Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Photo Texture Grid!!!!! I think

Recommended Posts

Hi AllI have recently created some scenery of my local airfield.I used aerial pictures to base my scenery on, but rather than use polygons with assigned Textures, I want to creat a bitmap file which covers the base of my airfield, assumably 256*256.Its the scale factor which the bitmap or bitmap's would need to be which is causing the mental block. May be pixels=metre?All help would be appreciatedRegardsDave

Share this post


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

This depends on how you put them.If you use the resample method then the textures must be 4.8 meters/pixels. This method gives you a mesh scenery with the bitmaps on it.But if you make a simple raster for the textures in for example SCASM you can use any scale you like. The disadvantage of this method is that you will need a flatten to make sure the area is flat. Also you could add autogen to the resample method in theory.Arno


Member Netherlands 2000 Scenery Team[a href=http://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen]http://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen/banner.jpg[/a]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ArnoThanks for your quick replyI was going to use scasm using Texpoly() to load the whole bitmapIt's exactly what scale the bitmap should be to be correct in FSExactly what is a Simple Raster?Is there a web site for the Resample method?Could Terrabuilder help me with this?Sorry about the number of question'sBest regardsDavePs I have learn't alot of scasm, thanks to the forum, hopefully I can help other's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DaveAs you have already flattened the area for your airfield (Dave's talking about his Welshpool scenery, guys, I think ...?), there is no great problem at all to using your aerial shot(s) as ground polygons. This way, you can use a smaller scale than the terrain mesh standard of 4.8 meters/pixel - which would lose all the detail and realism that I suspect you are looking for. What I suggest you do is to use the existing aerials without trying to rescale them (which would spoil the accuracy/detail), slice them up into appropriate 256x256 squares or whatever (see separate post about texture sizes, including non-square rectangles).A scale of 1.0 will mean that each square covers an area of 256x256 metres, irrespective of the actual pixel resolution of the bitmaps (e.g. a 512x512 or 128x128 bitmap will still be applied to the same 256x256 metre area). So if you find that your squares actually represent a measurement of, say, 400 meters, then the required scale value is 400/256, as an example.If you want to get ambitious you could indeed move on to creating a photoreal terrain mesh of the surrounding area, but frankly this is a little pointless in the UK these days now that we have the benefit of Visual Flight's fantastic offerings (i.e. accurate mesh terrain plus photoreal overlay based on photos from GetMapping.Com).Kind RegardsGerrish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,Here is a macro that:a) works with FSC (not tested with SCASM).:( places a bitmap (either square or rectangular).c) made for ASD but easily rewritten for other programmes.d) optionally flattens the area where the bitmap goes.e) optionally smooths the area where the bitmap goes.Regards, Luis;ASDesign Compatible Macro;Name=Map_F_S, Type=Maps, Bitmap=map.bmp, ;FixedLength=25, FixedWidth=25, ;Latitude, Longitude, Elevation=0, Scale=1, Rotation=0, ;Density=2, Visibility= 30000, Len=800, Texture1=arganil.bmp, ;Range=25, Priority=8, Square=1, Seasons=1, Flatten=1, Smooth=1; Macro Parameters:; 1 = latitude; 2 = longitude; 3 = elevation; 4 = scale; 5 = rotation ; 6 = scenery complexity ( 0 ... 5 ); 7 = visibility (in meters); 8 = length; 9 = texture; 10 = range; 11 = priority; 12 = 1 is square; 2 4 ... is rectangle; 0.5 0.25 ... is rectangle; 13 = seasons off (0) or on (1); 14 = flat off (0) or on (1); 15 = smooth off (0) or on (1)UVar( $WP [%12 * %8 / 2.0] )UVar( $LP [%8 / 2.0] )UVar( $LN [-1 * $LP] )UVar( $WN [-1 * $WP] )UVar( $C cos[ %5 ] )UVar( $S sin[ %5 ] )UVar( $P0X [[$C * $WN] + [$S * $LN]] )UVar( $P0Y [[$C * $LN] - [$S * $WN]] )UVar( $P1X [[$C * $WP] + [$S * $LN]] )UVar( $P1Y [[$C * $LN] - [$S * $WP]] )UVar( $P2X [[$C * $WP] + [$S * $LP]] )UVar( $P2Y [[$C * $LP] - [$S * $WP]] )UVar( $P3X [[$C * $WN] + [$S * $LP]] )UVar( $P3Y [[$C * $LP] - [$S * $WN]] )UVar( $C1 111120 )UVar( $C2 [111120 * [cos(%1)]] )UVar( $Lat0 [%1 + ($P0Y / $C1)] )UVar( $Lon0 [%2 + ($P0X / $C2)] )UVar( $Lat1 [%1 + ($P1Y / $C1)] )UVar( $Lon1 [%2 + ($P1X / $C2)] )UVar( $Lat2 [%1 + ($P2Y / $C1)] )UVar( $Lon2 [%2 + ($P2X / $C2)] )UVar( $Lat3 [%1 + ($P3Y / $C1)] )UVar( $Lon3 [%2 + ($P3X / $C2)] )mif( %14 )Area16NFlatten( %3 $Lat0 $Lon0 $Lat1 $Lon1 $Lat2 $Lon2 $Lat3 $Lon3 )End16mifendArea( 5 %1 %2 %10 )mif( %6 )IfVarRange( : 0346 %6 4 ) mifendLayerCall( :D0 %11 )Jump( : ):D0 mif( %3 ) RefPoint( 2 :D3 %4 %1 %2 v1= %7 E= %3 v2= 0 )melse RefPoint( 7 :D3 %4 %1 %2 v1= %7 v2= 0 )mifend Points( 0 [$P0X] 0 [$P0Y] [$P1X] 0 [$P1Y] [$P2X] 0 [$P2Y] [$P3X] 0 [$P3Y] )mif( %13 ) LoadBitmap( 0 WFS5 EF 30 70 10 %9 )melse LoadBitmap( 0 5 EF 30 70 10 %9 )mifend Smoothing( 1 ) TexPoly( m 0 32767 0 0 0 0 0 1 256 0 2 256 256 3 0 256 ) Smoothing( 0 )mif( %15 ) SenseBorder( :D3 [$P3X] [$P3Y] [$P2X] [$P2Y] [$P1X] [$P1Y] [$P0X] [$P0Y] ) SurfaceType( 0 5000 5000 0 )mifend:D3 ReturnEndA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GerrishGood to hear from you, As you say, it is my Welshpool scenery, which as been released v1 (EGCWv1.zip), at Fsfreeware.com, Avsim, etc....In the end, as you said, I used a Flatten() bgl and a Exclude() bgl to avoid all the problems associated with the default.bgl's I had modified and Sw in scenery.cfgVersion 2 now, though! As you say, I want more control over my textures/More detail, this detail will be the death of me!!!The key feature here, I think, is that a scale factor of 1=256 metresThe attached Jpeg was created from a scaled aerial photo that was proportionate to a know runway sizeI want to be able to work on an image similar to the jpeg, to improve the textures/asthetic feel, but know that the screen dump, in this case, is accurate. Like 830x18 metres runway. image is 1024 metres in height in FS2002This screen dummp does give me a good resolution, which I can enlarge to work with, where my aerial photo does not, could this be my problem?I have even drawn my points from scasm in autocad, but am not sure how to use these, although from what gerrish has said, these would give me a base to work from because the scale would be worked out from scasm, with 1=256 metresI appreciate that I have been given some good advice, and I think Gerrish is closer to what I am grabbling with, but I just seem to have a mental block. It isn't that I don't appreciate the help. Thanks guy's.I agree, I realise that Terrabuilder is for creating the Visual Flight/Getmapping product. A beta tester for Wales has already been in touch about location of my scenery in connection with their product.I guess I need a guide to work to , so that everything is proportionate, the Aerial photo can't be taken large enough to add the detail I want.I think I am still confused, am I!!!!RegardsDavePs Can I have a reward for long replies, Hmmmn!!!!

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