• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

My opinion of 'scenery design' for FS.

B

B757

Messages
56
Country
unitedstates
Hi All,

After watching the scenery design issues for several years now, and from my own 'real-world' experience with scenery design, I thought I would offer my humble honest opinion. As we all know, FS isn't a full-flight sim, however, given the time FS has been around, and scenery design in general, I'm not happy with what's available out there, as well as features supplied for tools in scenery design; you find one little snip here, and another somewhere else. Needless to say given my own 'real-world' experience, this is unacceptable. In this day and age, we shouldn't have to be generating code to get a desired result. This is time-consuming, and at the very least, very inefficient in terms of productivity, and unappealing as well. For the mostpart, I don't think MS is really supporting the add-on community much. Sure, they may throw a few neat little tools out that might make some think so, but in the end, they really aren't putting much out at all. Most of you have never had the opportunity to use tools for full-flight sims, and I can sympathize with those of you who don't know what they are like. However, I'll tell you from experience, they work very well, and get the job accomplished in a fraction of the time it takes for 'FS-style' scenery design. There is no coding!!! Everything is graphically done, and is very similar to the use of Gmax, except has a few more bells and whistles. Yes, end users pay a premium for the tools used in full-flight sim database creation. However, MS could easily implement these types of functions for the SDK. My question still remains, 'why not?' When I compare the two, one is mainstream, and the other, from the dark ages (FS). Needless to say, I'm not impressed at all with what MS is providing the community with. I get the feeling of that from a lot of the questions I read on the forums as well. People just aren't happy. While many of you may be happy, there are those who see things from another perspective. I think people need to be a bit more 'vocal' to MS when requesting things to be done right. Just my 2-cents. I'm sure some will agree, others will not; that's why I opened this thread.


Allan
 
Hi Allen.

I hope you don't mind, but I moved this to General Chat, as that is the more appropriate forum. The Scenery forums are for discussions of actual techniques.

The Aces team may respond to this, but I have an idea that their response would not be encouraging for you. For the most part, the tools they have delivered in the SDKs are the same tools they used in developing the sim.

DIck
 
B757 said:
Hi All,

As we all know, FS isn't a full-flight sim, however,......I'm not happy with what's available out there......you find one little snip here, and another somewhere else. Needless to say given my own 'real-world' experience, this is unacceptable.

Allan
Click to expand...

Allan, you seem to be a bit quick to speak for others. You do realize that many of the participants of this web site wrote the "unacceptable" tools that are available. The "one little snip here, and another somewhere else" are in truth the AMAZING contribution from the very people you are talking to...I find your tone insulting to them.

You seem to believe you are entitled to a dumbed down experience. Many of us relish the fact that our activity is not dumbed down. We like code.

I don't care if you want to remain ignorant of the underlying foundation, but to suggest how you feel is appropriate for others is annoying.

I love your comment about "real world experience" making this pursuit "unacceptable". Thank goodness I've managed to avoid your experiences. They must suck. If the only sim you can consider "acceptable" is the million dollar one, then go do that...but there is no point discussing it here in a high and mighty tone.

Anyway, good luck around here, you've probably insulted just about all the old timers that most folks look to for help.

Cheerio,

Bob
 
Well now lets hear what a noob has to say. I agree with Allan, to a point. I open SDK on my delux edition FSX copy and ....now what. I stare at it in disbelief. I read a massive HTML page and link to so many more that I get lost in what I was trying to learn how to do. And after an hour or two of reading, I really haven't learned much. No explanations of what the exe, and dll, and this file and that file are for. All I wanted to do was try and fix some airport scenery and maybe repaint a plane or two. Well no Help from MS. And that is where I agree with Allan.

On the other hand now I want to point out to Allan that we are all not individually wealthy and capable of affording the super slick software used to make "real" simulators. I would love to go out and get Gmax...but now I can't. It costs too much. I would love AutoCAD 3D 2008, but again it costs too much. But behold...all these little snipets here and a snipet there of tools that help me accomplish what I would like to do. And many of them are well written (in code I'm sure) so that a dummy like me can use them and get results. Now if you have access to such super glitzy software, then why not help the community of enthusiasts with some models, or textures, or somthing other than a bash about how a game worth $60 on a CD can't compete with real simulator stuff!

Mike from Winnipeg
PS..MS really sux cuz they don't pay attention to anything north of 49 degrees!!
 
Pegger, you call yourself a NOOB, fair enough. I do understand that being new to this you are not calibrated.

The problem is that somehow folks decided that a few hours is all it should take. Many of us are only aware of what we know after years of effort, not hours.

Much of what you need is available to you, but you need to be willing to invest many many hours to get there. There is a reward to that investment, it feels very solid to design with a knowledge of why it works. When something fails to compile, it feels very solid to be able to do your own troubleshooting.

But it doesn't happen in a few hours.

Its to the point now where a newby would benefit from reviewing the history of fsdesign...I suspect. I was there at the beginning of the hacking, so I look at the present from that perspective, but if you weren't it might help to read about those times. The fs2004 state of the art was nicely written about as a sticky at AVSIM. check it out.

Then read the new sdk, and focus on an area of design, not the whole caboodle. Learn to design objects, really learn it. Read tutorials....do your homework....don't expect it to be easy, luxureate in how hard it is...it makes it feel so delicious when you get it. PS...you said gmax was expensive in your post above, its FREE, not expensive! And you will be learning the actual modelling techniques of 3dsmax...which is expensive. What a HOOT.

or learn terrain design...but just terrain design. After a while you'll be answering other noobs questions.

Or learn photoscenery. What a fun time! You'll find yourself learning about geography without even intending to. All of a sudden you'll be exploring imagry and how to edit imagry, and image formats, alpha channels....geographic image projections.....yahooooooo.....

And before you know it, you'll be posting one of these days how the sdk got it just a bit wrong on page 3 when it said.............

And you won't be a noob anymore.

Cheers,
Bob
 
pegger74 said:
...I would love to go out and get Gmax...but now I can't. It costs too much. ...
Click to expand...

I have some good news for you, Mike. Gmax is free. Unless you were talking about 3DS Max. But Gmax will do just about everything you'd ever need to do for FS modeling. (Crap, Bob beat me to the punch. But it's true.)

Part of the problem with learning to create "scenery" for FS is that the term is misleading. What we think of as scenery is composed of many overlaid and overlapping elements, including mesh design, vector-based scenery, landclasses, photoscenery, modeling, effects, the list goes on. An experienced scenery designer has skills that span a broad range of topics. Think of it as learning an entire discipline, and not just learning to work a piece of software. You need a burning desire to learn new things, a willingness to research and experiment, and the persistence to stick with it when things aren't going so well. Anyone missing one of those traits will give up in disgust long before reaching proficiency.

I'm with Bob, learning all this stuff is a blast, IMO. Yes, it would be nice to have a more comprehensive suite of software tools, but what we have is getting better all the time.
 
Last edited:
Oh man!!! I am soooo excited. I did not realize Gmax was a free tool!! Perhaps I was thinking of 3dsmax (the autodesk one). Thanks for the heads up guys.
And I couldn't agree more. Persistence is what is needed if scenery/modelmission design is what you want to do. It is definately a daunting task that requires much study, patience, trial, and yes even error. But I'll be honest with you, I love it!
In the last month I have spent 90% of my "gaming" time modifying FSX scenery with FSXplanner, and Sbuilder. I am even getting to onderstand how to change XML code and move objects around now.
Thanks for your encouraging words everyone. I wish everyone could get a chance to see how rewarding a hobby this can be!!!

Mike from Winnipeg
 
It's okay Dick, I didn't know if I put it in the correct forum to begin with. I'm glad I opened up a good discussion. I'm not saying the tools aren't any good. What I'm saying is, the ease of use of these tools needs to improve, and be able to be used in a graphical environment. In their 'raw' current state, most people need to be knowledgeable in coding, etc. A lot of people aren't, and the community suffers a great deal; there's a lot of talent out there, but many aren't able to use it. They should be made into plugins for graphical programs such as 3DS Max, Gmax, Multigen, Etc. Personally, I'm rather frustrated with the state these tools are currently in. It's a complete mess to say the least. You find one tool useful for one thing, then another tool for a different thing. By the time you finally get comfortable working with one tool, a new version comes out, then you have to start all over again. It's getting rediculous. It's no wonder the addon community is suffering a great deal, and we're not seeing the amount of addons we once seen. Some things definitely need to change, and for one, I think this archaic coding needs to be dropped. Obviously, plugins can be made for graphical programs to do the exact same thing, if not better. Not trying to knock anything here, but IMHO, some big changes should be made to make design much more efficient, as well as 'user friendly'. Things in their current state, just are not.


Allan
 
No, the tools just need to be made more user friendly and made into plugins for graphical-based programs. I think you misunderstood me. I don't know, do you enjoy spending all of your time reading an SDK that makes little to no sense to you, and getting nothing accomplished? To me, it's frustrating, and is utterly rediculous to continue on like this. Eventually, it's going to bust FS, and there simply won't be addons anymore. Haven't you noticed nothing much is coming out anymore? I think the SDK leaves a lot to be desired in it's current form.


Allan
 
Allan, you are ignorant of where we've come from. The whole thing started with no sdk.

We figured it out on our own. Imagine that.

This sdk is amazingly wonderful compared to that.

You need to spend your time writing a new sdk and coding all of us a new tool. If you are not willing to do either of those things, you need to hush up. Otherwise, you come off acting like you couldn't be bothered to waste your time, but you are quite happy to have others waste their time to satisfy you.

Bob
 
Forgive me if I'm so ignorant, but I come from the days of FS4 when we actually had a decent scenery design program which would cover the entire spectrum of elements. Instead, now we're faced with trying to learn something that's almost as difficult as learning Chinese. As I said, once we get familiar with one thing, then it changes, and the entire process begins again. To me, this isn't very efficient, nor entertaining. To the addon community, it's a slap in the face, especially when people depend on it for their income. You may enjoy sitting and reading a bunch of code, but others don't, nor do they have the time. Given the way the SDKs have been released, is pure laziness, when in reality, they could have done much more to make it useable for the majority of people. My post was not to anger people, but to get people to think. I just think much more could be done with the SDK than leaving it in its current state which is a complete disorganized mess that literally takes someone with C++ knowledge to understand.


Allan
 
Ever use Sketch-Up?

Here's my 2.5 cents (well, considering the length, probably 4 cents):

One day, I downloaded this scenery design tool that I heard of called "Sketch Up." I had no idea about it, just wanted to check it out.

Two hours later, I had created a replica of the exterior of my house and yard (most FSX scenery elements are merely shells - with no internal structure).

That weekend, I decided to see how easy it would be to create a replica of the interior of my house ... walls, stairs, basement ... everything. I did it in about 6 hours, complete with paint, floor tiles ... even "glass" in the windows.

I was BLOWN FREAKIN AWAY at how easy it was. How was I able to do that? I had never done ANY scenery design before. I was able to do that because that scenery design tool is designed in a user-friendly way, and is far superior to anything that came before it.

The only problem ... the ONLY problem ... is that I can't export those files into a format that FSX will understand. (I hear there are ways to export to Gmax, then export to FSX ... but that dual-export just doesn't seem to result in a useable scenery element for me. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but I don't think it works.)

I realize that Google is a Microsoft competitor, but Microsoft should build a converter for Sketch Up to allow me to import Sketch Up art into FSX. I'd happily pay Microsoft for it - but they shouldn't charge me (or you) for it.

Why?

Because, the most interesting thing that Google is doing with Sketch Up is that they have just sat back and watched, while a community of scenery designers sprung up from NOWHERE to build a library of the world's buildings for free, for Google.

This is where Google JUST GETS IT, and where Microsoft JUST DOESN'T GET IT. (No offense to ACES ... this isn't limited to you guys. It's CORPTURAL.)

So anyway ... anyone can upload their building that they designed with Sketch Up into Google Warehouse. You can allow anyone to download it for free, or even partner with Google to charge for your work.

Result: A HUGE community of scenery designers are creating Google Earth buildings for free for Google. Google has rights to use the images in the Warehouse - even if you retain rights to sell that design also. Many people just LIKE using Sketch Up for making buildings and give them away to all-comers.

Where is the Microsoft FSX Scenery Warehouse on fsinsider.com where I can upload that scenery I just created so that the flight simulator community can easily download it right into the game for free? Or even purchase complex designs? I get a cut and Microsoft gets a cut?

Where is that?

Answer: There isn't an FSX Scenery Warehouse. And that's a shame.

There's no good tool that average people like me can use to create FSX scenery. Gmax is too difficult a learning curve for all but the most ardent and time-rich of fans. But I can create really good looking Google Earth scenery in literally MOMENTS. Because the tool is BETTER.

Can Gmax do something Sketch Up can't. You bet it can ... I'm not advocating that Microsoft ditch Gmax. I bet Gmax has so much power Gmax can model just about ANYTHING. I bet you can't model an aircraft in Sketch Up, but you can surely design BUILDING SCENERY in it far more easily.

I like Microsoft. I wish Microsoft had such a tool. I beg Microsoft to spend a moment thinking about what they can do when a community CREATES CONTENT FOR FREE for Microsoft.

Build the FSX Scenery Warehouse ... and they will come.
 
I think most people do go through the stage of 'none of the SDK makes sense!'...there are alot of new concepts to grasp, not just related to FlightSim but in Geospatial science, flight dynamics, 3D modelling etc....

I think there has to be some sort of learning curve...it sorts the men out from the boys so to speak: The trouble with making programs too easy to use is that it allows people to create things without any real understanding of how they have to, or should, interact with other parts of the sim....the mention of the Google 3D warehouse is an interesting one because, yes, Sketchup is easy to use ( I love it!) but because of this there is a HEAP of junk models in the 3D warehouse...average joe bloggs doesnt have any idea about optimising models, optimising texture sheets etc etc. If you thought FSX was bad on frames now just wait until you load a few 3D models made by people without holistic knowledge of scenery design!

I liken it to buying a new car. In this car you get a basic tool kit which allows you do some basic maintenance: the items in the toolkit relate to the basic level of knowledge of most car owners..
Even if every new car came with a massive tool kit allowing the owner to tweak suspension, brakes, steering etc etc very easily could you assume that a) they would know what to do with the tools? b) would perform repairs and maintenance to the required standard c) it would result in a safer car?

I think the answer is 'no'....so regardless of whether the SDK tools are easy or hard, the underlying factor in successful scenery design is knowledge!

Knowledge of how computers work, knowledge of how aircraft work, knowledge of how GIS works, knowledge of code etc...knowledge that even though one can design a building with every face modelled exactly right, every texture bump mapped etc etc the final result of that model would be 5 frames per second....

Having to dig around in the SDK docs and finding out about all the ancillary parts of the sim are important to give one this 'holistic' knowledge.
 
Tim,

I think you make some interesting points. And you are correct when you say that, of course, if you make a tool that is easy to use, and make it easy to upload models, that will inevitably result in a wide degree of quality.

Your car analogy was also interesting. It reminds me of the community of car developers who took the Mustang and turned it into one of Ford's most enduring models - by doing exactly what you suggest they maybe shouldn't be able to do.

Think Shelby.

Think Daytona.

Think of 25 years of sales that resulted because there was an enthusiast aftermarket that was nurtured by Ford Motor Company. Microsoft has just this type of aftermarket ... but a lot of people feel that it is too difficult to get into the tower.

I believe it would be fairly easy to make a Sketch Up-like tool for building creation (but perhaps not aircraft design) that would automagically take care of the optimization needs required to have building models that work well in the FSX environment. (Google solved the texture problem by shipping the product WITH optimized textures. The best textures get traded just like the finished building models!)

And then to have an easy way to share that work on a Microsoft web 2.0 site where the best models are awarded "front-page status" but also where even the early learner can show off his efforts, receive feedback, and improve his development skills.

(I'm an avid avsim.com user, and you could argue that avsim.com and its history holds back Microsoft's movements in this area because of some long-lasting relationships that have been built up over the years. Maybe someone at Microsoft should give a free copy of Silverlight to the folks over there to bring avsim.com current in its design.)

Are there some hideously altered Mustang's out there? I bet there are.

But you know what? While there's always that guy out there who is going to produce things with your tools that aren't all that appealing ... others will create NASCAR, the world's most popular racing sport.

Cheers,
Kevin
 
This is an interesting discussion.

I share many of the original posters frustrations with the SDK. Yes, it is onerous. But you have to approach it in pieces. Baby steps!

I've only been modding FSX for six months now, and thankfully I get paid to do it. The company I work for has uses for professional looking visualisation but the "real world" tools are incredibly expensive for what is often software technology at least a generation behind current game engines.

In six months I've created my first aircraft, created photo scenery from geotiffs, and written an interfacing program. I don't think that's bad going.

I'm also leveraging FSX to do things that I cannot do with "real world" apps. Top-level visualisation apps for example often have US export restrictions on things like IR sensors. So I'm creating heat mapped textures and low-contrast grey-scale scenery in FSX.

It would indeed be really nice if MS produced a "proper" developer kit, an all-in-one software package that did it all, but since the dawn of FS developers have sought to and succeeded in doing more with it that MS ever intended or imagined.

The biggest problem FS has when compared to the likes of VegaPrime or MetaVR are its proprietary formats, and not supporting the OpenFlight format. That would be one cool addition and would enable us to take advantage of a whole wealth of available tools. But those tools, by and large, aren't cheap. It'd also prevent any 3rd party developers from being able to protect their creations.

I think if you look at the tools MS has given us this time, it's a step above what we had for FS9 and a step closer to the unified toolset that you want. If the rumours are true that FS's link to Gmax is nearing its end, then it's possible that MS are already looking at a tool of their own. Who knows? But one thing's for sure: It wont satisfy everybody, and there'll still be a load of people demanding that Microsoft open up the APIs so they can do a lot more.

Personally, I like Gmax. I'm only brushing its surface, but coupled with the SDK notes and the GMax Bible, (and baby steps), I'm slowly figuring it all out. It is an incredibly complex package, but you don't need to know all of it by a long shot. And on the plus side, it's training me on 3DS Max for free.

Bear in mind also that MS knows how enthusiasts work. They know that people take pride in modding and learning how to mod. It's the enthusiasts that sustain FS for the 2 or 3 year shelf life than most other entertainment software titles would die for. They could instead run a closed shop (which would be more like Microsoft!) and publish no SDK at all other than to authorised partners. Sure the SDK is bewildering a lot of the time, but I'd rather have it that way than not at all, which would be the easier option for them.

Regards,

Si
 
I've been watching this for a while and have to agree that the SDK itself is not very freindly.

What I thinks needs to be said is that a lot of good people in the community have created a lot of good tools that make it easier to use the SDK. Most of them are freeware and I think it would be wrong to get the impression that there are no good tools available.
 
scruffyduck said:
I've been watching this for a while and have to agree that the SDK itself is not very freindly.

What I thinks needs to be said is that a lot of good people in the community have created a lot of good tools that make it easier to use the SDK. Most of them are freeware and I think it would be wrong to get the impression that there are no good tools available.
Click to expand...

Jon, one point that may very well not be "common knowledge" yet is that - for the very first time ever - ACES has a full-time empolyee whose only task is to develop professional quality SDKs for FS.

The gentleman is an experienced technical writer, but has only been "onboard" at ACES for not quite two years. Given the pathetic state of the previous SDKs, I think he's done an excellent job on this first iteration of the FSX SDKs. In another "first," ACES even managed to have the SDKs (mostly) ready for inclusion on the RTM DVDs.

Having done quite a bit of "technical writing" myself, I am fully cognizant of the fact that the writer him/herself must first become well acquainted with the subject matter before setting fingers-to-keyboard. After all, it's nearly impossible to "explain" a subject one doesn't understand - in detail! - ones's self!

I also predict that in the future, the quality of the SDKs will only increase, as he becomes more deeply acquainted with the sim. :cool:
 
Certainly that is good news Bill. That can only make it easier for everyone. I suppose the issue here is that for a lot of tools such as dotNET DirectX etc MS write the SDK for developers and that is what they would generally do. The FS SDK is being taken up by a much wider range of people than traditional developers. Just seemed to me that the work of a lot of people to make design tools more friendly and accessible should not be lost in the discussion that is comparing expensive tools for real world simulators with the FS SDK :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top