Object (space station) above 35 km only visible (P3d) certain angles

[kilobravo]

Some years ago I downloaded Atlantis Shuttle and space station above KPAM – made by

Bruce Fitzgerald.

It works ok in FSX but now I have tried in P3d V3 and I notice some problems.

Can´t find out if it´s my set-up or it´s the way P3d handle these rather unrealistic heights.

If I place the shuttle or another aircraft at KPAM runways/some buildings are missing.

Using map/slew to level with the station in 900.000 ft I couldn´t find the station.

I found that going to 905.000 ft I saw the station in spot view in some angles.


Now I have tried placing the station in different levels.

If altitude is under 32 km – all ok.

From 35 km and higher the runway/building in an airport in a position at ground level will disappear

and the station is difficult to spot.


Maybe it´s crazy to spent the time sorting it out, but I would like to hear what could be the reason.

I tried placing the station just above Hamburg Germany (EDDH)

Same result in P3d as above - in FSX all is ok.

Also tried another model instead of space station – same result.

If I make an AI-object of the space station – I can - with the same technique as putting ships on routes – make the station travel 50 km a route in altitude 300 km with no problems in P3d and FSX.

Hope someone can explain what´s happening

 

[GaryGB]

Hello:

It is possible that the type of scenery object and/or its size, as well as whether "platforms" have been attached to the MDL file, may impact scenery object visibility, since the Space Station orbits well below the historically declared maximum altitude of FSX:

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


https://translate.google.com/transl...wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_X&prev=search


FYI: I have been forced to post a link to one of the very few sites apparently outside the 'reach' of whoever it was that systematically "edited" certain content in all English Wikipedia pages I could find regarding Microsoft Flight Simulator X (aka "FSX"), in order to find the original text which previously declared that the maximum altitude of FSX had been "increased to 100,000,000 ft.":

• The maximum altitude of the game has been increased to 100,000,000 ft. Therefore, the maximum altitude is approximately 2.39 times the diameter of the Earth at the equator.

NOTE: It is intriguing that the edits of specific FSX wiki pages took place shortly before licensing of FSX to DoveTail Games.


Perhaps someone will restore the original text above, with an explanation that the "Top-Down" camera view in FSX actually requires access to higher altitudes in order to operate within the full scope of its zoom levels, and that although SimObjects cannot be placed / navigated at an Altitude of 100,000,000 ft. or higher, they can be placed / navigated at an Altitude of 999,999,999 feet or lower.



PS: I suggest importing the Space Station model into ModelConverterX (aka "MCX") to further analyze how it was made, and I would also suggest de-compiling into XML, the 'placement' BGL for that object ...to see if that might explain disruption of ground scenery objects directly below.


Also, it is intriguing as to the Altitude at which the scenery anomalies begin to show up in P3D:

32 km = 104,986.6 Feet or 17.27857 Nautical Miles

35 km = 114,829.1 Feet or 18.89844 Nautical Miles


...whereas the Space Station orbits between 330 km and 435 km:

330 km = 1,082,674 Feet or 178.1853 Nautical Miles

435 km = 1,427,161 Feet or 234.8806 Nautical Miles


[Conspiracy_Theorist_Mode_ON]

One might wonder whether there may have been a 'special interest group' behind the above cited systematic edits of English FSX wikipedia pages ?

https://www.google.com/#q=18+mile+altitude+space


BTW: I especially enjoyed reading this:

The $150 Edge-of-Space Camera: MIT Students Beat NASA On Beer-Money Budget

http://www.wired.com/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/


"they dropped a prepaid GPS-equipped cellphone inside the box for tracking"

"Because of spotty cellphone coverage in central Massachusetts, it was important to keep the rig in the center of the state so it could be found upon landing. Light winds meant the guys got lucky and, although the cellphone’s external antenna was buried upon landing, the fix they got as the balloon was coming down was close enough"


...and this:

Kids Send a Camera 20 Miles Up and Bring Back Pictures of Space

http://www.wired.com/2009/03/kids-send-a-cam/

"the budding scientists, all aged 18-19, followed the progress of their balloon using high tech sensors communicating with Google Earth."


...and this:

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

"Red Bull Stratos was a space diving project involving Austrian skydiver Felix Baumgartner. On 14 October 2012, Baumgartner flew approximately 39 kilometres (24 mi)[1][2][3] into the stratosphere over New Mexico, United States, in a helium balloon before free falling in a pressure suit and then parachuting to Earth."

"Reaching 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)—Mach 1.25—Baumgartner broke the sound barrier on his descent,[6] thus becoming the first human to do so without any form of engine power."

"Baumgartner landed safely near Roswell, New Mexico, USA. His top speed was an estimated 863 kilometres per hour (536 mph)"

< An "Un-inhibited Flying Object ? >

[Conspiracy_Theorist_Mode_OFF]


GaryGB

 

[kilobravo]

Hi Gary
Thank you for your reply.

First I thought that it had something to do with DX9 vs DX10/11.

I don´t make models but I have used ModelconverterX to take a look at the model.
If it could give an idea - anything hidden inside.

BUT I just concentrate on the observations I have done.
It´s the same model of the space station used in all 3 examples.

Model placed in altitude ex. 200 KM using xml file and then compiled to a BGL.
Model used as an AI simobject and set on a route altitude 200 KM.
Model used as a pilotable simobject altitude 200 KM .

The problem - only visible from certain angles and an airport at ground level suddenly without runways
ONLY occur in P3d using the model in BGL added in the scenery Library and object is above mentioned 32 - 35 KM.

I was just curious to find an explanation.

Maybe someone using P3d V3 would try downloading the spacestation just to rule out any problem in my set-up..
Flightsim.com
Name: iss_kpam.zip
Size: 510,334 Date: 02-08-2008

Just bring any aircraft in action.

I´m using:
Dell desktop XPS 8500 - 8 gb Ram - i7 - 3770 3.4Ghz GTX 660

Knud

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Knud:

FYI: A cursory search on this Altitude issue turned up some interesting results, one of which confirms the max Altitude of P3D 2.5 is the same as FSX:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?93688-I-S-D


BTW: There are anomalies reported with display and navigation in FSX low Earth orbit:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?73116-FSX-as-quot-space-flight-simulator-quot

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?75239-Spaceflight-in-FSX-new-developments


https://www.google.com/#q=site:www.sim-outhouse.com+"space+station"&start=20


I don't (yet) have P3D to test with, but I wonder how BGLComp XML placement of a FSX-Format MDL-based object (textured with a BMP and not having a attached "platform") at 274,320.0 Meters / 899997.3 Feet / 148.121 Nautical Miles Altitude ...might disrupt a default RWY texture display ?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!-- Created by Scenery Design Engine (SDE) on 3/1/2016 -->
<FSData
   version="9.0"
   xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
   xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="bglcomp.xsd">
   <SceneryObject
      lat="30.0649998709559"
      lon="-85.5675280094147"
      alt="274320.0M"
      altitudeIsAgl="TRUE"
      pitch="0"
      bank="0"
      heading="0"
      imageComplexity="VERY_SPARSE">
      <LibraryObject
         name="{332a0ab3-401e-0948-8bc1-6dadba070810}"
         scale="1.00"
         />
   </SceneryObject>
</FSData>

I'm not certain that placing this object with any additional BGLComp XML placement parameters or with altitudeIsAgl="FALSE" could be expected to impact a default RWY texture display.


One might wish to be certain a P3D RWY displayed below the ISS is a "default" BGLComp-type, and not a custom Ground Polygon displayed with a ZBias:

https://www.google.com/#q=site:www.fsdeveloper.com+P3D+ground+polygon+ZBias


GaryGB

 

[kilobravo]

Hi Gary

I´m not used to make scenery and airports - just making minor changed.

Yesterday I tried to learn a little bit about the term ZBias - but I gave up.

In my experiments I have tried to change True to False in the XML . (no change)

But never mind. You mention ground polygons and you have given me an idea.
I´ll have to do a test.

Knud

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Knud:

Do you have OrbX FTX Global or another custom 3rd party airport scenery installed in P3d at KPAM ?

Also regarding KPAM "buildings" that disappear ...are they "Generic" or MDL-based BGLComp scenery library object building types ?

It would help us help you better, if you were to post "before and after" screenshots of the anomaly area at KPAM.

GaryGB

 

[kilobravo]

Hi

About KPAM - I don´t have any 3rd party scenery in that area.
The runways disappered and som Buildings. Haven´t checked generic or library.

What I´ve done now is a test in 2 steps.
I have choosen another position in jutland , Denmark and the station in 700.000 ft
Same result Difficult to spot in the altitude 700T and a Building disappered in a photoscenery
Then changed to another model which I know is made in GMAX - same result.
The Photo top is before Space station added in Library Scenery.
Added the scenery and the Building at position N57 E 10 disappered.

Now take a look at the XML file I used. Can it be the problem . Compiler used is Xml2BGl

Knud

 

[kilobravo]

Photoes

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Knud:

So, IIUC, a 3D model made in GMAX compiled as a MDL and packaged inside a BGLComp-type scenery library BGL and placed via BGLComp-type XML placement code in a BGL ...was "excluded" from display in P3Dv3x by having placed the ISS above that object at 32 - 35 km AGL ?


I see you are considering some of the optional BGLComp placement XML parameters:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526978.aspx#BiasXYZ


Bearing in mind that I do not yet have P3D to test this with, and that there are both known and undocumented code differences in P3D compared to FSX:

* biasZ = Bias along the latitudinal axis in meters, requires a Floating point value filled in, ex: "213360.0" ...if used in BgGLComp XML placement code.



BTW: I am not certain as to whether there may be any impact on this display anomaly, from also using NoZWrite or NoZTest in your BGLCompl XML placement code in either FSX or P3D, as this is rather poorly documented, and there is very little info on use of these parameters in the FS web forums:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/stock-birds-problem.76734/

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/xml2bgl-problem.435028/

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/keeping-the-autogen.3628/


GaryGB

 

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Is it possible you're looking way to deeply into this ?

You're discussing several seperate issues.

Not sure about your ISS model,
so for the moment please forget about the ISS model.

My reply below relates to buildings & airports viewed from -
1) Below 32km & @ Near ground level
2) Above 32km


1) Below 32km & @ Near ground level

There's an non-fixable issue,
identified during FSX beta, (2006),
due to the way some content was authored,

The issue affects some default FSX content,
which possibly carries over to default P3D content,
(and which might also affect some 3rd party models).

For affected content,
the issue occurs globally
wherever such content is utilised.

Where at certain angles
affected content will be culled from the viewport.
Either the content is not displayed at all,
or is partially visible, (as if a section has been chopped off).



Example test -
N.B. This is only from memory.

@ KMSO Missoula
Slew your aircraft onto the main apron
to face the terminal building (i.e. looking NE).

You should see the terminal ok.

Now without changing pitch,
slowly slew your aircraft vertically upwards.

The terminal building should start to cull,
eventually, with altitude, disappearing altogether.

Now without changing pitch,
slowly slew vertically downwards,
until the terminal building is partially culled.

Now using slew,
slowly pitch your aircraft downwards,
and the remainder of the building will display.

IIRC
Similar can be seen @ Bagram
from the default runway start position.


EDIT - IGNORE INCORRECT INFO BELOW

2) Above 32km
Again this is only from memory.

IIRC
From any viewpoint
originating at such altitudes,
or horizontal distances,
it doesn't matter whether you zoom in or not.
the LOD loaded does not load airports,
again IIRC, beyond approx 28km.



HTH
ATB
Paul

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Paul:

Thanks for the suggestion.


IIUC, you may be referring to this type of display issue in FSX:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/generic-buildings-disappear.20095/

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/disappearing-objects.424779/



IMHO, until we identify a way to avoid or mitigate this type of anomaly in both FSX and P3D via modification of ones work-flow (and/or that of others after-the-fact) with regard to scenery content creation and placement, we have not (yet) looked into this deeply enough.

I also believe this merits further inquiry, since we all have much more to learn about P3D, and because P3D is a work in progress which has known / un-known coding problems, and features yet to be optimized / fixed ...by a team which is reportedly still actively involved in- and concerned with- its development.

GaryGB

 

[kilobravo]

Hi Paul.
Thank you for your information.
I had considered to drop the "mission" 2 weeks ago, but came to conclusion that there might be other who have had the same experience.
No I have tried another model - same problem under 30 KM no problems.
If the object is 40KM above runway at ground (or Building if outside an airport) partly disappear and chasing the object in altitude 40KM fail as object often is invisible.
Same goes for higher altitude. NO problem seen in FSX.
I have considered if cameras could be the problem but I dont see the problem when object is used as pilotable object or as mentioned as an AI-Object on a route (AiBtc2).
So the library system ??? OR ??

Knud

 

[kilobravo]

Good morning
I´m still looking for an answer.
Tried to change a lot of entries.
I´ve made an object in Gmax ( 2 circles) - it is a stand-in for a satellite or /spacestation.
This link lead to a video which show what I experience.
Again excuse for repeating - No problem in FSX - Only when model is used in P3d as a library object and altitude above approx 35 KM.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oj0fevpflo2iwg/object_eddh.MP4?dl=0

Knud

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Roel:

As I mentioned previously, I do not yet have P3D to test this with.

But I believe this inquiry will be more productive for all wishing to better identify what is causing this display anomaly (and to better understand more about P3D), if you also attach to this thread, the Gmax test 3D object(s) you refer to in your latter post above, so others who have P3D v2.x and P3D 3.x can help troubleshoot this., and hopefully add to the FS Developer Community knowledge base regarding P3D and use of objects at higher latitudes in low Earth Geo-centric orbit.

GaryGB

 

[kilobravo]

Hi Gary

Sorry for a delayed answer.
As the problem - seen on my system - also go for non-Gmax I won´t take it further.
I´ll just place the object as mentioned using Aibtc2. That will do for the purpose and a grandson ( and his grandfather) will be happy.

I was hoping that updating to V3.2 would do the trick. But no...

Thank you for listening.

Knud

 

[GaryGB]

Hi Knud:

To help us all to better understand this type of altitude-related scenery object display anomaly in this thread (and perhaps other such threads elsewhere) in the future, please tell us whether any of the GMAX 3D models you tested as static objects at the various high altitudes in P3D, were compiled using the P3D v3.x SDK ...or were they instead compiled with the FSX SDK ?

Also, regarding the objects you seem to be successfully displaying as AI objects via AIBTC, please tell us whether any of the GMAX 3D models you tested at the various high altitudes in P3D, were compiled using the P3D v3.x SDK ...or were they instead compiled with the FSX SDK ?


Please note that I am referring specifically to 3D models compiled to MDLs via either FSX or P3D "X2MDL" compilers, and not just the BGLComp XML 'placement' BGLs.

GaryGB

 

[kilobravo]

Hi Gary
Can´t remember what I did weeks ago - (many experiments). Lately I used the SDK P3d

A new video ----

Airport EDDH Hamburg Germany.
As aircraft - Bruce Fitzgerald excellent Shuttle.
200 km above the (Gmax) model placed using XML and it shadows( exclude) buildings and runways.

I disable the scenery and now I have the same model as a moving object travelling 200 km above EDDH.

No problem to trace the object.

At the end of the video - again its the object placed as a bgl-file. Very difficult to find....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tvwopcszqe8n1p6/eddh_200KM.MP4?dl=0

I have tried different models --- old - new Gmax or not .

 

[kilobravo]

New tests - Now I have found that in some positions an object can stay visible above 35 km.

Further down a link to a 3 min. video. Sorry - it´s not very stable.
I´m not used to "Nvidia Shadowplay-recorder".
"A red house" made in Sketch-up will do as a "spacestation" in the video.

If I use an aircraft model or a ship made in Gmax - I see the same result.

IN FSX no problem - I can place a model ( bgl ) at altitude 400 km AND find/see it.

In P3d which I have updated as I have updated drivers for Nvidia - I see the same problem as last time.

In the video Airport EHAM (Amsterdam) at 130000 ft. OK. At 150000 ft some area/runways become invisible from some angles.
More important is that the object is more and more difficult to trace at the altitude.

In airport EBBR (Brussel) at 115000 ft OK but at 120000 runways partly is invisible.

( Not in the video)
I also tried EKAH Aarhus in Denmark - Ok at alt 112000 ft - but runway dis. from 113000 ft.
Just picked airport KCSM in US Clinton-Sherman -- Altitude 120000ft ok but problem from 130000 ft.

Why these differences ?? It can´t be Modelconverterx / compilers.
I notice that altitude in P3d for EHAM is minus 7 ft.

Wonder if any one have tried to do a placement in high altitude in P3D ??

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iar5x92vby9ko1g/Test P3d_Eham_Ebbr.MP4?dl=0

Knud