OK, when i create roads in my project (custom airport), they only display in FSX up to a certain point. Exactly how far from the ARP can a road be drawn before FSX will no longer display it. I have two areas where I can place objects and they display fine, I can add land class polys and they show fine, but when I draw a road, then "drive" down that road using a ground vehicle, it only displays in FSX up to a certain distance then vanishes, lights and all. So is there a limit as to how far out from the ARP that FSX can display road links, I'm not talking about "road vectors" I'm actually using "road links" . This has puzzled me from the start. Is there a MAX distance that roads will display and can this be increased? I'd like to be able to get my roads to display all the way out to these two areas. Right now all i can do is plot where the roads vanish and start placing "Street Light Objects" to mark where to travel, this is very time consuming and a real pain in the you know where.
-
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.
FSX Roads vanishing
- Thread starter Tomt478
- Start date
Not sure what you mean by "test". I've tried various settings for the ARP but still the same results. I think it must have something to do with some sort of FSX limitation and not anything to do with ADE. So I think is what I will do is just plot out where the roads vanish, to sort of get a "map" of the max distances, then just adjust the size of the land area to end where the max point is that roads vanish. That's the only thing I know to do to fix that problem. A bit of work, but it may be my only choice, or just leave it as-is and continue to just plot out where the roads lead and use street lights to mark out the route with.
See:
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/forum-software-update.459637/post-931278
I am having problems posting a reply to this- and other threads of yours ...here at FSDEV.
When I get some more available time, I plan to test if post size limits are toggled on.
I am actually surprised that this much text was successfully posted in my reply thus far.
GaryGB
Last edited:
Here is what IIUC, may constitute your answer from the ADE author:
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/drawing-road-lines.432518/
The answer I personally shall post here is:
* CVX vectors (aka 'land class' lines / polygons / Roads / Vector Autogen meta-objects "clip" at LOD-9 / QMID-11 quad borders.
NOTE: CVX vector Autogen meta-objects (default or custom) include ex: lines of 3D trees, poles, pylons, street lights etc.
* CVX vectors for display of Highway Traffic "clip" at LOD-13 / QMID-15 quad borders (smaller quad sizes).
To see how large those quad extents are on the FS ground (terrain) load the CVX vector data in SDK TMFViewer or SBuilderX.
SDK TMFViewer > View > QMID Grid > Level-11 (-or QMID-15; do not display both at the same time)
SBuilderX > View > QMID Grid > Level-11 (-or QMID-15; do not display both at the same time)
To see how large those quad extents are on the FS ground (terrain), you may review info I posted on TMF quad grid sizes ...here:
Code:
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flattens.425495/post-633002It is true that Freeway Traffic associated vehicles will vanish at QMID-15 quad borders; but typically they reappear promptly in the next adjacent quad, although it may be different single- or cluster of- vehicles that actually appears in adjacent quads.
On a practical basis, it may prove less labor-intensive to either use CVX vector Autogen meta-objects (default or custom) to place ex: lines / rows of 3D trees, poles, pylons, street lights etc..
I believe it may prove useful for you to review the default CVX vector objects available for you to use:
Code:
[URL]https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/microsoft-esp/cc707102(v=msdn.10)#the-shp2vec-tool[/URL]
[URL]https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/microsoft-esp/cc526968(v=msdn.10)[/URL]These are available from pick lists in ADE and SBuilderX, FSX_KML etc.
Otherwise, for a greater FPS hit, you could place lines of such 3D objects from scenery library object BGLs using special "group" placement features in ADE and a few other FS utilities.
I would again emphasize that you will incur greater likelihood of instability and unpredictable results if you attempt to use BGLComp compiled "airport" type objects to make Roads, instead of using CVX vectors clipped to TMF Grid quads that the FSX rendering engine can manage more efficiently.
Be aware that if you now have a goal of adding lines of street lights and/or other objects alongside roads, you can do that with CVX vectors, and they will be clipped at quad borders by the SDK SHP2VEC compiler for you automatically.
BTW: It is also possible to adjust the speed of travel for those Highway Traffic vehicles via single FSX 'tweak' setting.
In theory, if you slow the Freeway Traffic down, and reduce the density of same, you may be able to drive your Ground Vehicle on the same CVX Vector Roads and navigate amongst those vehicles (IIRC, they are non-collide-able, however).
GaryGB
Last edited:
Ouch! Sounds like a lot of trouble. I'm not actually having traffic go on those roads, only me and my other players will travel those roads. I kinda stopped with the traffic thing because of serious FPS hits, it was getting really bad the more traffic there was and getting the vectors straight, well that posed even a more painstaking issue. I kinda put that asside for now, I'll work on that when I can get a better GPU, I have a GTX 960 right now and it is a bit limitted as to what I can do. I just can't afford a newer GPU at this time. I'll deal with the vanishing roads thing later, I was just wondering if there was some easy way to solve it, like a setting or something, it appears not. I'll just mark out the paths with lights, at least we can tell where we are going that way, most traveling is done at night anyways.
Hi Tom:
Since we have initially been discussing related issues on this topic in your thread here:
...this project and subsequent related discussion has covered a lot of ground (literally and otherwise), as you have learned about options using various production tools, and as you have explored various possibilities for scenery to be displayed in FSX.
At this point I have to make decisions on how to further proceed with making a prototype "Hill" via CVX vectors.
I need to establish a base from which to work with regards to the Altitude for the scenery objects and the airports.
IIUC, you have expressed an interest in using airport type BGLComp compiled objects, possibly for the potential conveniences of detecting gaps in paved surfaces using Taxiway Paths via ADE Fault Finder, adding lines and lights to the center and edges of the paved surfaces etc.
You also mentioned wanting to use street lights, which IIUC, are intended to project light splashes from above the Road.
If this is done using 3D light poles and emissive 3D cones, the FPS hit is one of the most notorious in FSX.
If this is done using lines of group-placed light point "orbs", FPS is OK in FSX.
FPS is OK in FSX if these are also made as lines of group-placed 2D 1-sided omni-directional rotating Sprite Fx.
In addition, you have expressed an interest in having curves in Roads, and perhaps may envision curves on hillsides as well.
These latter things can all be done best in Sketchup as a 3D model, which when Geo-located, can be imported to MCX.
If MCX outputs a 3D MDL, and that MDL is imported, it can be placed at the imported Geo-location at an assigned Altitude.
That Altitude must be manually specified relative to the CVX vectors it is intended to interface with in the local terrain render.
You may wish to test display of this scenery without a flatten under any airport objects to see if it renders OK on default terrain.
You do not require a flatten if you do not intend to use A.I. Aircraft and/or Airport Ground Vehicle Traffic (this yields better FPS).
My point here is: some "airport" type BGLComp compiled objects may be terrain mesh clinging with no airport flatten.
A core issue here is the rendering burden in FSX on your current computer build while frame-grabbing / compiling / streaming.
I have suggested using CVX vector Roads and Freeway Traffic (dialed back on speed and density), to un-burden FSX rendering.
IMHO, it is not necessary for this scenery to be a "arena" sunk in the ground in a region with 6,000+ Foot elevations IRL.
While it is true some aircraft and user ground vehicles may begin having issues with engine power at that elevation, if you will use a specific aircraft and ground vehicle to transport passengers on a streamed basis, they can be tweaked to work OK in FSX.
I recall you had considered the pros and cons of changing the assigned Altitude for this scenery, and decided to leave it as is.
I believe this may hinder some aspects of making the scenery visually interesting to your passengers, even though you have stated a greater proportion of the intended activity may be at night.
The possibilities of the FSX scenery engine (even though limited to only 'baked' PBR and shadowing if compared to MSFS) are rather extensive and somewhat less challenging to implement considering the still early stage of MSFS SDK DevMode features.
I shall await your further discussion of this with me prior to proceeding with a prototype "Hill" based on ARP Altitude +100 Ft.
Again, I remind you that the ARP Altitude can be matched to a IRL local terrain mesh surface, and centered on a sloped RWY.
GaryGB
Since we have initially been discussing related issues on this topic in your thread here:
Code:
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/making-a-landable-mountain-using-ade-for-fsx.459364/...this project and subsequent related discussion has covered a lot of ground (literally and otherwise), as you have learned about options using various production tools, and as you have explored various possibilities for scenery to be displayed in FSX.
At this point I have to make decisions on how to further proceed with making a prototype "Hill" via CVX vectors.
I need to establish a base from which to work with regards to the Altitude for the scenery objects and the airports.
IIUC, you have expressed an interest in using airport type BGLComp compiled objects, possibly for the potential conveniences of detecting gaps in paved surfaces using Taxiway Paths via ADE Fault Finder, adding lines and lights to the center and edges of the paved surfaces etc.
You also mentioned wanting to use street lights, which IIUC, are intended to project light splashes from above the Road.
If this is done using 3D light poles and emissive 3D cones, the FPS hit is one of the most notorious in FSX.
If this is done using lines of group-placed light point "orbs", FPS is OK in FSX.
FPS is OK in FSX if these are also made as lines of group-placed 2D 1-sided omni-directional rotating Sprite Fx.
In addition, you have expressed an interest in having curves in Roads, and perhaps may envision curves on hillsides as well.
These latter things can all be done best in Sketchup as a 3D model, which when Geo-located, can be imported to MCX.
If MCX outputs a 3D MDL, and that MDL is imported, it can be placed at the imported Geo-location at an assigned Altitude.
That Altitude must be manually specified relative to the CVX vectors it is intended to interface with in the local terrain render.
You may wish to test display of this scenery without a flatten under any airport objects to see if it renders OK on default terrain.
You do not require a flatten if you do not intend to use A.I. Aircraft and/or Airport Ground Vehicle Traffic (this yields better FPS).
My point here is: some "airport" type BGLComp compiled objects may be terrain mesh clinging with no airport flatten.
A core issue here is the rendering burden in FSX on your current computer build while frame-grabbing / compiling / streaming.
I have suggested using CVX vector Roads and Freeway Traffic (dialed back on speed and density), to un-burden FSX rendering.
IMHO, it is not necessary for this scenery to be a "arena" sunk in the ground in a region with 6,000+ Foot elevations IRL.
While it is true some aircraft and user ground vehicles may begin having issues with engine power at that elevation, if you will use a specific aircraft and ground vehicle to transport passengers on a streamed basis, they can be tweaked to work OK in FSX.
I recall you had considered the pros and cons of changing the assigned Altitude for this scenery, and decided to leave it as is.
I believe this may hinder some aspects of making the scenery visually interesting to your passengers, even though you have stated a greater proportion of the intended activity may be at night.
The possibilities of the FSX scenery engine (even though limited to only 'baked' PBR and shadowing if compared to MSFS) are rather extensive and somewhat less challenging to implement considering the still early stage of MSFS SDK DevMode features.
I shall await your further discussion of this with me prior to proceeding with a prototype "Hill" based on ARP Altitude +100 Ft.
Again, I remind you that the ARP Altitude can be matched to a IRL local terrain mesh surface, and centered on a sloped RWY.
GaryGB
Last edited:
Most travel is done at night, (this is game specific) and I don't have a problem with using street lights, it really don't affect FPS that much. I did manage to use "road" vectors where the actual physical roads vanish, and they show up decent enough to "drive" on, so I'm using those for those areas, so I'm no lnger concerned about the road vanishing problem, as far as I'm concerned, it's soved good enough for me. As far as visuals go, I can deal with some mesh problems, I have to keep most of my graphics setting in FSX low anyway because my GPU can't handle higher settings without serious FPS hits. I pretty much have everything set to the bare max which gives me a fairly good sim experience, I can raise things up a bit when flying though, but at ground level while "driving", I have to keep things lower because of the "detail" that has to be displayed at ground level. BTW:I just picked 100ft for the max height of the mountain as a "test of concept" that makes it high enough that players can "see" over the landscape from the edge of the mountain at the very top. I'm also going to be placing a "Castle or Palace" at the very top also, again this is a "game specific" thing. I'm still writing the "storyline" for the "search and rescue" scenario which I would like to start sometime in the spring or summer of this year. There will be a lot of little "side" scenarios happening at the same time as well, so I'll be constantly adding to the project, eventually having to "expand" to new areas of land elsewhere on the planet. The game actually takes place on another planet, which is why I was so interested in changing water colors and land colors, along with light colors and adding effects. "We're not in Kansas anymore...lol". I want to make the world more "alien" than plain ole Earth.
While your vision for use of the 3D world rendering engine of FS SDK is less commonly a focus of activity for those here at FSDEV forums, it is- (after consideration by those actually willing to "think outside the box") ...interesting- as a fulfillment of the potential MS-ACES saw in FS as a platform that can be adapted for multiple genres of simulation (dare I say "Gaming" ?
).It will not be long until we have more IRL Missions to Earth's Moon, and to Mars, and as ASOBO has already announced a driving simulation that AFAIK, utilizes the MSFS 3D world platform, we may soon be in for some potentially 'fun' times, doing things we never thought we would end up enjoying (in contrast to the often 'joyless striving' of FS Development working with a 'fetal' SDK).
We may see MS Moon and Mars simulators either as add-ons, or derived simulations based on MSFS (aka "Fuel" game engine).
And of course, having Adventures / Missions / Career modes would further enhance RPG entertainment potential in such titles.
I encourage you to patiently keep working on your skills with the FS SDK in FSX / P3D / MSFS ...to fulfill your vision and goals.
GaryGB
Last edited:
Oh intend to keep on working on things. At times it gets frustrating, but the rewards are worth the effort. RPG has become more and more popular in the past few years, more and more gaming ideas and evolution of gaming systems has really skyrocketed. I remember the time when D&D was just simply that, a game of storytelling in a fantasy world of magic, but now, with the addition of the new D&D game system, possibilities are endless, hence is why I can now make more use out of my flight sim that at the time costs some really BIG bucks. No one has ever thought of using something like this and I wanted to be the first Game Master to actually utilize something other than just the basic rule set for D&D. The new gaming system is so versitile, anything is now possible. It still requires a lot more storytelling than it used to, but that's the fun of it. It's really a great past time and it's good when you have had a stressful day. I'm hoping one day to see a sim that is similar to FSX, or any other Flight Sim, that takes you to the far reaches of the galaxy and allows you to explore worlds, either by using real-time textures and mesh content, or by using fantasy creations of new worlds, sort of like your own Star Trek simulator where you can create your own missions to other worlds. Heck I'd even like to see a Stargate simulation in the near future. As people like me learn to use the tools available (and I really hope more tools will be created), just maybe these fantasies can come to life. With computers becoming more and more powerful for the home user, anything can be possible. Only time will tell. (Of course there is always that little problem of MONEY)