|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jan 29, 2010 10:35:05 GMT -5
Wow, looking better and better. Thanks!
One thing you can try is to split up the hotel into two parts, and see if they make it into FS.
If you still can't get the hotel into FS, send it along and I'll see what I can do.
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Jan 29, 2010 17:03:01 GMT -5
Tom, I just separated the Hotel into two pieces: the main structure, and the complex "grid" of windows on both sides. It's the grid of windows that isn't compiling properly, so that's where I'll focus my attention. I think there's some polygons in the wrong place/overlapping. Here's a picture of what I have so far, in SketchUp prior to export. The detailed sides don't show up at all below the restaurant (the arched awnings), and only partially on the other end of the building. Now I'm having a little trouble with the Main Terminal. But I think I know where the problem is. I do have a few questions, though. Can you help? 1) SketchUp repeats textures to fill a polygon. Does the number of times it repeats affect frame rate? In other words, are bigger textures covering a larger area better than smaller textures repeated over and over? 2) Which is better in regards to frame rates: one large structure with many polygons, or multiple structures with lower individual polygon counts? 3) When I'm saving library objects in FS using InstantScenery, do you save to a new bgl or save to the library bgl created in LibraryCreatorXML? 4) Can textures be any size as long as they're a multiple of 256? And does a larger size affect frame rate? Here's one more shot of my next project. Ten minutes of actual work is all this took. The texturing comes later. I also need to add the "Fly Eastern Air Lines" signs. Thanks! Al
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jan 29, 2010 17:52:42 GMT -5
Hi,
There are no hard and fast rules in scenery making, because what is true in one particular situation may not be true in another.
But here goes:
1. A small texture repeated is much better than 1 large texture.
2. It doesn't matter - it's the total number of polygons that is important.
3. I'm not sure what you mean here. I always keep my library BGL files created with Library Creator separate from my "placement" BGL files created with Instant Scenery. My library BGL files have names like KBUR_library.BGL and my placement files KBUR_ez.BGL (ez = EZ-Scenery).
4. The maximum size for a texture in FS2004 is 1024 x 1024; in FSX they can go up to 2048 x 2048. Other than that, they can be any power of 2 from 4 x 4 to 1024 x 1024. So 8 x 8, 32 x 32, and 512 x 512 are all valid sizes.
The larger the size, the bigger hit on frame rate. But there is not a huge hit - the bigger hit is on your video card. Eventually it will choke and stop loading textures into FS.
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Jan 29, 2010 23:51:50 GMT -5
Tom, Thanks for the great answers. I'm making some changes now. Gotta' go. I'll be back in three days. Al
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jan 31, 2010 1:37:29 GMT -5
Have a good trip.
Oh, you can also have non-square textures, but they also have to be powers of 2 (like 256 x 128).
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jan 31, 2010 15:54:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Feb 1, 2010 16:21:23 GMT -5
Oh, Tom. You have no idea how much that helps! Thanks for your efforts. Amazing, as usual.
And thanks for the advice about non-square textures. I didn't know that, and it will help dramatically.
Al
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 1, 2010 17:48:29 GMT -5
Glad to help. BTW, the latest development version of ModelConverterX includes a Mass Texture editor, which will automatically convert any JPG to a DXT BMP file, and will convert non-power of 2 textures into those sizes. I will modify my tutorial soon to cover that. It's really handy, because it will also change all of the texture names in the MCX materials to use the new names - makes renaming quick and easy. A couple of caveats: 1. Do not use the BMP conversion - it converts the images to 32 bit textures, which is bad on frame rates - use the DXTBMP format (or DDS for FSX). 2. If you use a custom 8 bit (256 color) BMP file in Sketchup and don't want it converted into DXT BMP format, you can just change the name in the Name box of the Mass Texture Editor and MCX will change the name of the texture in your MCX material(s). BUT it will not create a copy of the file with the new name in the folder you specify - you have to manually make a copy and rename it. This is not true for textures that you actually check one of the conversion boxes - those will be copied and renamed automatically. You can view a short video that describes how it works: www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18521Hope this helps,
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Feb 1, 2010 23:17:44 GMT -5
Tom, Wow! That'll make things a lot easier. I watched the video a little while ago. I'll need to go through it again, though. Having started the work day at 3:45am, I'm not exactly coherent. BTW, here's a little side project I cooked up while taking a break from bashing my head against Miami. Guess where? I'll give you a hint: it's a very friendly place. Al
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 2, 2010 12:16:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Feb 2, 2010 12:23:05 GMT -5
Tom,
It does help. Thanks for that.
Another quick scenery question: one of the airports I'm now working on used a different ICAO identifier back in the classic period. How do I go about changing the ID without ending up with two airports at the same location?
I'm still working on Miami. I've decided to try and use textures for the hotel sides and other details that aren't meant to be viewed from up close. The frame rate hit with the terminal, tower, and hotel together was a little excessive, especially since I hadn't even added other scenery details or AI traffic. I think it will work much better, but it does set me back quite a bit.
Al
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 2, 2010 13:00:21 GMT -5
Hi again, I don't know where that airport terminal is from, but it looks great. I agree that putting most of the details into textures will certainly help the frame rate. If you are getting a frame rate hit (at all) with just the scenery alone, you will definitely be in trouble when you add the AI traffic. Sorry for the setback, though. As for changing the ICAO code, basically the answer is it can be done but not cleanly. You can create the retro airport with the old code and then erase all of the default airport using ExcBuilder, AFCAD, and a terrain polygon program like SBuilder or Ground2K4 (if needed), but the default airport will still be present on the Map and in the Select Aircraft menu. As close as you can get.
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Feb 2, 2010 14:59:47 GMT -5
Tom, Thanks! I think I may have to bend to the system limitations and leave the identifier the way it is. BTW, the airport in question is... Baltimore-Friendship Airport (now Baltimore-Washington International), circa 1957. The terminal is almost done, as is the AFCAD. I may be able to release this one by the end of the week, free time permitting. Here's a link to some photos. For those who aren't aware, Google now has access to the Life Magazine photo archive. There's lots of neat photos available. Check out the photo essays on Atlanta, Chicago-Midway, Baltimore-Friendship, Eastern Air Lines, etc. images.google.com/images?q=friendship+airport&q=source%3AlifeHere's the main link: images.google.com/hosted/lifeBe patient with the search engine. It's...well...terrible. Searching for "Baltimore Friendship Airport," "Baltimore Airport," and "Friendship Airport" returns different results. Often, your results are dependent on things like spelling "airline" versus "air line." Good luck! This is a little detour from the much more complex Miami, but it's gone more smoothly because of what I've learned from Miami. Al
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 2, 2010 15:59:09 GMT -5
Fantastic! I've never seen that picture before. Do you need an airport diagram from 1958? I'm sure that's in my new acquisition.
|
|
|
Post by acourt on Feb 2, 2010 16:20:25 GMT -5
Any diagrams you have would be great! The only aerial survey I can find is from historicaerials.com. Unfortunately, the entire southeast corner of the field is missing from the 1964 and 1957 imagery. And while much of the original pavement still exists today on the west side of the field, the entire east side of BWI is different from the classic period.
|
|