Thanks Tom.

 

John

 

ps - for any of you who might be thinking about "upgrading" to Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7 - I was not able to go to the next line when hitting enter causing me not to be able to line feed down to type my name. I have rolled back to Internet Explorer 9 because of this and several other site problems - not AVSIM.

Thanks Tom.....

Good morning Tom....   And I can ask this of any one who may have a logical path for me to follow....

 

I would like to learn to do 3-D panels.   With that said, I've been doing a lot of reading but I'm not finding the information I really need to get started in doing this.   Can any one guide me in a direction where I might get some easy Steps to follow that would enable me to learn the basics of designing a 3-D panel.   I know layering is involved, I know you need a 3-D folder in your aircraft folder that compliments the aircraft 2-D folder.  But how does the resource folder with all the bitmaps and information all tie together with making it all work.

 

I know I may be jumping into this over my head.....  but I am technically interested in learning more.

 

Thanks for any guidance.

 

Ron

Hey Ron, it pains me that you don't have the info easily available to you.   I have a very long-standing site plan here for a comprehensive video training site to teach all the nuances of development from beginning to end and all things in between, but unfortunately, can't get to it for at least 6-8 months though take heart in that it is being architected.  I can throw out some quick tidbits though that might get things started for you.  I am quite sure they'll raise more questions, but at least perhaps fill in some blanks at the same time....however, to go down this road in 3D, you need to do a little work in blender as its the blender export scripts that know how to handle x-plane's panel texture system.  AC3D is an easier option, but not one I can offer advice in unfortunately.

 

One really big concept you need to be comfortable with is that of the panel texture.  The "panel texture" isn't a tangible texture image file on disk like you're used to.  It's a image dynamically built by xplane and only exists in memory when x-plane is running.  When you use Planemaker  to lay out your instruments, save your aircraft and then fire up x-plane....that exact same layout you saw in plane-maker is now a special texture inside of x-plane and you can use this texture to map to 3D polygons that you create in blender.   But if the texture isn't physical, then how to map it to 3D polygons as is done with traditional 3D tehcniques?  Well,  there is a special keystroke sequence within x-plane that will create a snapshot of the panel texture for you and place a *.png file in the 3D cockpit folder.  This feature exists purely to allow cockpit authors to UV map their polygons to the panel texture.   In the screenshot below, you can see my panel layout in planemaker and then in the blender image on the right side, you can see the resulting panel texture snapshot that x-plane spit out for me when I used the special keystroke...you'll note that even the annuncitors are lit up.  Thus, you can make simple flat '3D' instruments rather quickly in blender and map them to the panel texture.  The copilot side of the default King Air is like this, using only 2D flat polygons.

 

A hybrid method is to use flat polygons for the gauge faces (from plane-maker instruments) and then model genuine 3d geometry on top of them, like bezels.   this is the way the pilot side of the King air is done as well as the default Baron and gives the best of both worlds...3D depth and quick instrument building.   Now more to your reference to customization and layers of the default 2D instruments.....that is a bit deeper topic, but here is the way it works.  The default instrument schema in x-plane is very ridgid.  x-plane knows exactly all of its default instrument names, the names of all the "images" that make up the layers of an instrument and their sizes AND their file paths.  The file names are immutable.   In order to customize one of the default instruments, you have to recreate its exact file path / filenames in your aircraft cockpit_3d folder.  This is because when x-plane loads up a plane, it looks to see what instruments you have put in it in planemaker....and when it find somethingn like an airspeed indicator, then it knows the name of that indicator and it first goes and looks in your aircraft folder to see if that instrument and its files are there...looking at the file names.  If files are not there, then it uses the default versions.  SO, what you do to customize an instrument is duplicate all the files from "resources > bitmaps > cockpit" that make up an instrument into your aircraft cockpit_3d folder and then you begin "painting over" each image to customize it.   You only need duplicate the files of instruments that you have placed in planemaker though so you don't need a big giant heirarcy in your aircraft folder that mimics "resources > bitmaps > cockpit" completely.   If a x-plane default  instrument is composed of say, 5 layered images...it is possible to only duplicate some of them into your aircraft folder for customization.  As I said, x-plane looks for specific file names in your aircraft folder and if not there, reverts to default.  So you may customize a 'bezel only graphic' and x-plane would use that, but without the other layer images in your aircraft folder, would then use the defaults found in the resources folder.  Also, x-plane keeps track of "layered images" by using "dash suffixes" appended to common names.  So you will see things like:   instrument.png (no suffix means the base/bottom image)  then instrument-1.png, instrument-2.png and so forth. The minimum required for an instrument is at least the base image and what we call a "dash 1" overlay.  The base image is never animated, only the dash layer overlays.

 

That's the simple version.  planemaker also provides what are called "generic instruments" and TBH, were designed to be customized.   Generic instruments are "categorical" rather than specific, i.e .a "needle",  or an "annunciator", LED light, etc, the user has control over deflection values and ranges.    It is possible to use the default instrument artwork files and rename/port those over to generic instruments for customization if desired. 

 

So that is the super simple, full of pitfalls summary.  To start with, I think you should use the following method first and then move to generics later.

 

1.)  Create a folder in your aircraft called "cockpit_3D" and inside that folder create another folder called "-PANELS-".  These are standardized folder names.

1.)  Use planemaker to drag default gauges/instruments onto the panel canvas (which can be up to 2048 x 2048) though I usually get by fine with 1024 x 1024.

2.)  Open the aircraft in x-plane and use the special keystroke combo (shift/ctrl/opt/space......I think, its shift + 2 modifier keys + space bar)  and this should create a png file in your -PANELS- folder with the name, "panel_preview.png".  At least I think that is always the name it uses...but look for the 'preview' part as that label is generated by x-plane and indicates the keystrokes worked.

3.)  In blender, create flat polygons and map those to this "preview.png" texture.  Name the texture data block "panel.png" in blender (a separate topic when you get there).  

 

With polygons mapped to a texture with a blender datablock name of "panel.png" (datablock name isn't the same as the file name BTW)  the blender exporter knows that these polygons will use the panel texture that you created in planemaker.   Now you create the rest of your cockpit around these "gauges" using your own textures and traditional 3d tecniques.  In the image below, only my 8 gauge faces and 8 annunciators use the panel texture...everything else, the panel back, the yokes, etc, all use textures contained in the "objects" folder inside your aircraft folder.

 

In x-plane, an object can only use 1 texture...but the cockpit is a special case.   Whenever the blender x-plane exporter finds a polygon using a texture from the "panel.png" datablock...AND the name of the exported object contains a '_cockpit' suffix....THEN and only when those two criteria are satisfied will the exporter know this is a cockpit object and allow 2 textures to be used.  Otherwise, the exporter will choke and tell you you can't use two textures....and let me tell you, this can be a huge pain under certain circumstances.

 

So that's a quick and dirty, "sorry I threw mud and ran off" response but maybe some of it will stick.   One day I'll get that site up with 50+ training videos and hopefully open up the hobby of dev to more folks...it really is a lot of fun and reasonably quick and accessble once some proficiency is acquired.

 

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/955680/example.jpg

Whooh.....  Thanks Tom.  This information really gives me a 'LOT' to think about and experiment with.  I am and will be taking very small baby steps in this entire process.  But thank you for giving me a 'compass course' to start with.

 

Ron

Whooh.....  Thanks Tom.  This information really gives me a 'LOT' to think about and experiment with.  I am and will be taking very small baby steps in this entire process.  But thank you for giving me a 'compass course' to start with.

I also want to say, if you have a list of who wants your videos in 8 or so months from now please put my name on that list.   

 

Ron

Tom...  I have read and read again the info you placed here regarding 3_D handling.   Which 'Blender' level should I obtain to start with?

 

Thanks, 

 

Ron

I'm not quite sure I understand the question Ron...being that Blender is software, do you mean "Blender version?"    Or perhaps you mean which "strategy" to take in blender regarding building a 3D cockpit?

 

TomK

Sorry.... I am sure I wasn't clear.   The 'version of Blender' is what I was speaking of.   I've downloaded the 2.66 version.... Now I have to figure out what to do with it.   I anticipate a lot of reading of its manual this weekend.  If you have some simple points regarding "strategy", I'll accept any guideline(s).   Have a good weekend Tom.

 

Ron

Hi Ron, I'm not sure if you came across this post I did a while back, but it might be helpful, see link below.  All I can do is offer my observations and let you decide what "inconveniences you the most".

 

The scripts for 2.6+ are a WIP so you might have some downtime as the author works through issues and bugs and incorporates new features.   If you look at the support thread on the org, you'll see the work has some known bugs that are being worked through...and sometimes waiting or not being able to accomplish what you want can be frustrating.

 

You also give up some production efficiencies that we have with the 2.49 version of the Blender export scripts that make for less headaches when doing lots of 3D work and frequent exporting, but for casual work, this might not matter to you.

 

You give up something with either version  With 2.6 though, I probably can't offer any practical advice relating to "best practices" or give you solutions like I can for 2.49 though; however, there is that huge support thread at the org where lots of folks can help for sure but not to be mean, those pursuing that 2.6 thread are less experienced as 2.6 and the scripts are just "too new".

 

So to summarize, here's my final synopsis.

 

2.6 PROS:  Get nicer blender interface that is easier to learn.  Get some newer modeling tools though not many.  The 2.6 export scripts for x-plane support more manipulator types for 3D cockpit interaction.  Learning software / interface that will be around for a long time.  The 2.6 scripts are actively being developed.

 

2.6 CONS:  Scripts are a work in progress by a 3rd party and might be buggy.  Scripts do not support as many features as the 2.49 ones.  Not much documentation on their use.   Technology is relatively new and "exploration" of workflow and discovery of bugs is common.  Not a lot of experienced users who can help.

 

2.49 PROS:  Scripts are mature, stable and full featured.  Lots of experience out there so any problem already has a solution, just ask.  Large base of experienced users to tap into.  2.49, once learned is very fast to use.  2.49 is very production oriented and efficient at getting tasks done....once you learn it of course.

 

2.49 CONS:  It's user interface is cryptic with minor annoyances, very keystroke driven so there are lots of keystrokes and menu commands to learn and this can take some time and frustration.  Not developed anymore but has a few good years left in it.  When exporting out 3D cockpits, some hand editing or "script based" post processing of the exported text file is necessary for some manipulator types....though workflows to deal with this are well established.

 

That's the best I got Ron, pick your poision!

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/4473-future-of-blender-export-scripts-for-developers/

Hi Ron, I'm not sure if you came across this post I did a while back, but it might be helpful, see link below.  All I can do is offer my observations and let you decide what "inconveniences you the most".

 

The scripts for 2.6+ are a WIP so you might have some downtime as the author works through issues and bugs and incorporates new features.   If you look at the support thread on the org, you'll see the work has some known bugs that are being worked through...and sometimes waiting or not being able to accomplish what you want can be frustrating.

 

You also give up some production efficiencies that we have with the 2.49 version of the Blender export scripts that make for less headaches when doing lots of 3D work and frequent exporting, but for casual work, this might not matter to you.

 

You give up something with either version  With 2.6 though, I probably can't offer any practical advice relating to "best practices" or give you solutions like I can for 2.49 though; however, there is that huge support thread at the org where lots of folks can help for sure but not to be mean, those pursuing that 2.6 thread are less experienced as 2.6 and the scripts are just "too new".

 

So to summarize, here's my final synopsis.

 

2.6 PROS:  Get nicer blender interface that is easier to learn.  Get some newer modeling tools though not many.  The 2.6 export scripts for x-plane support more manipulator types for 3D cockpit interaction.  Learning software / interface that will be around for a long time.  The 2.6 scripts are actively being developed.

 

2.6 CONS:  Scripts are a work in progress by a 3rd party and might be buggy.  Scripts do not support as many features as the 2.49 ones.  Not much documentation on their use.   Technology is relatively new and "exploration" of workflow and discovery of bugs is common.  Not a lot of experienced users who can help.

 

2.49 PROS:  Scripts are mature, stable and full featured.  Lots of experience out there so any problem already has a solution, just ask.  Large base of experienced users to tap into.  2.49, once learned is very fast to use.  2.49 is very production oriented and efficient at getting tasks done....once you learn it of course.

 

2.49 CONS:  It's user interface is cryptic with minor annoyances, very keystroke driven so there are lots of keystrokes and menu commands to learn and this can take some time and frustration.  Not developed anymore but has a few good years left in it.  When exporting out 3D cockpits, some hand editing or "script based" post processing of the exported text file is necessary for some manipulator types....though workflows to deal with this are well established.

 

That's the best I got Ron, pick your poision!

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/4473-future-of-blender-export-scripts-for-developers/

Thanks Tom.... Either direction requires me to learn the entire process, so, I may just make the decision to stay with 2.66 and start learning while putting up with the bugs.   Thank you for your patience and time..  Ron

No problem Ron.  Good luck.  Do tap into the org when you have questions as they have the most 2.6 users for sure.

 

TomK

Tom,

 

Another probably stupid question, but here goes.  When switching to the King Air from another aircraft (yes, I do sometimes fly others - specifically Carenado Bonanza F33 or Cessna 172, all instruments are blacked out.  The only way I can get them to "light up" is to completely restart the simulator.  Am I missing something or is this just the way it is.  I have also been thinking about the "Brake".  I realize it is probably a "redraw" to animate a knob, but is there a way to have a light or message in the annunciator?

 

Thanks,

 

John

Just wanted to say thanks for the BE9L, it's the best stock plane (by a country mile) and is better than a lot of payware I've seen.

 

Appreciate the latest updates.

I agree with Ryan.  I haven't meant to be critical, just looking for answers.  I have, on a couple of occasions, discovered that the parking brake was set during flight and it is not good to land with that situation.

 

Thanks again Tom,

 

John