• 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.

MSFS MSFS Toolkit by Nool Aerosystems

Messages
4
Country
us-ohio
So I'm using the elev tool to import a heightmap from http://gis3.oit.ohio.gov/geodatadownload/osip.aspx for I69, but when I do this with the ESRI GRID DEM Mosaic in the form of .adf files, this happens:
1627515026585.png

It's like it's scaled incorrectly, like the elevation is in feet and it expects meters or vv. Is there any way of correcting this or manually specifying height scale or whatever?
 
Last edited:
Messages
4
Country
us-ohio
I added scaling. Replace your current msfs_elev.py with the latest one from https://github.com/noolaero/msfs-toolkit and add -scale 0.3048 argument. This will scale units from feet to meters.
Thanks for the quick reply. That seems to have fixed it somewhat, but it's still a bit too high:
1627522143344.png

and the runway is sunken into the ground (which means it may be at the correct height):
1627522324234.png

Thanks for the help anyway. I was just at this airport the other day and the elevation of the taxiways and the sloped runway are not accurately depicted in the sim at all.
 

Attachments

  • 1627522443205.png
    1627522443205.png
    2 MB · Views: 24

Paavo

Resource contributor
Messages
189
Country
estonia
Please send me the DEM file, I am unable to download it directly (connection times out).
 

christopherbritton

Resource contributor
Messages
457
Country
us-florida
I've been transitioning my workflow over to using these scripts today, but I'm running into an issue with transparencies for aerial imagery. I'm feeding the aerial script a GeoTiff that I added a mask to in Gimp for blending. The Tiff displays just fine when I open it, but when the tiles are created, all transparency is removed.

Any ideas? Is this a known issue, or could it be something stupid like forgetting to convert the mask to an alpha before export (even though I thought this would be done automatically)?
 

Paavo

Resource contributor
Messages
189
Country
estonia
Existing transparency is ignored. Instead a new transparency channel is created based on shapes given with -border <file> and blending radius given with -blend <m>.
This means you don't need to manually mask aerial imagery. Just draw appropriate polys.
 

christopherbritton

Resource contributor
Messages
457
Country
us-florida
Existing transparency is ignored. Instead a new transparency channel is created based on shapes given with -border <file> and blending radius given with -blend <m>.
This means you don't need to manually mask aerial imagery. Just draw appropriate polys.
Would it be a possibility to add backwards compatibility for this so that you could do either method? Or has this been supported already in a version prior to adding the kml method? Using the kml is a great idea for simplicity, but in many cases, I end up creating a fairly complex blendmask that just wont translate over with the same results. In order to reduce file size as much as possible, I will typically remove areas of imagery that will not be seen.
 

Paavo

Resource contributor
Messages
189
Country
estonia
Manually applied blending has never been supported.
Tiles outside your export area or inside and with no visible pixels are automatically skipped over and not written to output folder. You end up with only the PNGs your project actually uses.

I may be able to fairly easily add support for pre-existing transparency, but I need to test it before I can say anything firm.
 
Last edited:

christopherbritton

Resource contributor
Messages
457
Country
us-florida
Manually applied blending has never been supported.
Tiles outside your export area or inside and with no visible pixels are automatically skipped over and not written to output folder. You end up with only the PNGs your project actually uses.

I may be able to fairly easily add support for pre-existing transparency, but I need to test it before I can say anything firm.
If you can make that work, that would be great! I doubt I'm the only one that uses this method to get rid of some unneeded bulk. The previous aerial I did, I was able to shave ~30% off of the CGL size by doing that. Depending on the coverage area, that's a lot of savings to pass up (At least, when you worry about file size). ;)

Another question for you, this time pertaining to the elevation tool. I'm getting a runtime error when I run the command snippet for my project. Everything seems to be in order based on your written tutorial. The DEM GeoTiff is Mercator WGS84, but from the sound of it, this shouldn't matter. Another thing I thought of is that the scenery contains 2 airports in close proximity, in the same file. However, thinking it may be something to do with the runways, I enabled -nodefo, but I still get the error. So, something's not liking something. Whether it's the script or the data..

Thanks!

Code:
msfs elev -imagery "S:\flightsim\scenery\MSFS\freeware\PATK-Talkeetna-v2\Data\DEM\*.tif" -border "S:\flightsim\scenery\MSFS\freeware\PATK-Talkeetna-v2\Data\DEM\patk_3m_dem.shp" -airport "S:\flightsim\scenery\MSFS\freeware\PATK-Talkeetna-v2\Package\PackageSources\data\PATK.xml" -res 3 -falloff 300 -nodefo "S:\flightsim\scenery\MSFS\freeware\PATK-Talkeetna-v2\Package\PackageSources\data\PATK.xml"

dem_error.PNG
 

Paavo

Resource contributor
Messages
189
Country
estonia
Reproject your source files to EPSG 3857 (Web-Mercator or Pseudo-Mercator) or 4326 (WGS84) in QGIS, Global Mapper or any other common mapping tool.
It looks like the current projection information in your source files is invalid. Also make sure that "patk_3m_dem.shp" has a valid projection info (in *.prj), or just save it to KML format and use that instead.

Manually applied blending will not make any difference in file sizes. The aerial tool only produces tiles that fall within your export area (border polys). For example, I have hundreds of gigabytes of aerial imagery sitting in a network storage server, I input polys covering the few small airports that I am interested in, and the aerial tool creates only those PNGs that are within the given polys and have visible pixels (that is, are not fully transparent).

The only benefit you'd gain is better control over blending. Currently it is uniform (by default 30 m), manual masking would let you to have non-uniform blending, sharper in some places, smoother in others.
 
Last edited:

christopherbritton

Resource contributor
Messages
457
Country
us-florida
I did not initially export a .prj alongside my Shapefile. Everything works correctly after generating one. Thanks!
 
Messages
11
Country
france
Thank you for your project, it helps me a lot because i had issue with sim default elevation on my project (PALH), conficting (because too close to PANC.
have found Alaska DEM for the entire area (PANC+PALH) and now everything is fine. Thank again !
 

Paavo

Resource contributor
Messages
189
Country
estonia
Thank you!

v0.52 is out:

It switches to the new version of OSGeo4W tools and needs to re-download them. To speed up downloads, we've set up our own mirror server that cuts OSGeo4W install time from 25 minutes down to 3 minutes.
 
Messages
5
Country
denmark
Thank you!

v0.52 is out:

It switches to the new version of OSGeo4W tools and needs to re-download them. To speed up downloads, we've set up our own mirror server that cuts OSGeo4W install time from 25 minutes down to 3 minutes.

Hello Paavo,

Thank you for the update. While v0.51 works fine and without any errors, v0.52 is unusable, there are a bunch of error messages that appear and it tells me that GDAL cannot be found.

I'm not sure what might be causing this, I've tried to troubleshoot this, and yet these error messages persist.

Best regards,

Anna
 
Messages
196
Country
unitedkingdom
I appreciate this tool isn't designed for creating bespoke elevations for large areas, but I'd like to give it a try anyway. Because of so-called "LOD popping" I've like to create multiple LOD for my elevations, based on DEM I've down-sampled the way I like (e.g. preserving ridge lines and valley bottoms) in 3rd party software. I see I can re-run the tool with different output resolutions, but is there anything else which needs to be modified (e.g. XML, file structure etc) to enable such a multi-LOD approach please? Any advice is welcome
 
Messages
4
Country
norway
Hi, @Paavo - i took the opportunity to report an issue related to heightmap lines in the xml being too long. Seems to be an issue related to the latest SDK (0.14) as I have not seen it before. Issue is reported on github.

Thanks for updating the tool often with new features!
 
Top