• 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.

Still learning

Thanks Gary !

Right now I have a three-tiered plan:

1) design the model as I would for an architect, not really focused on FSX performance. I use some default Sketchup textures and some MS default textures.
Just want to see what that gives in terms of polygons and such.

2) Next could be your solution... since I have a fully textured model by now. But I can further improve it by deleting all unnecessary details, lines and faces.

3) Ultimately I want to design the same model but add custom made textures to it....... It will greatly improve texture quality, but is harder because you need fitting textures.

The latter means that I will need a different 'look' when making texture photographs. Until now I have been more looking for complete models of buildings and objects and shoot them from as many sides and details as possible.
But that doesn't work very well for buildings you design off the cuff..... nothing fits and it is a lot of work to cut and paste and knit textures together. Doesn't look very well either in many cases.

So there.... I'm not done yet :-D
 
And here is the result of today's work..... my eyes hurt now.....

ABF-013-L.png


ABF-027-L.png


ABF-022-L.png


ABF-025-L.png


ABF-026-L.png


ABF-021-L.png
 
Looks excellent, Francois ! :)


Okay, go ahead, you've earned it... reward yourself (and make us all even more fascinated) by posting yet another screenie, this time rendered (using the same Sketchup model and materials) with the free trial of IRender nXt: :p

http://www.renderplus.com/htm/download.htm



FYI: I was amazed... using the IRender nXt trial version inside Sketchup really is as easy as this video shows ! :wizard:

Simple Exterior Rendering Using Irender nXt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEBoFKvZ-ng



PS: My eyes are sore now too... "cause the future's so bright, I gotta' wear shades". :cool:


Keep up the great work ! ;)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Pretty expensive stuff that is !!! I'm looking at some other renderers too.

Mind you, it looks nice, but then it will be a disappointment seeing the same model in-game in FSX, won't it ? ;-)
 
Hello,

Finally found somebody that is also figuring out how to use GSU and MCX to make FSX scenery.
I went through the same Sketchup problems and possibilities as you do and I am still learning as well, but, although you have made a very nice building, it might have been better to apply photoreal textures and thereby minimizing the GSU triangles. Substituting them by photoreal texture sheets (if you how to do it and if not, it is worthwhile to learn it) would lower your poly count if you delete all those polygons that have become unnecessary (to give depth to the windows, for instance).
I am still making the same 'mistakes' as you are, namely trying to make the model in GSU more detailed than in should be necessary for FS.
It will look very nice in FSX for sure, but you will get punished for it because of the number of polygons and drawcalls your building will have.
 
Well, yes, but that's where Plan B and C come in ;-)

And yes, I know how to do photo textures. I already made my own house and a Nissen hut in GSU and ported them to FSX half a year ago. I understand it is the preferred way of doing things performance-wise. But in this case tough to find the textures I wanted. So I started with this fantasy work to get started, if nothing else ;-)
 
Last edited:
The FS scenery development process involves so many options and complexities, one might say we are all "Still Learning" ! :o


Thankfully Sketchup offers the option to 'update' custom imported texture image materials after interactive graphical edits, photoreal or other special rendering etc.:

http://www.sketchupartists.org/tuto...p/use-image-editing-software-inside-sketchup/


BTW: Sketchup also offers the option to composite one's 'co-planar' materials after mapped as textures (after any interactive graphical edits, photoreal or other special rendering etc.) via the "Combine Textures" feature.

Additionally (after saving a copy of a model) one might be able to simplify certain parts of a models geometry prior to re-applying such 'Combined Textures': :idea:

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18600



It would seem there is quite a lot one can do to ensure that a model will blend into the scenery environment of the FS world, so that one's custom scenery objects don't look too 'cartoonish' or too sharply defined etc., while also optimizing for FS performance at run time. :p



Hmmm... now for a bit more study on Geo-locating models created entirely from scratch inside Sketchup, to better control lighting for photoreal rendering setup, and to optimize the model appearance for an intended placement destination inside FS. :cool:


Thanks for sharing your progress with us on this auspicious project, Francois ! :)


[EDITED]
PS: Just as a break from work on ones' own projects, this is an interesting walk-through of how one can make a scene full of objects from scratch and render them to look very realistic in Sketchup.

One might wonder if there might be a few things we all could consider from this workflow in an effort to achieve better lighting / shadowing of objects which can be captured to finished textures, and then mapped back onto models with reduced complexity.

http://www.sketchupartists.org/tutorials/sketchup-and-advanced-modeling/the-river-runs-through-it/

< Sigh > ...Well, at least one can dream of such things while still learning the basics ! :D

[END_EDIT]


GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Thanks Robystar...... by the way... ik woon niet zo ver bij je vandaan... Blokker, bij Hoorn ;-)
 
Hi Gary,

that's an awesome scene that developer made.

It is also truly DISGUSTING !!

Why!? Because he said he made it in only 3 weeks......... :eek::eek::eek::eek:

I spend 4 hours to try and find out how to make a tube with a bend in it in GSU. FOUR HOURS for one little tube..... and now it doesn't fit and I have to start anew! :mad:

:D:D

Smugmug won't let me uplaod currently.. bowaaah.. I made some nice renders (thank you for the tip, THAT cost me the rest of my day !) for you.... they are on Facebook now.
 
Hi Francois:

Oops.... sorry I tempted you into the wee small hours with that rendering "adventure" ! :o


Oh, and "tube-bad" about the tube scaling mishap. :p

But... don't give up on that tube yet !


After the tube is made into a "group", I'm not sure if the tube can be scaled the way you need it to be by using the 'default' GSU Scale tool.



FYI: It might be easier instead to scale it with this superb Ruby 'plug-in' for Sketchup: FredoScale. :idea:

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=17948



...Another option might be SketchyFFD:

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=6029

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?t=8295



[EDITED]
Sorry for the further temptation, but see also these potential "time savers":

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=28782



FYI: "Sketchucation" is one of several excellent forums for GSU that has a free registration with no spam etc.

After you login, the links all display and you can download.


Another outstanding Sketchup / Ruby plug-in resource (apparently hosted out of Nancy, France):


http://translate.google.com/transla...er+Bur+ruby&hl=en&biw=1045&bih=666&prmd=ivnso

BTW: Some exceptional Ruby plug-ins there are written by a notable French contributor to both the Sketchup and FS Communities ;)

[END_EDIT]


Hope this helps ! :)

GaryGB
 
Last edited:
Thanks Gary, much appreciated !

The tube now works too, but it is a hell of a lot of work making one !
 
Francois said:
Pretty expensive stuff that is !!! I'm looking at some other renderers too.

Mind you, it looks nice, but then it will be a disappointment seeing the same model in-game in FSX, won't it ? ;-)
Click to expand...

Well, the chief benefit of having a good renderer is that IF you carefully render all four sides, you can then use those renders as your "photoreal textures" for a simplified version of the same building!

I do this all the time in Max. I over model something, create a good render, then use the rendered image as my texture for a simpler version of the same object.
 
Renders

This one is for Gary...... a few renders I made (I tried three different programs.. the one that seems to work best is nXtRender so far).

ABF-021.png


FlyingSchool-color-MStex-back6-L.png


FlyingSchool-color-MStex-back2-L.png


And now for my next trick.....

..... mainly because I got sort of 'tired' from the 'house' even though it is not yet finished.....

FSAD-Sonoma-Tank-2-L.png


That bit of tube you see there really took me four hours to figure out.. after dozens of re-starts.
And now it is too thick, so I need to figure out how to make it thinner.

I DID find the trick with the Follow-me tool, and if anyone is interested, I'll be happy to explain.

Phew !!!

(By the way, the fuel tank and associated objects will be photo textures from pictures I took last year in the US).
 
Last edited:
n4gix said:
Well, the chief benefit of having a good renderer is that IF you carefully render all four sides, you can then use those renders as your "photoreal textures" for a simplified version of the same building!

I do this all the time in Max. I over model something, create a good render, then use the rendered image as my texture for a simpler version of the same object.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill, I was wondering about doing that (I think Gary also tried to make me understand the same point, but I'm a bit slow....... much like my renderers... hmmfff).
 
Thanks ... :D:D

I especially like the first and the last for some reason. They remind me of my plastic model kits of yesteryear, before painting. Somehow they convey more 'realism' than a painted model ?
 
Indeed, both the hard and soft shadow versions look quite realistic. :)


Hmmm... I'm wondering if the renderer automatically changes its behavior if one prevents a "volumetric shadow" by deleting the bottom face of the main building (and the 'ceiling' below the roof extrudes), so those structures are 'hollow' inside... or if shadow control is still achievable via the renderers' GUI regardless of solid or hollow models.


IMHO, "some" 3-D scenery shadow in FS looks good "if" one can keep the performance hit down by limiting polys / vertices / draw calls.

[EDITED]
But alternatively, via such rendering, one might of course derive a 'top-down' soft gradient shadow texture to be used on a thin planar "shadow FS scenery library object"- (not to be confused with a custom textured ground poly) -for XML placement on the FS ground in exact alignment with the model it originally came from. :idea:

[END_EDIT]


Seems to me I've seen "Orb-zilla" use this approach to 'doing shadowy things' ! :laughing:


Use of that option would allow one to totally suppress the shadow during import of a model to FS via attribute display controls available in MCX. ;)


GaryGB
 
Last edited:
I never use object shadow in FS because it hurts my performance too much. But I've seen some developers use a fake shadow in their designs. I noticed some people at Orbx put a fading square underneath their buildings, achieving some sort of fuzzy shadowing along the base of the walls. The shadow is a separate object in the bgl for each object in that case ;)
 
From what I've seen the shadow in their stuff is in the photoscenery.bgl file, basically blanking out the building on the orthophoto in case of "building lean" in an off NADIR image... ;-)

As for the extra detail in the modeling you can just LOD the high res stuff for when you get up close, and do as has been said, create a lower LOD model with just texturing for the windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top