• 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.

FS2004 aircraft mdl export

No, the visibility conditions are there when I load the FSX model into MCX. I can do an FSX to FSX conversion and the visibility conditions are retained. Also retained for FS9 to FS9 and FS9 to FSX.
 
tgibson said:
No, the visibility conditions are there when I load the FSX model into MCX. I can do an FSX to FSX conversion and the visibility conditions are retained. Also retained for FS9 to FS9 and FS9 to FSX.
Click to expand...
OK, I did a FSX to FS2004 conversion when I posted a few days ago that it works here.

Are you using MakeMDL directly with MCX or are you using MDLCommander in between like you mentioned you do in GMax?
 
I am using the unchanged MakeMDL file as found in the MakeMDL SDK folder, not the renamed version used with MDL Commander in the GMAX plug-ins folder. Im sure of this since the interface would be different if I was using that.
 
Ok, just thinking what kind of differences we could have. Maybe we can convert the same model and then each keep the intermediate X file. By comparing them I can hopefully see what is different.
 
OK, I don't know why our results were different, but I found that the DC-6B has some unusual characteristics in the maintenance stairs at the cockpit door. There are some parts that have animation keyframes that should not, and removing them causes the parts to be displaced when doing certain conversions in MCX, and GMAX to create phantom LOD models. I figured out if I do a Reset Transform and Reset Scale on those parts it fixes those problems. It also fixes the problem of losing the custom animations when going from a converted FSX model to FS9, they are now retained. So we can go back to testing now. :)

Sorry for the delay,
 
Are you saying that our FSX models are different? I downloaded a FSX package of the DC-6. So if you use that released version of the model it also works for you? Or you still need to modify things in gmax for that?
 
As far as I know we are using identical MDL files. I just converted the FSX MDL file in the zip package and it does the same thing. The FSX model has l_chocks_4 as a visibility condition, but when converted to FS9 aircraft MDL format there is no chock or custom when doing a hierarchy search. And the chock ModelPart and SceneGraphNode are all set to None. So I have no idea why we are seeing different things with this model.

Luckily I think this is just a quirk. I created a cube in GMAX and named it l_chocks_4. In FS9 it appears and disappears properly. Loaded into MCX, converted to FSX format, and then the resulting FSX model converted back to FS9 retains its visibility condition.
 
Let me try with the MDL from the zip file to be sure we have exactly the same.

But else could you enable the keep x file option and send me the x file and makemdl.parts.xml file as generated? If I compare them with mine I can hopefully see what is different.
 
You could both remove the MCX settings folder to be absolutely sure that you are both working with the same settings.


Send from mobile hence short
 
Files sent.

I was thinking of something similar, Martin. We could also send each other our config files.
 
Hi Tom,

Thanks for the files.

But if I compare your X file with mine, I get the impression that you have generated that X file with a version of MCX that does not have the FS2004 aircraft export function implemented yet (e.g. not a recent development release). Also the MakeMDL.parts.xml file is older than the X file, so it seems to be from a different export.
 
Sorry about that. Must have started the wrong version (that was v1.5). Correct files sent.

Note separate message with correct X file.
 
Hi Tom,

Thanks. I do indeed see that if I load your MDL file the visibility conditions are not there anymore, while with mine they are.

I see two differences in the X file:
  • Most of my custom animations/visibility conditions are named in your file, that is probably because you have them in your modeldef.xml file, while I don't. This should not be the issue.
  • I see in one place in the X file you have many additional scenegraph nodes with transformations. Not sure where these come from, but that should not mess it up that much either.
Let me do some thinking about this :D
 
Here is the MCX generated FSX modeldef file when I converted the FS9 plane to FSX. It should have all the tags in FSX format if you ever need that.
 

Attachments

Thanks, I tried to import the FSX model again, now using your modeldef.xml file and in that case I can reproduce the issue. I never expected that would matter, but let me try to find out why :).
 
Hi Tom,

I have found it. It was the name of the visibility condition that gave the issue. Any name ending with a digit instead of a letter would be lost on export. This seems to be related to the way MakeMDL handles the X file that I wrote. I have modified MCX now so that the name does not matter anymore. It will be in the next develoment release.
 
Glad you got that issue solved. That was a tough one. Hopefully the rest will be easier.
 
I hope so, this was indeed an interesting and tricky one to fix. But on the other hand this is part of the fun of developing :)
 
Hello Arno,

I hold back myself regarding the conversion problem with max vertices for AI Ships of Henrik N. and models for Landmarks in FS9, because in my opinion the conversion of AI planes has higher priority.

But when you are ready to take care of this problem, let me know, please.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top