• 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.

MSFS24 Best practice experiences - Making 2020-scenery compatible with 2024

Messages
411
Country
norway
I am planning on making my projects made with the 2020 sdk compatible with 2024 and I request some input on what is considered best practices regarding such a process. So far I see several potential (fingers crossed) minor issues, but I want to save some time and prepare for what I should expect. I cannot see that there is made such a thread, so I suggest to also share experiences within this one.

What I have noticed so far with all three sceneries - ENLX, ENSX and ENKH:
  1. I have used a tree-type following the msfs2020 available scenery object without a proper LOD setup, resulting in it popping in and out at very close distance.
    • Is there a way to predict what objects may or may not work flawlessly within msfs2024 from a 2020-project? Should I only stick to Asobo prefabs?
  2. Some material types show different color grading between the sims. I also see that the material type may be missing so that the material used shows as white, while others work well.
    • Same question as above. Any way to predict what materials work flawlessly within msfs2024 from a 2020-project?
  3. When working with a project I want to make compatible I understand that some changes should be made within msfs2020, while others are best to do within msfs2024 (
    ). But I am abit confused on what should be done within which simulator.
    • Should one primarily import the msfs2020 project into msfs2024 and adjust materials and such as an entirely new project within msfs2020?
    • Should I expect to make two seperate projects, or just add smaller fixes to the msfs2024-project for upload?
-As a summary; I find it a bit unclear on what actually needs and should be done as best practice to make a project compatible within msfs2024. "All projects should be compatible with 2024" - and that is true, but still not entirely. My custom made buildings are ok, but everything else does not look good...
 
Hi Vetle:

Just a quick reply during a busy day

Your projects overall display quite nicely in MSFS 2024 with nearly the same appearance as in MSFS 2020.

It is more practical to develop in 2020 then "port" to 2024, IMHO.


2024 Photogrammetry TINs are identical to those in 2020 depending on one's Settings for Graphics in each sim.


There is a difference in the Light intensity on the parking lot at ENKH, which is much brighter, meriting adjustment.


I'll need to see what trees you are referring to so I can check them; AFAIK, I have the external libraries installed.


I have not decided on a method to use making LODs for my own 2020 scenery projects, and use MCX' "fix" for now.


Please tell us about any non-default Trees so we can advise on whether there is a full 3D default version in 2024.

The 2024 trees are true, fully 3D objects now, and look very good; they would merit swapping GUIDs via edits of XML in the Object placement code within your 2024 Package Sources project build version folder chain.


More later. :cool:

GaryGB
 
Hi Vetle:

Just a quick reply during a busy day

Your projects overall display quite nicely in MSFS 2024 with nearly the same appearance as in MSFS 2020.
Thanks. I am happy to see that the object LOD displays nicely - quite surprising actually, considering all the negative feedback regarding msfs2024 LOD rules (Thanks Arno, and MCX!!)
It is more practical to develop in 2020 then "port" to 2024, IMHO.
That is my understanding as well, considering msfs2024 addons are not compatible with msfs2020. However I find that approach a bit tricky, considering I would then have to adjust textures within msfs2020 and see how they work out within msfs2024. Alot of time consuming "back-and-forth"... . Is that the way it has to be, then ok...

2024 Photogrammetry TINs are identical to those in 2020 depending on one's Settings for Graphics in each sim.
That is my experience as well.
There is a difference in the Light intensity on the parking lot at ENKH, which is much brighter, meriting adjustment.
That is also my experience. All lights I have used have been turned up to 11. And with the current ENLX-project, the approachlights in msfs2020 are nicely adjusted, while in 2024 they are extremely intense. Encountering this issue raises the question again on where to adjust these settings. Should I import the project into msfs2024 and adjust the lightrow intensity there? That will then result in a totally new and seperate project. Is that the intent? Reducing them within 2020 will result in them being too dim...
I'll need to see what trees you are referring to so I can check them; AFAIK, I have the external libraries installed.
I have used one of the Gaya available trees following one of the msfs-provided projects. The reason is due to not having access to tree simobjects with good enough detailed quality, so these trees have been necessary to use to not fill the area with green "clouds" of asobo-trees all over the area. But I see that the standard asobo-trees are of much better quality within msfs2024, but they are too ugly for close up detailing in msfs2020, so I need to find a replacement within msfs2020, while adding the "default" ones in msfs2024... . That is also a reason for a seperate full version for msfs2024.
I have not decided on a method to use making LODs for my own 2020 scenery projects, and use MCX' "fix" for now.
The LOD generator within MCX works perfectly so far. :D


It seems to me that I would need to have two seperate, but full versions of my projects due to the lack of detail with several significant objects in msfs2020. "Why is that an issue you say?" Because to me it seems like importing the project to msfs2024 will require a conversion of the models which is not reccommended? Please correct me if mistanken...
 
For initial testing of comparative display, I would load the original 2020 version Package into the 2024 Community folder and inspect it in 2024 at run time.


For initial testing of scenery source file edits, I would make a copy of the entire 2020 Project and open its XML file in 2024 SDK DevMode Scenery Editor.

First, simply do a 2024 SDK compile via "Build All" and inspect / copy and save the 2024 compiler Console event Log window to NotePad or NotePad++.


Inspect the folder chain in the Packages sub-folder and you may see minimal files have a changed file date / time.

Then, if compilation was successful, load the re-compiled 2020 version Package into the 2024 Community folder and inspect it in 2024 at run time.


I have not seen a need yet to completely re-build a Project from 2020 in 2024 Scenery Editor; my impression is only edits of 'some' 2020 code is needed.

As there may be edits needed to optimize scenery for 2024 display, one would ultimately end up with 2 separate projects, each targeting (1) version.

But, again, I do not see a scenario where a project from 2020 must be entirely built up 'from scratch' for "full 2024 compatibility" to be achieved.

I assume over time, identical GUID objects from MSFS default 2020 will be updated in 2024 by Asobo to add LODs (AFAIK, some only have '1' LOD :laughing:).

And you guessed it... they used a invisible Face / Cube / Green Bay Packers Cheese Head Hat (or was that instead a 'Napoleon' Hat ? :duck: ) ...on them.



I hope this may help with establishing / fine-tuning, a work-flow to "port" MSFS 2020 projects to 2024. :)


This weekend, I will take a look at your last build you linked of ENLX to see what the Gaya tree display involves.

If you have a more complete build you wish to link via DM, feel free to make that update available for me to review.

If you prefer, as it is a pre-release "W.I.P." build, I can post any communications / issues on that build solely within the 'private' DM thread. ;)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
I have made two native sceneries for MSFS2024, including all necessary LODs and such. It is much more work than making a 2020 scenery, so I decided to keep my MSFS2020 sceneries (they do not have proper, complete LODs) as such and just test them in 2024. Very easy when I use Addons Linker for both sims. I found that most of the stuff is working fine in both sims. I can't recall any problems with textures or models at all. MSFS2024 introduces some new redundant default buildings, trees and vegetation changes and wrongly placed windsocks. For those I made new exclusion rectangles or polygons and in a few cases I had to change the biome definitions on vegetation polygons. One hangar door animation went missing on a small airport, and I haven't yet had time to make a new version. Then recompile in the 2020 SDK and the new versions work fine in both sims...
 
I have made two native sceneries for MSFS2024, including all necessary LODs and such. It is much more work than making a 2020 scenery, so I decided to keep my MSFS2020 sceneries (they do not have proper, complete LODs) as such and just test them in 2024. Very easy when I use Addons Linker for both sims. I found that most of the stuff is working fine in both sims. I can't recall any problems with textures or models at all. MSFS2024 introduces some new redundant default buildings, trees and vegetation changes and wrongly placed windsocks. For those I made new exclusion rectangles or polygons and in a few cases I had to change the biome definitions on vegetation polygons. One hangar door animation went missing on a small airport, and I haven't yet had time to make a new version. Then recompile in the 2020 SDK and the new versions work fine in both sims...
Excellent input. Thanks. I cannot really wrap my head around the solution you mention; do you create one full version for 2024 and one for 2020, where the 2024-version is a adjusted version adapting the scenery to msfs2024-specific tools available, e.g. rocks, biomes and different materials? Or do you only have one original version which is 2020 based, and whatever settings made within 2024 will not transfer over to 2020?
 
For initial testing of comparative display, I would load the original 2020 version Package into the 2024 Community folder and inspect it in 2024 at run time.


For initial testing of scenery source file edits, I would make a copy of the entire 2020 Project and open its XML file in 2024 SDK DevMode Scenery Editor.

First, simply do a 2024 SDK compile via "Build All" and inspect / copy and save the 2024 compiler Console event Log window to NotePad or NotePad++.


Inspect the folder chain in the Packages sub-folder and you may see minimal files have a changed file date / time.

Then, if compilation was successful, load the re-compiled 2020 version Package into the 2024 Community folder and inspect it in 2024 at run time.


I have not seen a need yet to completely re-build a Project from 2020 in 2024 Scenery Editor; my impression is only edits of 'some' 2020 code is needed.

As there may be edits needed to optimize scenery for 2024 display, one would ultimately end up with 2 separate projects, each targeting (1) version.

But, again, I do not see a scenario where a project from 2020 must be entirely built up 'from scratch' for "full 2024 compatibility" to be achieved.

I assume over time, identical GUID objects from MSFS default 2020 will be updated in 2024 by Asobo to add LODs (AFAIK, some only have '1' LOD :laughing:).

And you guessed it... they used a invisible Face / Cube / Green Bay Packers Cheese Head Hat (or was that instead a 'Napoleon' Hat ? :duck: ) ...on them.



I hope this may help with establishing / fine-tuning, a work-flow to "port" MSFS 2020 projects to 2024. :)


This weekend, I will take a look at your last build you linked of ENLX to see what the Gaya tree display involves.

If you have a more complete build you wish to link via DM, feel free to make that update available for me to review.

If you prefer, as it is a pre-release "W.I.P." build, I can post any communications / issues on that build solely within the 'private' DM thread. ;)

GaryGB
Excellent workflow. Thank you Gary!

I am struggling abit with the materials which show correctly within 2020, but they are very blurry within 2024. Ill test some more and see if I am able to adjust. If not I will make a seperate post about it.

Regarding the Gaya-trees: I have removed them from the project and replaced them with a vegetation polygon instead. It looks ok within 2024, but horrible in 2020. The lack of seperate individual detailed trees within msfs2020 is really annoying me...
 
I create only a version for MSFS2020 using the 2020 SDK. That one works fine in MSFS2024. MSFS2024 automatically puts these sceneries in a specific MSFS2020-mode and there are no problems with LOD popping. If you build your scenery with the MSFS2024 SDK without proper LODs, then you will have LOD popping and even bigger structures will have a very very short visibility range. So my sceneries are pure MSFS2020 (except for the two MSFS2024 native sceneries - EEPU and EERU) and they have never seen the MSFS2024 SDK and they have no 2024-specific features (like rocks, new biomes etc.). I do not say that this is best practice, it is just an example of how to easily make the old sceneries fit in 2024.
 
Last edited:
In my 2020 sceneries I have not used individual trees, only polygons and the available biomes. Agree that it is not the most beautiful solution, but at least it works... I had a few custom biomes in 2020 but had to replace them with default ones as they did not work in 2024.
 
Well, it is comfortable to know about others sharing my own perspective on things. If that is the way it works it is easier to settle with such a solution. Thanks for your input. I also tried adjusting the colors of materials within msfs2024 and the adjustment update was horrible. So slow to render the updated colors(!) that I just gave up... I will avoid the msfs2024 sdk like the plague...
 
Hi again:

IIRC, you have a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 3090 Ti GPU (corrected).

Believe it or not, even with that 'brute strength', there are reports of needing to turn down MSFS slider settings for scenery graphics.

Certainly 'at some point ...later' you may wish to use 4K resolution at high slider settings for inspecting edits to MSFS 2024 scenery graphics.


However, when working in MSFS SDK DevMode GUI, I would turn down Windows Desktop and MSFS "assigned" resolution to 1K HD or less.

I use 1440x900 in MSFS SDK GUI mode, and render scaling at 100- rather than 200 or more- to improve response to changes made via SDK GUI edits.


Yesterday I discovered MSFS 2024 recently imposed a major FPS hit when render scaling exceeded 100, so I improved FPS 50 % by 'halving' it to 100.


To avoid cursor misalignment in SDK GUI Menus etc., Windows Desktop and MSFS assigned resolution must match; a reboot 'may' be required when set.


PS: IIRC, SDK GUI response is better during SDK GUI project edits, if we keep Packages OUT of Community folder, and load from \Package Sources etc..

Then after compilation and testing of a release candidate, we can place a compiled 'Package' into Community folder rather than loading via 'Project' XML.

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Hi again:

IIRC, you have a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 GPU.

Believe it or not, even with that 'brute strength', there are reports of needing to turn down MSFS slider settings for scenery graphics.

Certainly 'at some point ...later' you may wish to use 4K resolution at high slider settings for inspecting edits to MSFS 2024 scenery graphics.


However, when working in MSFS SDK DevMode GUI mode, I would turn down Windows Desktop and MSFS "assigned" resolution to 1K, 2K HD or less.

I use 1440x900 in MSFS SDK GUI mode, and render scaling at 100- rather than 200 or more- to improve response to changes made via SDK GUI edits.


Yesterday I discovered MSFS 2024 recently imposed a major FPS hit when render scaling exceeded 100, so I improved FPS 50 % by 'halving' it to 100.


To avoid cursor misalignment in SDK GUI Menus etc., Windows Desktop and MSFS assigned resolution must match; a reboot 'may' be required when set.

GaryGB
Thanks. I have a 3090ti, with a 9800x3d cpu. I could certainly tone it down a notch, but my settings are not that high in the first place. And I would expect the sim to handle a simple color-correction well, but no....
 
Gotta' run some errands for a bit; while I am on the road, could you elaborate on the Mfg. of the 9800x3d cpu, and other computer specs (RAM etc.) ?

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Gotta' a run some errands for a bit; while I am on the road, could you elaborate on the Mfg. of the 9800x3d cpu, and other computer specs (RAM etc.) ?

GaryGB
Ryzen AMD 9800x3d, 64gb ram. However the performance of msfs2024 is not necessarily the issue with this post, but I will certainly make another one if this turns out to be a significant issue! Right now I will try to focus on both of your suggestions above, staying away from 2024 SDK and continue to use msfs2020 sdk 😁 :cool:
 
Your hardware is capable of delivering good performance in MSFS SDK GUI; using reduced Render Scaling and Settings > Graphics sliders may help.


There is always something new to learn with MSFS SDK, as it is complex, and often changes (usually for the better). ;)

Regarding methods to implement the (eventual) MSFS 2024 LOD "mandate":

Dick recently mentioned an interesting option of a "SimPropContainer" (...that I have not yet had time to look into): :idea:

"Their LODs are already computed, so you don't need to mess with that. Lots of "props" can be added to a base object, without worrying about how to deal with their LODs. Could be a big time saver."

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/msfs-2024-lods.459913/post-933155

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/msfs-2024-lods.459913/


https://docs.flightsimulator.com/ms...on/Introduction.htm?rhsearch=SimPropContainer


Reading between the lines in Dick's posts and the SDK Docs linked above, Dick's example uses default objects that already have LODs.

For our own custom 3D objects, "we" must still make our own LODs (unless we want to attempt forcing MSFS to do so).


Dick infers IMHO, that the MSFS 202x streaming infrastructure (always ?) 'syncs' our \Community folder custom content with the MSFS (2024 ?) Azure servers.

If we provide LODs and glTF triangulation of Faces is the same or different than MSFS SDK 'intends', it reads all- and revises all- ...as it sees fit.

"ENFORCED RE-TOPOLOGY".


This means our scenery is pre-processed before it is streamed back over the inter-web, and is eventually rendered at run time on our computers.

If our 'synced' scenery content exactly matches MSFS' criteria of what LOD sizes and MIPMAPs "should" be, less pre-processing is done on Azure servers.


But in all cases, our scenery content will be "pre-processed"- and potentially edited- by Azure servers before sent back to a running session of MSFS.

That obviously raises a number of questions about whether / when / how ...locally "cached" scenery content ever actually gets displayed in MSFS 2024.

IIUC, by submitting a complex and larger than usual 3D model with multiple sub-objects (ModelParts ?) as a SimPropContainer, it forces optimization and LOD generation to be performed bv the MS Azure MSFS 2024 (and MSFS 2020 ?) servers before scenery content is sent back via the inter-web.

Will MSFS complain / refuse to display 3D models in SimPropContainers with "no" LODs, or does the local SDK compiler refuse to compile without LODs ?

IIUC, if MS did not want to burden their Azure servers with doing more than a 'budgeted' amount of work, we would be forced to submit "accurate" LODs.

In the FS2Kx era, the FS rendering engine would dynamically create MIPMAPs (and LODs ?) at run time if they were not submitted; this hit FPS in FS.

So we were "encouraged" to consider LODs and MIPMAPs as a 'requirement' in custom textured 3D models, or FS FPS would "feel the pain" at run time.

Can we purposely force MS Azure servers to make our LODs / MIPMAPs for us 'online' ?

Probably not, as the local SDK compiler requires them in order to make such meta-objects.

I daresay MS will force accurate LOD sizing as a requirement, or a penalty will be total non-display of \Community non-SDK compliant custom scenery content.


That is beside an inference that a result of "fooling" the rendering engine with invisible Faces / Cubes / Triangles etc. is it makes life tougher for XBOXERs.


At first glance, MSFS SDK SimPropContainers appears comparable to Arno's MCX option to create a 'Combined Object' via "Scene builder wizard:"


7.4 Scene builder wizard

With the scene builder wizard, see Figure 7.4, you can construct one single object based on a
scenery with multiple objects and object placements. This can be useful if you want your entire
scenery to consist of a single object, for example if you want to convert to it another system that
prefers to have an airport as one object, while Flight Simulator works more efficiently if you have
it split into multiple objects. What the scene builder does is use the placement information to
determine the offset of each object and in that way combine all objects into a single scene.

1750433612776.png


Figure 7.4: Scene builder wizard

On the right side of the wizard you see a list of scenery files that are selected to be processed. You
can add new scenery files with the Add Scenery File button, while you can remove the selected
item from the list with the Remove Scenery File button. If you want to clear the entire list you
can use the Clear Files button.

On the left side of the wizard you can set options for the wizard. The following items can be set:

• With the Round Earth Input checkbox you can indicate if the input scenery has been
corrected for the round earth or not. If so, the tool will first reverse this correction before
building the combined scene from the objects.

• With the Round Earth Output checkbox you can specify if the combined scene that the
wizard generates should also be corrected for the curve of the earth.

• When the Only Highest LOD checkbox is checked, the wizard will only use the highest
LOD from each object in the scene. For sceneries where objects have different levels of detail
you might otherwise get an unexpected result with certain objects only visible at specific
level of detail values.

• When the Limit Area checkbox is checked, the scene builder wizard will only include object
placements that are within the specified area. You can specify the minimum and maximum
latitude and longitude values of this area using the text boxes below.

Once you are happy with all the settings you can press the Generate Scene button to start the
generation. For a complex scenery with many objects and placements this might take a while.

Once the wizard is done the combined scene object is shown in the preview window. The Placed
objects and Missing objects labels show how many objects have been included in the combined
scene and how many placements have been skipped because the referenced object could not be
found. With the Show missing GUIDs button you can get a list of the GUIDs of the objects
that the scene builder wizard could not include.

Figure 7.5 shows an example of a combined object of an airport that was made with the scene builder wizard.

1750433641851.png


Figure 7.5: Merged scene made with scene builder​


I will need to test to confirm whether MCX itself generates the LODs for these "Combined Scene" meta-objects.


When researching the MSFS default VHHX RWY-13 sequenced approach lights, I used MCX to make a Combined Scene from the MSFS 2020 default VHHX scenery:

ModelLib.bgl

...and:

vhhx_scene.bgl


NOTE: The MCX output yielded LODs 0 through 13 ! :yikes:

I did not make them, nor did I request them from MCX; I just need to confirm if they already existed in source BGL(s).

If they did not already exist in MSFS, then kudos to Arno for solving LOD issues in an even more sensational way. :wizard:

If they did already exist in MSFS, then a 'new' request for Arno to solve LOD issues in an even more sensational way. :pushpin:

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
I create only a version for MSFS2020 using the 2020 SDK. That one works fine in MSFS2024. MSFS2024 automatically puts these sceneries in a specific MSFS2020-mode and there are no problems with LOD popping. If you build your scenery with the MSFS2024 SDK without proper LODs, then you will have LOD popping and even bigger structures will have a very very short visibility range. So my sceneries are pure MSFS2020 (except for the two MSFS2024 native sceneries - EEPU and EERU) and they have never seen the MSFS2024 SDK and they have no 2024-specific features (like rocks, new biomes etc.). I do not say that this is best practice, it is just an example of how to easily make the old sceneries fit in 2024.

I am interested to know if you have seen how MSFS 2024 renders TIN Photogrammetry monoliths which are 'morphed' "tree-rocks" ...on 2020 Packages.

There is no popping, but now they 'fade-in' at a close distance, prior to which they are not rendered. 😆


FS2Kx users may recall "Alpha-fade" issues with autogen trees; well, the row of monolithic 'tree-rocks' behind ENLX Heliport premises and the monoliths near the old Lorenskog 'Kirk' Helicopter navigation landmark SW of Ahus Hospital premises ...all "fade-in".

Some of us were earnestly seeking restoration of "Alpha-fade" since FSX, and now we've got it back.

(I wonder if we could regard 'tree-rocks' as a form of AI Autogen ? :rolleyes: )

As to making scenery in MSFS 2020 compatible with display in MSFS 2024, AFAIK, aerial imagery and/or polygon texture color and inferred shadow patterns on ground is able to determine vegetation 3D object display versus soil, sand or gravel texture display in MSFS 2020.

I assume the same may be true with native MSFS 2024 scenery ground texture processing as well.

This raises the question as to whether display of TIN Photogrammetry is influenced to any extent by the ground texture color and inferred shadow patterns, to determine if 'rock-trees" will be displayed ...versus other things like more typical tree shapes.


Are we otherwise to conclude that MSFS 2020 and 2024 TIN Photogrammetry is all pre-rendered as geometry loaded from files, and not influenced by ground texture color and inferred shadow pattern at run time after 'synced' and processed by Azure servers ?

If so, we might best exclude 'rock-trees' with fixed vector geometry excludes.


A previous thread that addresses this issue and how a vector exclude provides a local solution without entirely disabling MSFS Photogrammetry: :idea:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...otogrametry-monolith-trees.455740/post-905555

"< Oh, come on, Microsoft ...we believe you can do even better than this >"


An example of what we get in MSFS urban areas where TIN Photogrammetry is most often used ...by entirely disabling MSFS Photogrammetry:



If we conclude that MSFS 2020 and 2024 TIN Photogrammetry is all pre-rendered as geometry loaded from files, and not influenced by ground texture color and inferred shadow pattern at run time after 'synced' and processed by Azure servers, and that we can not change how a run time render of TIN Photogrammetry is processed, then we must exclude / replace that content to clean up the landscape ...if we wish to use 'part' of TIN Photogrammetry.

To do that properly with vegetation and trees congruent to MSFS default scenery, MS / Asobo should make the full set of those 3D library objects available to us as individually place-able objects, to fix local gaps caused by our having to exclude many anomalous TIN Photogrammetry 'rock-trees'.


Otherwise, MS / Asobo must fix TIN Photogrammetry to get rid of 'rock-tree' monoliths, and provide 3D modeled buildings with night textured windows.

While the current roll out of urban areas with LIDAR DSM-derived TIN Photogrammetry containing numerous anomalies may be seen by some as a (temporary ?) solution to inaccuracies in the MSFS scenery object detection and rendering engine, it does not replace even legacy FS2Kx generic buildings and/or Autogen objects from FS2Kx, which already have Night textures and lighted windows etc., and which accept a swap of replacement Texture sets.

It is at best, a 'temporary' way to populate a "VERY_SPARSE" MSFS landscape, while developing an improved scenery object detection / generation engine.


Surely MS / Asobo does not expect us to keep expending our time and effort placing excludes to eradicate 'rock-trees' and monoliths, in order to clean up the numerous flaws in their TIN Photogrammetry 'quick-and-dirty' scenery content, so that our own custom scenery will not look ridiculous amongst it ?

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Back
Top