Sign in to follow this  
Guest

success with replacing fs2002 generic models

Recommended Posts

using the great add-on of George Ioannu ; fsregen_024a.The project was aimed at replacing the generic models in FS2002 with a custom one, built with gmax.The accomplishment was made using fsregen_024a. The latest fsregen version is available at http://www.nhreas.com/fsregen.htmlAs an experiment, I tried to replace the VOR's of fs2002 with a new VOR model I created with Gmax. Taking persistent and very valuable guidance from George, I was able to accomplish it.please visit my site at http://www.ltba.net/fsmodels.htm for more and the tutorial.regards,Biberwww.LTBA.netTHIS MESSAGE IS POSTED IN AVSIM GENERAL FORUM AS WELL....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi Biber would it be possable to add say a transitomiter to the above? I've been so busy with getting our scenery done (model wise)that I've not had the time to play with FSGen at all!. I made a DVORDME looks a little different( the vertical part is different) as it's only a dme and not a tacan but I never put it in as I wasn'table to figure it out but as you have got one in now that's great!! Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi dan,send me pics and I will do it.since I am a not an aviator, I have no idea about this *:-*meter.you might guess that I modelled it based on istanbul vor biberwww.LTBA.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want the .bgl as I will make the model in Max or gmax if that's better for you. Oh the above is a unit that gives the tower the visability on the runway that's measured in ft (or meters) that's used to give what's called the RVR(runway visual range). If you look at an approach plate you will see the minimum "RVR value" or visability req'd for any given approach. When a runway is equippedwith RVR equipment(a transitomiter) that consists of a light sourceand a recever that converts the amount of light it receves from the transmitter into an value on a display that the towerapproach usesto get the visability on a given runway. If the RVR goes below minimums for that runwayairport then in the case of an ILS eitherthe airportrunway goes say to catII(or CatIII) if equiped to do so or if the runwayairport is not catIIIII certified then the runway or the whole airport closes down for safety reasons. In fact lots of things come into play for very low visability approaches additionalrunway,approach and taxiway lighting plus the AC and Aircrew have tobe certified for catIIIII approaches so in short one would not be flying a catII approach in a 172!! let alone a catIII. Anyway hope this helps you!. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultimate question I am looking for an answer for is how static aircraft (FS models) can be converted to library objects and optimised for GMAX based sceneries. Now that buildings and gates are able to be optimised with the GMAX modeling the only thing left to optimise are the statics.ThanksShez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That not that hard to answer :), you will just have to design some simple shaped aircraft in GMax that can then be used as statics.I think the only way to keep them simple is to just design them from scratch. But of couse that's a lot of work.ArnoMember NL2000 Teamhttp://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Shez,as far as I remember, in my LTBA scenery I used gmax built low-poly static aircraft of 737, bae-146, dc-9, bell copter, bizjet , fokker 50 and warrior. I have not converted them into library objects though at that time.regards,Biberwww.LTBA.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the conundrum is with taking the existing GMAX models and putting them in as statics. Unfortunately one would want GMAX models which are good to look at and not compromise fps which would mean excluding almost all of the presently available models. Most of these are in GMAX because the author has gone for the flexibility of GMAX which means more complexity.Maybe using the FSDS and GMAX models and passing just the visual models thru GMAX and generating a bgl file might work. Of course authors will need to be requested for this... :-cool ThanksShez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shez I am working on some static models done from spline objectsmaybe you could give a pointer or two on how to create the needed files once they are finished. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually what I was thinking was this, the main problems with mdl to bgl conversion is the importation of additional (irrelevant) data from the mdl file to the bgl. Now I am not an expert but if you check the api file that is created when running an aircraft through the MDL to BGL program you can see the extremely complex set of data that results. This obviously means an fps-eating 3d object. Now if one could just import the visual model only and ignore the rest maybe it would be a way of reducing the size of the api/3d model. Again this will not work in normal circumstances as we do with the FS models per se (i.e. aircraft made with Flight Shop, Aircraft Animator, etc.), but with FSDS or GMAX created models and the FSDS import plugin for GMAX, this is definitely worth exploring. Then you just exclude all the airfile/animation/etc. data and only see the external detail. Additionally, DXT1 or r8 textures could be used to reduce the texture burden.One more thought, if GMAX animation could be imported to FS then one could theoretically make moving ground support vehicles....Shez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shez I have a bud that has had look at some of the code(I am not much of a code head yet but I am taking a full time course in 3D modelinganimation with C++C# and it includes dir 3Dopen G.L. stuff as well.Anyway it appears that a lot of the "code" in the new .bgl's is for the benifit of in this case of dirX so the pgm canjust pass the bgl right on to the rendering enginevideo card in a parsed form(I.E. broken down) that DirX can work with. So it seems that it may take some work to find what parts a "simple" .bgl modelcan use and not get strange results. Am I makeing any sence? as this is how things were explained to me. I do understand that the hardwareneeds evrything K.I.S.S.ed(kept simple) for the best results. AnywayI will continue to pick his brain on this. Danhttp://members.rogers.com/klasik2/danlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

< One more thought, if GMAX animation could be imported to FS then one could theoretically make moving ground support vehicles....>so far the gmax animation discussions were limited to propeller or gear or flap movements, I do not recall any reference or explanation on moving vehicles like trucks along a path, but I also would like to add them into airport sceneries. any feedback is welcome...regardsbiber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested that already. OK, it was only a moving box on the ground :) but it works. So I am thinking about using it for moving ground vehicals. The only problem is that a keyframe animation can only have a length of around a minute and that is a bit short for my big airport. Maybe I am going to use the old dynamics for my vehicals (then people can also turn them off if they don't want them).ArnoMember NL2000 Teamhttp://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I would like to find out more from your friend if he was looking at the coding of api objects.Shez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took a look at the code made by MDL2BGL and just by removing the first part (with all the VectorJump etc) I think you can already make the code faster. This part only checks where you are and then determines in which order the parts should be drawn.I now have to go back to studying my exam :), but when I have time this evening I will try if I can easily identify other not needed parts to simplify the code further.ArnoMember NL2000 Teamhttp://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as usual your inputs and Dan's and Salsa's (and others) are leading us down code optimisation. :)Your observations on the statics are exactly mine when I saw the code. Very complex. However I am not an expert in codes so was left to pointing out this to you experts. ;) Thanks for looking into this.We should of course continue to look into the GMAX/FSDS import as well but will possibly require aircraft designer help for their source files, lest we desing a/c ourselves which I am not too sure scenery designers are good at...or have time for. (-: Your observation on the animation is spot on. Thought it would be an excellent feature. Though the one minute hurdle is an issue as it would restrict vehicles to do repetitive (annoying) movements... :( RegardsShez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in the number of polys in a 'low poly' GMax static a/c. Or if this has a significant effect on performance. I have removed a lot of scasm code in a static macro, usually to get rid of unwanted parts like helo rotor animation but have seen no visible effect on performance. jb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jb,it depends on the features of the original aircraft, your positioning of the aircraft in your scenery and how frequently you are going to use it in your scenery. Better to keep the widely used aircraft low poly and position them in less visible places. In the central sections of the airport you may use relatively higherpoly modelsAs far as I remember, I modelled 737 with around 200, cessna172 around 150, hercules 800, concorde 1000 poly's (rough figures).biberwww.LTBA.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jb, Biber and the rest Hi !There is one test I haven't done but it may be interesting.If you develop large airports with many planes all over you can do it with two diferent methods:- Put the planes in the same bgl file with the rest of your sceneryor- Export each plane in a bgl file of it's own.In the first case the scenery mechanism is forced to deal with all of them and I'm not sure what happens with the ones out of sight.In the second method, it is certain that very early in the bgl execution, the projection engine decides if the whole object is visible, and if not does nothing else with it.There is the possibility that the second method is faster.I have not tried this myself, but it would be interesting to know the results. Altough there is a certain overhead and penalty for each distinct bgl file I think we may be pleasently surprised; specialy if you group 3-4 planes together to cut down this overhead.All the bestGeorge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you have each object in its own Area block it should make no difference how many objects are in a BGL for the visibility. The scenery engine determines for each area block and for each reference point if it is vissible at this moment and then draws it or not. So I expect it to make no difference.ArnoMember NL2000 Teamhttp://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Arno.I forgot to say that this goes for gmax modeling, no SCASM.I have no idea about scasm, but I take it that the Area you mention is equivalent with the MASM scale command.If this is the case you are right if you use scasm.But the MASM code from gmax uses ONLY one scale command and a VICALL if rotation is defined in makemdl. At the top of the each bgl file there is a condition if the scenery is visible or not that skipps the whole file. This condition forms a large box around the complete scenery. So in a large "put in everything" file this is most of the times valid and the processing goes on to the internal of projection engine. This is an area we do not know very well...So in the gmax case it makes a heck of a difference in the WAY things are done. What I do not know is if the results favour the individual files or the single file.It's something that in my opinion needs investigation...George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi George,I am getting a bit more familiar with the BGLC code know and I think that the general header is equivalent with the SCASM area command and the scale command is equivalent with the RefPoint command.So that means GMax puts everything into one Area and one RefPoint (I already knew this by the way). So if you are using only GMax it is much better to make a seperate BGL file for each object. Therefore I make an library of my objects (with FsRegen, but you know that :)) and then I place those with the normal design programs. Then they have an own Area block or reference point, so I can control the visibility of each object seperate, which can not be done if you place them all in one GMax file.Another comment, you can also export a selection from GMax (so only one object each time for example), but that is not a very good solution, because all objects will then get the same reference point (the center of the axes in GMax will be used for all) and that also makes it difficult to control the visibility correct (that works much better if the reference point is in the centre of the object).ArnoMember NL2000 Teamhttp://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Arno.Agree with you 100 %.Also this approach (of actually placing library objects) seems to be faster.And very right with the "export selected" operation.I did a quick test and put the results in a new thread. The subject of this one is a bit different...I think it's important for gmax-only users as the results are impressive.Anyway, nice having intelligent people exchanging ideas. It's the best part of it !!All the bestGeorge

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