'shoots my theory down'.
It's ANNOYING as it seems the only way to get a scenery model displayed correctly is my trial and error.

Please also NOTE that the scenery object I referred to is placed well away from the terraforming polygons so the 'reference point' does not come into this particular scenario. I only have terraforming polygons covering a very small part of the 'airport' however as they are close to a water area (it is a water airport with floating docks) I wonder if they are somehow affecting the altitude of the 'water'?

 

[GaryGB]

Hi John:

Have you examined the 3D model placement XML to verify whether it is set to AGL mode ...or not ?

AFAIK, in all versions of FS, 3D model placement can be set in the XML code, to either AGL or AMSL mode ...per individual 3D model object


FYI: If MSFS 'Terra-forming' is used, IIUC, the resulting ground surface may impact any assigned "AGL" 3D object placement at run time.


BTW: AFAIK, all default MSFS water surfaces are AMSL as "water attribute texture skinning" of terrain mesh.


Local flattens (including Terra-forming) 'may' change local terrain mesh Altitude base values used to render AGL placed objects at run time.

Use of AMSL mode for 3D model placement may allow greater control of 3D model Altitude positioning within the FS 3D world.

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

Hello Gary
'Long time no see' your posts.

Do I assume correctly that the xml file is the one which resides in (folder) PackageSources\Scenery\airport-cac8-nanaimo\scenery ?
And you are referring to altitudeIsAgl="TRUE"

John

 

[GaryGB]

Hello Gary
'Long time no see' your posts.

Do I assume correctly that the xml file is the one which resides in (folder) PackageSources\Scenery\airport-cac8-nanaimo\scenery ?

Yes.

And you are referring to altitudeIsAgl="TRUE"

John

Actually, I would not use AGL, but rather AMSL mode, for placement of the Ramps ...via these parameter values:

altitudeIsAgl="FALSE"

snapToGround="FALSE"

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/ht...rhhlterm=altitudeIsAgl&rhsearch=altitudeIsAgl

[EDITED]

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

[END_EDIT]

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

Thanks Gary I will try that later. I am hoping also that will also help with a SHED I created which goes onto one of the many (not really) floating docks which also is affected.
BUT what is AMSL? Above mean sea level? Haven't seen that.

 

[=rk=]

what is AMSL?

Altitude above Mean Sea Level. What is SHED?

 

[jgarnold]

A shed is an Australian term meaning a small building usually used to store things. Can be large or quite small like a 'garden shed'

A shed is typically a simple, single-story roofed structure that is used for hobbies, or as a workshop in a back garden or on an allotment. Sheds vary considerably in their size and complexity of construction, from simple open-sided ones designed to cover bicycles or garden items to large wood-framed structures with shingled roofs, windows, and electrical outlets. Sheds used on farms or in the industry can be large structures.

 

[=rk=]

Thanks! All caps is an America shortcut for an "acronym," like USA. We think it's cool and sexy to leave the periods out, but sometimes get confused projecting our linguistic nuances to other cultures! As to your ideas about "shed's," fascinating. I'd had the occasion to generate some AI text to images, I'd been trying to get a decent texture represents a common form of siding, like clapboard. Apparently I am as unable to articulate "board and bat shed," or "shed siding," as I am to interpret the term. I did get some cool images for my effort.

OMG! Please laugh with me, not at. I'd never understood the third image, until just now with all three together. There had been many more, but these were the best. I am guessing that the "bats" represent "battens" and the sandy path is the AI's interpretation of a "boardwalk."

 

[jgarnold]

Sorry. I had no idea until you asked that the word "shed" was an Australian term. And there are also "shearing sheds" (large structures where sheep are shorn). What do people call such structures in the USA?
Oh we don't have bats in our sheds. Some have "bats in the belfry" though!
Yes clapboard I came across many years ago which fascinated me as here in Australia building with siding made from 'planks' of wood are called "weatherboard".
But don't stop there, as you and are both "blokes" and some live in "units" not "condominiums" which have "bats" in the ceiling for insulation (usually fibreglass) BUT we both (might) eat pizzas! (note no parenthesis).
I have known about "boardwalks" since the Drifters released "under the boardwalk" in 1964 when I was "Only 19".
Later I will be off to the "outback" and might see some "dunnies" (not dummies) and have a "schooner" of beer and stay overnight at a motel (note no parenthesis).
Oh please stop there!

 

[=rk=]

So I'd wanted to observe that most 3d software, in my experience, default to a ground plane, with a specific axis as "up." In Sketchup all model objects extrude from the origin and upwards from the ground plane. In 3ds Max, extruded objects, like cylinders and cubes, also rise from the ground plane, however, spheres and 3d objects have their center at the origin. Ther Sketchup and 3ds Max ground plane corresponds to MSFS "ground," although forward is reversed in Sketchup. It seems like Blender would work similarly, but I have no experience there. If it helps I could share an object that is upright at ground level to compare to.

 

[jgarnold]

Yes from what I observe there is both an 'origin' and '3d cursor' position and when you add your first 'mesh' (eg a cube or a sphere etc) both the origin and 3d cursor are in the middle and also the x and y axis. It is the 'origin' point which is where 'ground level' in MSFS is.
So (AFAIK) if you don't change it then the cube or sphere etc would be half buried if 'snap to ground' is 'on'.

 

[GaryGB]

Yes from what I observe there is both an 'origin' and '3d cursor' position and when you add your first 'mesh' (eg a cube or a sphere etc) both the origin and 3d cursor are in the middle and also the x and y axis. It is the 'origin' point which is where 'ground level' in MSFS is.
So (AFAIK) if you don't change it then the cube or sphere etc would be half buried if 'snap to ground' is 'on'.

Most Blender tutorial work-flows utilize a 3D model "primitive" (ex: a cube or a sphere etc.), that is centered at the "Origin of Axes" in 3D space.

IMHO, when 3D modeling a building, to save extra steps in one's work-flow, one might do well to use Sketchup's method to draw a flat Face on the ground plane, extrude it vertically to create a 'manifold solid', then Push / Pull the walls as needed to size / shape the object.

Starting with a "primitive" cube at the "Origin of Axes" in 3D space, 'scaling' it, and then repositioning it ...would likely add more steps to one's work-flow.


Unless, of course, one wishes to perform a uni-axial extrude on a non-flat surface, as shown in this video of Sketchup using a plugin Ruby script:

Fredo6: Joint Push Pull Interactive v4.6a

https://sketchucation.com/pluginstore?pln=JointPushPull

IIRC, Blender has a few plugin scripts that enable uni-axial Push / Pull operations like in Sketchup:

But perhaps an alternative in both Sketchup and Blender is to also have a plugin to move 3D "primitives" into a proper "FS" 3D position ?

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...e-point-of-imported-models.441368/post-784449

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/centering-objects.71321/

GaryGB

 

[jgarnold]

one might do well to use Sketchup's method to draw a flat Face on the ground plane, extrude it vertically t

Exactly. That is what I do and if the origin gets 'moved' for whatever reason I reset the origin to the middle of the base of my object.
Well that is not always the case. With my 'floating dock' objects I position the origin to be slightly 'higher' than the base of the dock otherwise when the waves are large you can see the base of the dock above the trough of the waves.
Same with floatplanes - I set the origin about half way up the floats.

 

[jgarnold]

What is SHED?

Is this a 'gee up' Rick? I note in the sketchup web site for model downloads there are "SHEDS" and isn't sketchup an American product?

 

[jgarnold]

FYI. I decided to create a 3D model of the area using maps.google and when I placed it devmode I noticed that (obviously) the 3d model displayed terrain over the area and so I removed the terraforming polygons and voila my scenery objects now 'behave' ie the elevation/altitude where I place them is the same elevation/altitude when the project is built and added to the community folder.

I still find it strange that scenery objects I placed onto my 'floating' docks after I had added terraforming polygons which as nowhere near each other and so should not affect the elevation/altitude.

Anyway for now I have no problems.

 

[jgarnold]

I hope that this may get a second look as I have some revelations!

I added a 3d satellite image object of some of the buildings onshore (from google maps) which also resulted in giving a once flat ground some terrain which was great.
I then removed the terraforming polygons as they were not required as the 3d satellite object gave me the required terrain.
This I think fixed the problem reported above in that WYSIWYG seemed to be ok.

I then made modifications to my 3D satellite imagery model and changed it in the project.
The problems encountered before have returned even though I now do NOT have terraforming polygons.
Could it be the 3D satellite imagery model I wondered (as it adds terrain and some of the edges 'protrude' into the water area) so for a test I removed the model from the project and rebuilt the project.

The problems still exist even without any terraforming polygons and no 3d imagery. Problems which did not originally exist when I started the project (ie before I added terraforming).

This is crazy. It seems something has mucked up the project since adding terraforming and then removed it. I also have noticed that when loading the project the 'height' of the area which is water changes which doesn't look correct. The only polygons I have in the water are for 'aprons' to hide the 'ghosts' of docks from the default msfs scenery.

Seems I will have to just do it by way of trial and error (adjusting the altitude' of scenery objects located in the water, build and check). This can't be right.

 

[jgarnold]

An update and a pleasing result

I have decided to recreate the project from scratch (devmode New Project). I have started placing objects in the same location and I now am NOT having any problems. What I see in devmode looks EXACTLY what I see after a BUILD and copy of the package to the community folder. In other words now WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get, as it should be).

I wonder why the other project went 'off the rails'.

Anyone with any ideas what might have happened with the other project?