Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest DC-9

FSX 3rd Party Issues:Early Warning

Recommended Posts

>Why is a 2d polygon even being used to cover a 3d mesh and>alter its appearance? ?? Because the 3D mesh, particularly over water areas, is inaccurate and has bumps and pits. It's desirable to cover that, isn't it? >Thats not clever design. On the contrary, I think it's one of only a few possible ways to handle the problem that I can think of offhand.The only better way I can think to do it, is the way I suggested in my previous post, and that is a flatten property on river polys just like taxiways and runways have, only the elevation value would be interpolated from surrounding terrain. (it would have to be interpolated) Haven't thought too deeply into it as it just popped into my head.>A river polygon>that is mapped to terrain should have a `depth` that would>allow for variation in the underlying mesh - in the example>above it wouldn't matter if the Oxford mesh were 7m and London>were 4m, if the polygon was 3-dimensional with a bottom>`depth` of say 9m. Reverse the mesh interpolation so that>rivers were always flat on top, but inset to the mesh>underneath, and the problem goes away as there's room for>manoeuvre and a margin for errors elsewhere.>But there is no room for maneuver. The problem is that the bumps are often severe enough that they would poke above the surface of your 3D river. How do you solve that?The solution I posted about in the previous post would, theoretically, solve the problem and is much like what you said here. Only it is even more flexible in that it doesn't care if there are any bumps, as they would get flattened out.It's more thinking out loud on it than anything though. Something complex like this takes a lot of hashing over, at least for me.>I don't want to be negative, but this is exactly what I feared>would happen. And what does that say about the future DX10>patch. Will that be as half-arsed, just because they can't be>bothered?>What are you so worried about? They are fixing the worst errors, but focusing more on performance and DX10. Isn't that what you want?We can't have them fixing rivers for the next 2 years.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case


Rhett

i7-8700k @ 5.0 ghz, 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ, 1080Ti, 32" BenQ, 4K res

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jonasbeaver

with a round earth, is it perfectly round, or slightly ovoid as it is in real life?I know the difference in observation is negligible but I am curious...thanks for the workjonas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wyoming

but I think that satellites give you 3D data for each pixel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Beta testing is your friend.. you should look into it for FS11 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://fsinsider.com/Community/Developers-...t+Simulator.htmspecificallyFlight Simulator uses the ellipsoidal Earth model defined by the World Geodetic System 1984, or WGS 84 [12]. WGS 84 uses a geocentric rectangular coordinate system with the Earth

ex-Aces Lead PM, FSX SP1 and SP2
ex-Intel LRB native title enablement, ex Intel Gaming and Graphics Samples PM

now Graphics and Multicore PM in Visual Computing Software Enabling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phantoms

Any chance you could mention a small problem with KSAV. The taxiway leaving the tarmac heading for Runway 36 disapears for a bit and you have to cross grass because the taxiway is not visable there. This is with the stock FSX KSAV airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That airport is not on the list, sorry about that.Did you ever bug report it?


ex-Aces Lead PM, FSX SP1 and SP2
ex-Intel LRB native title enablement, ex Intel Gaming and Graphics Samples PM

now Graphics and Multicore PM in Visual Computing Software Enabling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phantoms

No, sure didn't as I planned to replace it with an addon one eventually as I do most of my simming out of Savannah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dom993

Phil,Thank you for giving us some info on the performance target for SP1 - the 20% framerate gain across the board is certainly good news for all of us.The land, see & air traffic appears to have one of the nastiest impact on FPS - wouldn't some of that be a good candidate to run on a 2nd Core ?Thanks again,Dom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diajohn2

Phil,Thanks for your team's efforts making the product better. No matter what you deliver, there will be a few who complain, want more and just be the kind you don't want to have a cuppa with. Such is life in the anonimity of a message board and the internet. Can't believe some idiots believe they can sue because a game isn't to their liking.I look forward to performance improvements and let third parties work on scenery. Some of them are great. So are many of yours also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am aware of nothing that is blocking 3rd parties from>re-authoring using the FSX SDK to deliver all forms of content>( vehicles, gauges, models, textures ).>While we aimed to have good back-compat, it is true we are not>100%. >And it is true that the goal of SP1 is performance and not>compat.>So I cannot promise any and all legacy content will>automagically work with SP1. Some issues will get better, some>will persist.>I dont know how I can state it any plainer than that.Hi Phil, how are you?First of all, thanks for responding my last questions on other topics.Well, I'd like to ask your sincere opinion here.As a developer, allow me to present you with a point of view that may be valuable for when dealing with what you are doing or will do about fixing and updating our FSX.Based on what you've stated above, is all a simple matter of just re-authoring everything every developer has done before using the new SDK. Ok, no problem on that from our part, but there are a lot of dev fellows that are still sufering hard on that.We have spent days and nights just after FSX was released trying to learn how to do that with our sceneries and we've acomplished it, thanks God. We have already released 7 native FSX sceneries so far, without flickering or flashing ground problems and withou any issue reported from our users, even custom made style runways keeping that wet look is not a problem anymore for us, among with hand painted ground work, so, don't take this as a critic from someone who could still be facing problems with his own developments :-)The problem is: can you figure how much time is it necessary to completely re-author (with your new SDK) something complex as a Level-D 767, or a PMDG-747, or nice as Misty Fjords, a FlyTampa scenery, or complete and big as German Airports, or even large as our 89 FS9 sceneries already released, just to mention a few of the numerous gorgeous products that are among our hearts and our users are claming to have on the new sim, to still keep using them as fast as possible, and that are still keeping them pluged on FS9?It's not so simple to re-author everything from almost scrath, having to learn, dominate and make use of new tools and technics.We here were luck enough to get it faster and working nice to our users, but other devs don't.My concern is that on the full-work ritm we are taking here, it took us almost 6 months to produce 7 FSX sceneries; as we still have 82 more to re-author, without mentioning the new ones we are scheduled to do, there will be at least almost two more years of full work to get them all at FSX (as we are doing them literally from scratch again).When this happens I'm afraid that FSXI will be already knocking on our doors, bringing a brand new SDK, new tools, new technics, new demands and the process will start all over again leting us all desperate and in great pain one more time :-(Is that what is reserved for us all? Can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the datasets can do that, then that could be good, if it's accurate. RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case


Rhett

i7-8700k @ 5.0 ghz, 32 GB G.Skill TridentZ, 1080Ti, 32" BenQ, 4K res

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Hi Phil, how are you?>First of all, thanks for responding my last questions on other>topics.No problem. I cant promise I will respond to all reasonable dialog, but I am trying to make myself available to the community. You can see me on fs2004.com as well but a little less often.>>Well, I'd like to ask your sincere opinion here.>As a developer, allow me to present you with a point of view>that may be valuable for when dealing with what you are doing>or will do about fixing and updating our FSX.<...> data points elided by Phil>Is that what is reserved for us all? Can


ex-Aces Lead PM, FSX SP1 and SP2
ex-Intel LRB native title enablement, ex Intel Gaming and Graphics Samples PM

now Graphics and Multicore PM in Visual Computing Software Enabling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DC-9

Instead of forcing developers to basically develop a new suitable version each time, I think maybe a converter should be made to port older addons over. It would save an enormous amount of headaches and frustration for everyone, including customers. It's not that it can't be done either. All it would need to do is optimize the BGL's by deleting old obsolete code and replacing it with new code, as well as convert textures over. Obviously, I don't think the process would be perfect, but would definitely help things a bit. Needless to say, we're still not getting adequate support regarding the 'round earth syndrome' which has really put a hault on a lot of developers with customized ground polygons. Sorry, but the default runways/taxiways just don't pass muster, nor is the lighting even close to being accurate on the taxiways. Another element I think a lot of people are frustrated with is, the taxiway lighting is not scaleable like the runway lighting. I think that's another fix that should be implemented. Sorry, I just don't like big blue & green globules for taxiway lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rhett,I don't mean classic flattens here. What I mean is deform the height mesh using a flatning (averaging) algorithm. You only do this for the mesh that is 'under' the vector data. With the right averaging algorithm you get beautiful sloping rivers and you loose the spikes caused by bridges and dams.Streams don't need this because they carve their own bedding.


simcheck_sig_banner_retro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    22%
    $5,540.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...