P3D v2 Colorado Springs Airport (KCOS)

[newmanix]

Showing some real promise here Mr. UA Express! Keep it going!

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

After a solid four or five days of work, here's a few shots of my latest progress:

Things are progressing on the runways. Here is a shot of the south end of 31. I'm not quite finished here yet, I still need to reorder a few layers in MCX and resize the underlying runway in ADE (currently, it is sticking out from under the ground poly), and I also need to move a few taxiways in ADE as well.

From the other end of the runway. You'll notice I've split up the taxiway into multiple surfaces and textured them individually. Most of the textures have also been oriented to the direction of their respective taxiway. You'll also see that I've finished adding the runway markings and have also textured most of the taxiway centerlines. Edge lines are next on the list.

Another view of the same location. I wasn't going to include this at first, but decided to anyway as it showcases the definition of the textures. Almost all of the textures in this scenery are high-def 4K textures for best visual fidelity. From high above the pavement, or even just from the view of a 737, the textures blend together nicely and have a clean look, but get down close, either from the cockpit of you Cessna 172 or out of the plane with EZCA, and you'll get very good detail even a foot off of the ground.
Lastly, I've redone all of the taxiway edge textures. They aren't exactly what I was aiming for, but I think they nevertheless came out quite nice, and certainly are to the point where I can live with them.

Looking forward to your feedback!

 

[Shaun]

Looks good.

WHat runway lighting method are you using? Doesn't look like SCASM or BGL.

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

Actually its the default runway lighting used by the sim. In FSX (If I remember correctly) you had to do some serious tweaks to make default lights show through ground polys, however in P3D this isn't the case. That said, these probably won't be the final lights as i intend to do custom lighting with 3d models and with effects.

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

So I have spent the last two days trying to find a way to add specular and bump effects to my ground poly. Of course, I expect to hear a lot of people say "you can't do that with an FS2002 ground poly", and they would be right...except that this isn't an FS2002 ground poly. At least, not anymore. And if you think I'm about to say it's an FSX ground poly... well, not quite. In fact, I believe I've found a way to create custom ground polys directly from P3D code. I started by experimenting with creating an FSX layer over a standard ground poly, much the same way that was done for FSDreamTeam's KLAX and a short list of other sceneries. Then I realized, in fact, thanks to changes in the P3D SDK, it is now possible to make a ground poly with specular and bump effects by utilizing the Z-bias function. Whereas in FSX, trying something like this would cause tons of flickering and shading problems, P3D allows you to use this to set the draw priority of objects, so even if two planes inhabit the same physical space, you don't get any flickering. Moreover, this means it is no longer necessary to have the surface offset from the ground, so wheel sink is no longer an issue. Here's the result from some preliminary testing in P3D:

Now, obviously, I need to spend some time tweaking the specular textures, but this nevertheless shows that this method works, and potentially it can work just as well as FS2002 groundpolys, but with modern shading effects.

However...the drawback here is that, plain 'n simple, this will not work in any sim before P3D v2. FSX (as far as I know) cannot use the material attributes that allow this sort of layering. I think it might be possible to convert it...maybe. I can't be sure, though, because I can't try it until I reinstall FSX and the FSX SDK (which I did not bring to the dorm with me this semester), and even then, I suspect that in FSX, it might flash like crazy. Either way, I thought I should show this. Keep in mind, I'm still experimenting with this, and it may not make it to the final release. That said, this experiment is, so far, turning out with very promising results.

 

[twharrell]

Now, that's pretty darn cool.

 

[737freak]

Custom runways with bump maps for the lines and decals would be really cool!

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

So I spent a few minutes converting the rest of the ground poly to the new format and got some pretty nice results...

So far I really only have a few minor changes to make to the specular textures (right now the glare looks a bit overblown). Other than that, everything is coming along pretty well...er, well, there's just one tiny problem:

THIS

...has given "the mile high city" a literal meaning.

I checked the placement. In 3DS Max and MCX, everything is at ground level. However in P3D...well, not quite. $5 and a cheeseburger to anyone that knows why.

 

[jtanabodee]

Very good news about about ground poly in native code of P3D. I'd like to try that too. Have you tried on precipitation?

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

Precipitation looks pretty good. It takes a little tweaking of the specular textures to get it looking right, but it's workable.

HOWEVER, I hate to say it but I must take back what I said about having each layer one on top of the other. At first glance, I thought everything was layered at the same height, however further investigation in to my mile-high ground poly revealed that certain layers were apparently offset by several centimeters in the sim, even though they weren't in Max or in MCX. Nevertheless, it was small enough that I didn't notice it until I actually looked for it, and the height between layers can be tweaked by raising or lowering the surface within 3DS Max so that in the sim they are flat. Of course, this has proven to be time consuming, and if the layers are too close (within one or two centimeters) then the flickering returns, but there seems to be a "sweet spot" where the height difference in negligible and flickering goes away (or at the very least, if there is any, it isn't noticeable). Something must have been changed with how P3D handles 3D faces being so close together, because I remember trying this in FSX some time ago and anything less than about a 10 cm offset produced unbearable flickering, while P3D can apparently handle a much, MUCH smaller offset.

My recommendation is that if you try it, avoid using anything below z-bias level 12. I figured out after some trial and error that anything less than that can give the elevation problem I showed above. Also note that higher z-bias levels will offset your poly by a few centimeters, so you'll need to adjust accordingly. The good news is once you get everything tweaked properly, it doesn't cause any major problems (not in P3D anyway. FSX may be a different story) aside from minor lighting issues that I have yet to tackle. I'll share more on that when I get to them. Either way, definitely try it. The results are well worth it.

 

[jtanabodee]

Thanks for sharing, UnitedExpress4180. Your experience is very useful. I would love to do scenery in P3DV2 but I to upgrade my graphic card first.

 

[mskhan1991]

Precipitation looks pretty good. It takes a little tweaking of the specular textures to get it looking right, but it's workable.

HOWEVER, I hate to say it but I must take back what I said about having each layer one on top of the other. At first glance, I thought everything was layered at the same height, however further investigation in to my mile-high ground poly revealed that certain layers were apparently offset by several centimeters in the sim, even though they weren't in Max or in MCX. Nevertheless, it was small enough that I didn't notice it until I actually looked for it, and the height between layers can be tweaked by raising or lowering the surface within 3DS Max so that in the sim they are flat. Of course, this has proven to be time consuming, and if the layers are too close (within one or two centimeters) then the flickering returns, but there seems to be a "sweet spot" where the height difference in negligible and flickering goes away (or at the very least, if there is any, it isn't noticeable). Something must have been changed with how P3D handles 3D faces being so close together, because I remember trying this in FSX some time ago and anything less than about a 10 cm offset produced unbearable flickering, while P3D can apparently handle a much, MUCH smaller offset.

My recommendation is that if you try it, avoid using anything below z-bias level 12. I figured out after some trial and error that anything less than that can give the elevation problem I showed above. Also note that higher z-bias levels will offset your poly by a few centimeters, so you'll need to adjust accordingly. The good news is once you get everything tweaked properly, it doesn't cause any major problems (not in P3D anyway. FSX may be a different story) aside from minor lighting issues that I have yet to tackle. I'll share more on that when I get to them. Either way, definitely try it. The results are well worth it.

I believe that your ground is in .bgl format and placed using GUID through XML placement tool or something similar???? is there a problem with the Earth's curvature on the edges of the ground polygons>?

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

I've been using MCX to place all of the scenery so far. I'm not sure what process it uses to do this, though I assume it probably uses an xml to place the models then converts them to a bgl. Either way, I don't think there's an inherent issue with the Earth's curvature on the edges of the polygons, rather it seems to be the result of how the engine renders them.

 

[mskhan1991]

I've been using MCX to place all of the scenery so far. I'm not sure what process it uses to do this, though I assume it probably uses an xml to place the models then converts them to a bgl. Either way, I don't think there's an inherent issue with the Earth's curvature on the edges of the polygons, rather it seems to be the result of how the engine renders them.

I did try it with P3d v2.2 but since I don't have a copy I plan to visit a friend and tweak the remaining thing there. He sent me a few shots of the ground... I had placed it with Z-bias 0-13 ... ofcourse the "mile-high city" concept was there as well but the offset of the polygons after that seemed quite a lot.

A question...Is there a particular height at which the offset is... i mean if Z-bias value 12 is on the ground and Z-bias 13 is 40 cm above ground then will Z-bias value 14 will have the same distance from 13 (80cm off ground)or will it change with the value?.... I hope u are getting what I am writing here. And how much is that your are moving your ground polygons in order to avoid floating ground layers?

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

Be careful what z-bias levels you use. Just as in MCX you must use every fourth layer for ground polys, you need to do the same for ground polys placed as standard bgl's. In my case, I have the taxiway surface on z-bias 12, the runways on z-bias 16, markings on 20 and 24, etc. Using the intermediate layers can introduce additional draw issues.

Regarding the height issues, oddly I discovered that only z-bias 8 caused the ground poly to float a mile in the sky. I'm not sure why that happened, but what I do know is that when I moved everything up by another 4 levels, I didn't have this problem, and things were only offset by several centimeters rather than several kilometers. I would say you can try using z-bias 8 or maybe even level 4, as this may have been an isolated issue caused by something wrong with my model. Then again, it might be an underlying issue with the engine, but I haven't felt the need to find out for certain.

Near as I can tell, each additional z-bias level you use offsets surfaces by between 1 and 2 centimeters, however I haven't measured it exactly. This means that since you need to use every fourth layer, each z-bias level you add to your ground poly will result in an offset of anywhere between 4 and 8 centimeters. You can finagle P3D into displaying it correctly by manually lowering the surface by the same amount as the offset, however note that you must do this for each surface on every layer, and the amount of correction needed will vary by layer. As a result, it takes some trial and error. Lower a surface in Max, export to MCX, convert for P3D and load it in the sim, then rinse and repeat until it works right. I will reiterate that you will still need a minor offset for each layer, otherwise you will get severe flickering up close, and even far away, you will still get really bad flickering unless each layer is a few cm apart. That in mind, this method certainly isn't perfect, as you will probably still see flickering depending on your view distance/angle, but you can minimize it by messing around with LODs or by changing offsets if it's bad enough. Luckily, P3D seems to handle coplanar surfaces far better than FSX does, so you can put them closer together and still have flickering that is only noticeable if you are actively looking for it.

For my ground layers, I had to lower them by only a few centimeters to get them looking better. My base layer is set at zero (I did not have to lower it as the only thing under it is the terrain), the next was lowered (I think) by about 3 cm, the next one by 5 or 6, etc, and they show up well enough in the simulator, though it isn't perfect, but spending some time tweaking it can help get it looking as good as FS2002 polys. But again, that's what I found worked for me. It's possible that depending on your scenery's location, you may have to use different values, you will absolutely need to put some time into each layer to get it looking good, and while it will not be quite on par with FS2002 polys when it comes to everything actually being flat on the ground (I suggested on the Lockheed forums that they add native P3D ground polys to their to-do list. Really hope one of their developers takes notice and goes to bat for it to be in one of the next SDK releases), but it still looks very nice despite the obvious shortcomings, I would say nice enough that it warrants overlooking the much maligned "sinking wheels" issue with early FSX sceneries.

 

[mskhan1991]

Be careful what z-bias levels you use. Just as in MCX you must use every fourth layer for ground polys, you need to do the same for ground polys placed as standard bgl's. In my case, I have the taxiway surface on z-bias 12, the runways on z-bias 16, markings on 20 and 24, etc. Using the intermediate layers can introduce additional draw issues.

Regarding the height issues, oddly I discovered that only z-bias 8 caused the ground poly to float a mile in the sky. I'm not sure why that happened, but what I do know is that when I moved everything up by another 4 levels, I didn't have this problem, and things were only offset by several centimeters rather than several kilometers. I would say you can try using z-bias 8 or maybe even level 4, as this may have been an isolated issue caused by something wrong with my model. Then again, it might be an underlying issue with the engine, but I haven't felt the need to find out for certain.

Near as I can tell, each additional z-bias level you use offsets surfaces by between 1 and 2 centimeters, however I haven't measured it exactly. This means that since you need to use every fourth layer, each z-bias level you add to your ground poly will result in an offset of anywhere between 4 and 8 centimeters. You can finagle P3D into displaying it correctly by manually lowering the surface by the same amount as the offset, however note that you must do this for each surface on every layer, and the amount of correction needed will vary by layer. As a result, it takes some trial and error. Lower a surface in Max, export to MCX, convert for P3D and load it in the sim, then rinse and repeat until it works right. I will reiterate that you will still need a minor offset for each layer, otherwise you will get severe flickering up close, and even far away, you will still get really bad flickering unless each layer is a few cm apart. That in mind, this method certainly isn't perfect, as you will probably still see flickering depending on your view distance/angle, but you can minimize it by messing around with LODs or by changing offsets if it's bad enough. Luckily, P3D seems to handle coplanar surfaces far better than FSX does, so you can put them closer together and still have flickering that is only noticeable if you are actively looking for it.

For my ground layers, I had to lower them by only a few centimeters to get them looking better. My base layer is set at zero (I did not have to lower it as the only thing under it is the terrain), the next was lowered (I think) by about 3 cm, the next one by 5 or 6, etc, and they show up well enough in the simulator, though it isn't perfect, but spending some time tweaking it can help get it looking as good as FS2002 polys. But again, that's what I found worked for me. It's possible that depending on your scenery's location, you may have to use different values, you will absolutely need to put some time into each layer to get it looking good, and while it will not be quite on par with FS2002 polys when it comes to everything actually being flat on the ground (I suggested on the Lockheed forums that they add native P3D ground polys to their to-do list. Really hope one of their developers takes notice and goes to bat for it to be in one of the next SDK releases), but it still looks very nice despite the obvious shortcomings, I would say nice enough that it warrants overlooking the much maligned "sinking wheels" issue with early FSX sceneries.

That can be done...but right now the work around for me would be to create FS2002 style ground poly and then using the technique you mentioned here for oil spills and cracks around the surface, not to mention the taxi-lines!

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

Hello again!
You may have noticed that the last few weeks I haven't posted any new updates on the project. Reason being I had finals two weeks ago, then had to pack up my dorm and move back home for the summer, so I didn't even have my desktop running again until a few days following. Came back an decided to play some GTA V, put some time into a 3D character project, see a few movies, sculpt a few things in Mudbox, etc...you know how it goes. I needed to relax for a while.
Anyway, a couple of days ago I fired up 3DS Max and decided to return to the airport project for a few hours. Having spent a few weeks prior to finals tweaking the ground poly and terminal, plus trying to resolve some texture issues, I decided to work on something else so I don't burn myself out entirely, so I started on some of the field objects. Namely, the buildings on the west end of the field, in the general aviation area. This is what I've got right now:

Haven't yet finished the details on a few of the presently modeled hangars. The last month of the semester wore me down more than I ever thought possible, so I probably won't touch this project again for a few more days. When I do get back at it, however, I'll finish modeling these buildings, probably also the rest of the general aviation area, then I'm looking at going back and finishing up the ground poly after that.

 

[twharrell]

Not bad for a few hours work. Not bad at all. And good for you for taking time away. A lot of good projects die because people set unrealistic goals and deadlines and then they just burn out and give up. If it takes a year or two, so be it.

Todd

 

[mdm248111]

Nice work! I am a huge fan of the specular mapping on the asphalt.

This might be a stupid question, but I can't seem to find a "direct" answer anywhere...

How exactly does one make a "FSX Native" (or P3D Native) ground poly? I'm still using the old FS8 process and running it through MCX, but I'm beginning to see the limitations of that and want to get my stuff up to date.

 

[UnitedExpress4180]

It technically isn't actually a ground poly at all. The model is actually a standard FSX model that is simply laid down on the ground. I created everything using layers, much the same way that you would for ground polys in MCX, but instead of setting layer numbers, I set the z-bias level. It uses level numbers the same way as the ground poly wizard (you would use every fourth layer in either case), but each layer has to be corrected for a vertical offset that occurs with each new z-bias level. Sadly, due to the way the engine renders models, if you have faces that are coplanar, it will produce clipping, though luckily the clipping issue seems to be much reduced in the latest version of P3D if you manually set the z-bias, so you can have two surfaces closer together (only a few cm apart) and have unnoticeable flashing, whereas to accomplish the same thing in FSX, you would need the layers of your ground poly offset by as much as 30 cm, or the flashing would be absolutely unbearable. Nevertheless, the P3D version of this isn't perfect. Not saying I haven't gotten it to look good, but despite several weeks of tweaking, it still has shading issues (the surfaces are too dark early in the day, and appear almost self-illuminating in the early evening) that I haven't been able to fix. Moreover, it relies on variables that were added in the latest P3D SDK, which FSX is not coded to read, so the z-bias method only works (properly) in P3D. As a result, I personally will have to do a dual release of this scenery: one that has FS8 ground polys for FSX (and versions of P3D prior to v2.0), and one with the P3D groundpolys for people using the latest P3D release. Just be aware that if you are going to update your scenery, the new ground poly will only work correctly in P3D 2.xx, so in FSX you'll have to use the method FSDreamTeam used to get specular effects in their LAX and Vancouver sceneries.