Misaligned Textures

[CathayA340]

Here, I made you a model, you are free to use it as you please. It is one draw call and 14 polygons. I used a picture from the web and projected that onto the front face, then continued that same projection to all other faces. You can take it apart and examine it and then make a bigger texture that has all the faces on it and project each one.

Rick, thank you very much for taking the time to do this. I really appreciate it!!
So far, I've reprojected some textures and used the tiled textures for most of the front of the building, except for the windows, doors and the princeton airport "banner" over the door. The sides of the building share the same tiled texture. I have not worked on the back of the building yet.
I am following Lane's steps, and have hid everything but the front of the building. When I select all and right click, I don't see the combine textures option.
Here's how it looks currently with everything hidden but the front face : http://prntscr.com/7ggsf2
The current materials : http://prntscr.com/7ggsrm
Back of the front face : http://prntscr.com/7ggsvj
Entire building : http://prntscr.com/7ggt1h (no back yet)
Currently, the support beams are have not been pushed/pulled, they are flat on the texture but I have created lines for them.
For the middle section, I decided not to leave the photoreal texture on because it would look a bit different than the tiled textures. I now assume that I would add the Princeton Airport logo on the top of the building using photoshop or something with the one piece texture?

 

[GaryGB]

"Bumped" for edits to my post above:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/#post-712756

GaryGB

 

[Lane Street]

I am following Lane's steps, and have hid everything but the front of the building. When I select all and right click, I don't see the combine textures option.

That option is only available when everything selected is on the same plane.

You have the awnings selected. You would have to deselect any faces and edges not on the front wall.

You also have the windows pushed in off of the front wall.

If you want that 3D detail for the windows you would have to deselect them also, or push them back to the front wall and sacrifice the 3D detail.

cheers,
Lane

 

[Lane Street]

"Bumped" for edits to my post above:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/#post-712756

GaryGB

That is some interesting reading Gary, though I don't know how much is realistically applicable here.
For an example, if this building approaches the 64k vert limit C-A340 can expect a slide show in the sim.

I am under the belief that the Holy Grail of sim performance is drawcalls and less is better. So with buildings such as this that are unique, one-time instances, the modeling goal should be: one building-one texture-one drawcall.

And any conversation about T-verts that says that polys don't matter is misleading. By definition, reducing polys will reduce T-verts.

Life, and sim performance, is all about balance and looking at the way that C-A340 has modeled his front wall makes me think the scales are tipped towards slide show. Now, I don't think this one building will make a huge difference, I am just using it as an example in a discussion about basic modeling practices.

For me, as this is not the airfield side of the building, pushing the windows in does nothing but harm performance by driving up the poly and T-vert count for something that will be hard to see from the cockpit of a plane, in the sim. Now, if you want to get out and walk around they might be worth it, that is for C-A340 to decide.

Ditto with the awnings, sort of. I do think the balance of detail vs. performance lies somewhere between C-A340's highly 3D detailed front and =rk='s basic box.

IMO =rk='s box would be great for an off-airport building one might recognize on final and certainly would be great as a lower LOD model for the building.

I would want the awnings and the columns on the front of the building, at least on the highest LOD.

So, I would still think having the front face as one plane with the windows and doors painted on is the best way to go as it would result in IIUC 3 polys with 5 T-verts. C-A340's face, with the intersecting awnings and pushed in windows, is going to be way more than that. Just looking at the windows I see 24 polys and 48 T-verts. Add in the returns from the window faces to the front wall and you have another 96 polys and 192 T-verts. All for the sake of that small 3D detail. Not to mention how it is going to fracture the front wall into hundreds of polys.

...to be continued...

...continued here- http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/some-thoughts-on-designing-for-performance.434292/

 

[n4gix]

However, FSX reportedly also no longer 'requires' one to weld vertices at 4mm mesh intervals:

http://wing-fell-off.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

Gary, all I can do is confirm the above regarding the issue of the compiler/exporter now being able to export without mangling mesh with as small an interval as 0.0005 (1/2 mm). Anything smaller than that really would be so small as to be unnoticeable even in a VC anyway!

 

[CathayA340]

Fantastic. Thank you all for your help - the problem has now been fixed! I used the snapshot tool and created 5 materials and the building looks perfect and has good performance now! I really appreciate all of your expertise and help on this topic.

 

[GaryGB]

Another way to simplify creation of the building and the apparent support columns extending outwards from the front face of the building is:

1.) Keep the main building and the apparent support columns in separate "groups"

2.) "Hide" the apparent support columns "group" (temporarily)

3.) Texture the front face of the building either in 1 or several faces as needed to accommodate use of your texture

4.) "Un-hide" the apparent support columns "group"

5.) "Intersect" the 2 groups for a precise 'weld' ...when they are both subsequently "exploded".

Because, AFAIK, this project is intended to create a model with only external faces, another alternative which would further assist with minimizing vertex count and eliminate some manual cleanup operations within the apparent support columns objects on the front (and back ?) wall of the building ...is the often over-looked "Outer Shell" tool.

The "Outer Shell" tool reportedly yields a result similar to the result of a union. However, the result of an outer shell can only contain external faces while the result of a union can also contain internal geometry.

NOTE: The example illustration I am specifically referring to is the one on the lower portion of the web page:
==============================================================================

http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/1004163

http://web.archive.org/web/20151025181034/http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/1004163


http://web.archive.org/web/20151025171338/http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/1004124

To create an outer shell:

1.) Select the Outer Shell tool (

).

NOTE: The tool cursor changes to:
* an arrow with a circle and a slash (

) if you are not over a group or component

...or:
* an arrow with the number "1" (

) if you are over a group or component.


2.) Click on the group or component. The first group or component is selected.

The following image shows the right side group selected:

3.) Click on the second group or component. <Union is now performed> The outer faces remain.

==============================================================================


This option might merit consideration as a 'labor-saver' regardless of whether or not one wishes to intersect / weld / explode groups of the apparent support columns where they approximate the front wall face.

This requires one to have modeled the building in Sketchup as a "closed solid" by ex: extruding a ground footprint rectangle drawn on a Geo-located Google snapshot.

This will result in the building having a "bottom" during construction ...which can be removed and/or hidden before export to a file intended for import by MCX.


NOTE: To ensure a 'closed solid' is a airtight / watertight 3D object with no holes (aka: "manifold"), one may use another Ruby plugin script: "Solid Inspector":

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30504

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_modeling


Hope this helps the OP and other Sketchup modelers save some work when using the default tools !

GaryGB

 

[GaryGB]

BTW: Bill, may I digress briefly and "invite your insight" to offer comment on some 3D modeling issues in another thread ?

I would value your insight on the reported FSX SDK removal of a 4MM MDL vertex 'welding' requirement, and the seemingly incongruous reported ability to achieve reduced vertex expense when "smoothing" is used:


My post on the above issues: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/#post-712756

The thread URL: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/


Thanks in advance for any input you might share with us.

GaryGB

Gary, all I can do is confirm the above regarding the issue of the compiler/exporter now being able to export without mangling mesh with as small an interval as 0.0005 (1/2 mm). Anything smaller than that really would be so small as to be unnoticeable even in a VC anyway!

Thanks, Bill !

I noticed that even as an aircraft builder with extensive experience, you had been reticent to address the issue of "Smoothing Groups", and that the FS Community in general seems still rather uncertain as to which type of "smoothing" might be possible (and practical) to use with SimObject MDLs ...to, IIUC, effectively reduce the run time rendering "expense" of vertices 'hidden' via 'smoothing'.

Looks like Bill Ortiz might have some ideas on what X2MDL retains from a "smoothed" X-file, so perhaps we might see what he may tell us on this topic.

GaryGB

 

[Lane Street]

The "Outer Shell" tool reportedly yields a result similar to the result of a union. However, the result of an outer shell can only contain external faces while the result of a union can also contain internal geometry.

http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/1004163
​

Thanks for that Gary, that is a cool tool and can come in handy at times.

However, using their example...

...the face circled in red on the left will net 2 polys and 4 T-verts.

After using the tool we end up with 4 polys and 8 T-verts.

There are times where hidden geometry would net better performance, IMO.

And a creative use of the texture would not waste the hidden part of that plane.

cheers,
Lane

 

[GaryGB]

Thanks for that Gary, that is a cool tool and can come in handy at times.

However, using their example...
View attachment 23109

...the face circled in red on the left will net 2 polys and 4 T-verts.

After using the tool we end up with 4 polys and 8 T-verts.

Indeed, the example at the top of the page does not show the capabilities of this tool which I intended as a focus for the context of the OP's model under discussion.

I have edited my post above to indicate the specific illustrations I intended as examples of the capabilities of the Outer Shell tool for the OP, as IMHO, they might prove helpful in both saving work and reducing geometry complexity ...for the apparent support columns in close proximity with the front wall.

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/page-2#post-713006

There are times where hidden geometry would net better performance, IMO.

And a creative use of the texture would not waste the hidden part of that plane.

Regarding "creative use of the texture would not waste the hidden part of that plane", would I be correct that we both agree the OP's best recourse was to create a 1-piece / 1-face front wall onto which a 1-piece texture was projected (as we both recommended) ?

BTW: My inquiry into possible options for use of smoothed / hidden geometry above was incidental to some ideas arising from review of the linked information at:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/misaligned-textures.434275/#post-712756


Perhaps presentation of that info here might be perceived by some as a digression; but it was initially posted to assist open-minded readers in becoming familiar with concepts evolving in the area of 3D modeling.

I believe it was important to post that info as discussed by THE MS Game Studios (MSFS-ACES) guru on such subjects, Adrian Woods (aka "torgo3000"), who in addition to having written the code for MDL exporters in 2 versions of the MSFS SDK, IIUC, also alludes to the importance of certain modeling practices which sometimes allows better FS run time performance ...despite numeric statistics on MDL geometry.

At the moment, I can't find the original forum thread or Blog comments section wherein considerable initial anguish was expressed by Bill Womack and other renowned FS developers, when they were emphatically informed by Adrian Woods of the need to go back into work already completed <- before the SDK target "moved" again ->, and "weld" all of certain geometry in order to comply with new requirements which allowed use of new features ...in the latest "moving target" FSX SDK.


But, perhaps we'll all comprehend the implications of that particular subject better (...if I can ever find that particular discourse with Adrian and more specifically-related info) online.

GaryGB

 

[Lane Street]

Regarding "creative use of the texture would not waste the hidden part of that plane", would I be correct that we both agree the OP's best recourse was to create a 1-piece / 1-face front wall onto which a 1-piece texture was projected (as we both recommended) ?

Most definitely.

For the OP's wall, a single plane covered with one texture would be best, IMO, and the 'lost' texture area behind the extruded columns would be minimal.

My comment-

a creative use of the texture would not waste the hidden part of that plane.

...was somewhat specific to the model used in the example for the Outer Shell tool where if one was to leave that object as is in the first example you can see where the center half+ of that plane would not be visible.

In that case one could use that part of the texture for another element.

As an example of a similar case the checkerboard wall of this WIP building is actually in 3 sections with a repeated texture...

Each section is 4 columns wide so the texture gets repeated 2.75 times.

The roll up door is painted on the texture and because of the location of the as yet to be textured bumpout is hidden twice.

In this case I chose to add to the poly count to be able to save on texture space by repeating the checker pattern.

For clarity, the wireframe...

BTW, you may notice that the bump out is a separate group and doesn't intersect with the checker wall.

Another case where hidden geometry actually reduced poly and T-vert count.

If I had intersected that bump out with the checker wall I could have eliminated that small chunk of unseen checker wall yet doing so would have introduced higher poly and T-vert counts.

In case you are wondering why the front wall is so cut up, instead of one big rectangle, the building is over 700 feet long and is being textured at a scale of 10 pixels/foot. To texture it as one rectangle would require an 8192x texture.

Again, looking for that balance.

Still, that building is 90%+ modeled and right now stand at 603 polys, 951 T-verts, and 2 drawcalls, which I think is OK given it's size.

cheers,
Lane

[edit]
to add that the building still has a floor which will be removed before completion, eliminating a bunch of polys.
[/edit]