Jump to content

Study and search for new solutions.


Recommended Posts

Study and search for new solutions.  (Taken from my blog  "http://scenarialpinifsx.blogspot.it/")
After the recent polls, I would like to introduce you to the development of my recent studies to improve the 3D technique..


1) improvement of the technique of texture 4K Alps, Grand Jorasse 3D model, comparison 2K - 4K:

 

compara1.jpg

 

If we approach the wall, the difference is more sensitive:

 

compara2.jpg

 

 

2) Technical 3D construction, differences compared to conventional models, orthophotos + DEM.
Example Mont Blanc (Alps):

 

comp3.jpg

 

The difference is remarkable, even if the shape of the mountain with the sun conventional mesh (LOD11) are very valid.

Another example, Rocky Mountains Area Lake Powell Arizona, Tower Butte:

 

Comp61.jpg

 

This tower is also possible to land, there is a helicopter service to start from Page city
.
In the same area, the famous "horseshoe" horseshoebaned in 3D, in this case a mountain upside down:

 

Page1.jpg

 

 

Another area Rocky Mountains, this time to the north in Canada, one of the lakes (Lake Moraine) most photographed:

 

comp8.jpg

 

in the US in Wyoming Grand Teton National Park, part of the beautiful scenery Orbx KJAC:

 

KJAC.jpg

 

 

A recent poll on the forum Orbx, I had several suggestions, repeatedly requested the scenery of Mount Rushmore

the famous presidents carved into the rock. In FSX basic we are already represented, I tried a more detailed version of the famous faces:

 

comp12.jpg

 

This is the classic case of a small scenario, very detailed but limited in expansion, which may  have little success,

despite the considerable efforts and the exceptional nature of construction.

 

Such as the famous waterfalls of the Angels in Venezuela:

 

Ima2.jpg

 

 

 

Completely different, but it has found little enthusiasm in the recent poll  ... the EVEREST +
8000 mt mountains:

 

Everest3DNorth.jpg

 

Monsoon season

Everest3DNorthPM2.jpg

 

This scenery is undoubtedly very large, but everything completely mountainous ... Ideal scenery  for a developer of  3D mountains.

 

Build  scenery commercial or freeware is always a very complex work. Not all construction phases are stimulating, but often repetitive and very influenced by other factors (mesh of third parties, lack of standard models ...).
Each developer has their own method of work, most   artisanal, no automatism. Often a good risult obtained, is undercut (at the user level),  for the different configurations of the simulator, which may be optimal for a type of scenario and on the contrary very bad for others.
For my part, I have to be honest, i'm more stimulated by small detailed scenery, rather than large scenery.

 

Thanks for your attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting.  Allow me some remarks as a user


 


- There is a need for a balance between suspension of disbelief and fluidity of the simulation, knowing that we fly along these peaks  at a minimum speed of 160 km/h and most of the time much faster. I do not see much difference between 2K and 4K resolution in your first example. Is it worth a penalty on the FPS as both look OK ? However, the difference is stunning between 3D and mesh (Mont Blanc and Rockies). Even zooming  around with a fighter aircraft, one looks fake, one looks like the real thing. Now I'm ready for a reasonable hit on the FPS ! Amazing job you do !


 


- About the "little enthusiasm" for the Everest in your recent poll. The issue is that besides the wonderful job you could do out of it, the default India/Nepal land cover and default airports around  would still be awful. When OpenLC Asia is released, my guess is that you will see many of us much more enthusiastic for the Himalayas. That's why I voted for the Alps. Not because I'm French but because there is such a thing as Open LC EU in which your work can nicely nest.


 


I'd love your conclusion. We think of a craftman as a jeweler with his tiny tools or a potter wth his hand full of wet clay . In our days and ages, the craftmen use digits and virtual tools . You guys are the craftmen of the 21st century.


  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for Dominque's statement.


 


Those excellent 3D models wow me :) - the trick is finding the right context.  It makes sense to add them to OLC areas or regions.  I think Devil's Tower is a great showcase, but it's the first time I flew in that part of the world because of being outside a region or OLC area (though OLC NA is next).  So of course I'd love an Everest, Table Mountain or Torres del Paine, but maybe waiting for local OLCs & regions is a good idea, to maximise the effect.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Frank. Your detail work is absolutely stunning and a joy to fly in.There may indeed be long hours of boring and repetitive work for you but the end results are very much appreciated and your work looked forward to. The detail makes me want to slow down, get real close and just plain marvel at.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your work looks amazing to me and it appears you have already been able to build many mountains. What I would wish is that you

simply started building all the rock formations -- the mountains, plateaus, arches, towers, etc -- all of the rock formations

that can be found in the American southwest.

Can you make 3D objects that cover a large area? Some areas have oddly textured rock - the Badlands for example. I don't know

if modeling would suit that or if mesh was better but if models could be made that could be as the ground is over large areas

then I that would be cool. The sand dunes in Australia seem to be mesh and that looks good so maybe its better to be mesh?

The only reason I wouldn't want something like Mt Everest is because theres no other reason to fly there. Devils Tower and

Monument Valley are both places I will see more often. Any area that has reasons to fly there is a good place for mountain addons.

thanks for this thread on your work.

Have you considered building "cliff-face" generic objects that could be inserted into the existing mesh? In the Appalachians there are mostly rolling low mountains but there are many cliff faces where rivers and streams have carved down

over time - hundreds and thousands of feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank, I've been a user of your scenery since you first published it some 4 or 5 years ago, and really appreciate your work. I look forward to whatever's next now that you've teamed up with Orbx. These look just great. Please, however, don't put Mt. Rushmore over Mt. Everest. That would be placing the absurd over the truly magnificent. 


 


Robert


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, grazie per questo excursus (sorry, only four stressful years of Latin :D ).


Very mouth-watering examples here.


Do you use cylidrical projection or frontal projection from each side, or any other mapping method?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Tim & Ken are also casting around for ideas on a new area - could there be potential for collaboration?  e.g. a rugged island/highland scenery with a bunch of vertical mountains?

This could be a great idea for your Venezuela scenery, Angel Falls and the surrounding plateau mountains as 3d models and some small airports by Tim and Ken to give us something to do In the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the comments ...

As I said, these are experimental models for the study of 3D technology.
There is a lot of manual work (handicraft) and little automation.
Each mountain is studied thoroughly (each side) and reconstructed on the basis of the original DEM. I do manual retouching to improve the appearance. Normally i use 3D professional graphics programs.
For UV maps i use "unfold3D" and "UVMapper" , cropping  areas manually texture, according to the characteristics of the mountains (ridges, peaks, canyons, glaciers ....).

I apply photographic textures, following exactly the features of the mountain.

For the building a mountain in 3D,  need about 20 steps, in total 15-18 hours of work (in  several days).
The main problem is still the placement in FSX (P3D).
I must change the base-mesh, modify the ground to enter the model without overlapping.
Long work with many attempts. And 'This is the hardest part.

 

The end result can reward all the work.

here is the "best"  Devils Tower before and after my job.

 

comp4.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Tim & Ken are also casting around for ideas on a new area - could there be potential for collaboration?  e.g. a rugged island/highland scenery with a bunch of vertical mountains?

 

Great idea, I don't know  why but the King Kong island came to my mind. Isn't it in the South Pacific ?

 

 

The main problem is still the placement in FSX (P3D).

 

 

 Indeed, it is a challenge to blend any 3D model into the scenery. That is the reason why, I guess,  highrises or bridges etc often look like having been just put on the ground, not really integrated into it. Your Devil Tower is quite impressive  !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea, I don't know  why but the King Kong island came to my mind. Isn't it in the South Pacific ?

:) :) :)

Or maybe Conan Doyle's Lost World with dinosaur-flow?

 

Come to think of it, and seeing Venezuela mentioned, Mount Roraima and environs might make an interesting scenery.  It's an unusual and interesting shape with quite a few vertical cliffs.  Plus there are a few airports within sightseeing range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another that's well away from the beaten track is the Pedras Negras (black rocks) in Malanje province, Angola.  This is an unusual extended rock formation, with an interesting history of medieval tribal kingdoms and colonial occupation.  There's a nearby airfield at Capanda (FNCP), though it's not in default P3D (nor the dam) so would need modelled too.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the suggestions, very interesting.

The  mountains 3D (3D objects) of all over the planet, it would a project ambitious and very stimulating.
But without a scenery support (airports, cities, vegetation ....) it would not have much success. On the contrary, I should be doing 3D mountains of existing scenery.
... EIGER example, the scenery Swiss Pro (pay) has the vertical wall of the Eiger very roughly.
my reconstruction is faithful to reality:

 

compara1.jpg

 

I am available to work with other developers (Orbx) with this objective.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stunning, it looks like the real thing, Frank ! A remark and a question to follow up.


 


When John V recently opened a poll for the next fat region in Europe, we were quite a few to spontaneously propose that it should a cross-border Alps region. Another choice was made (Germany). No regret but it showed that there is a market.  As you seem to have already designed some peaks, the Eiger, the Grande Jorasse, the Montblanc, why dont you package them (maybe with the JungFrau and the Matterhorn, I know I'm greedy) in an OpenLC EU addon ? Sorry, if it is too naive a question. Life is generally more complicated ;) !


  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stunning, it looks like the real thing, Frank ! A remark and a question to follow up.

 

When John V recently opened a poll for the next fat region in Europe, we were quite a few to spontaneously propose that it should a cross-border Alps region. Another choice was made (Germany). No regret but it showed that there is a market.  As you seem to have already designed some peaks, the Eiger, the Grande Jorasse, the Montblanc, why dont you package them (maybe with the JungFrau and the Matterhorn, I know I'm greedy) in an OpenLC EU addon ? Sorry, if it is too naive a question. Life is generally more complicated ;) !

+1

 

Since OpenLC EU I do quite a bit of Alpine flying, and this would be very welcome.  OK, I'm greedy too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank can work without LC even, see Monument Valley and Devils Tower. ;)


As Switzerland and Austria weren't even on the poll my hope is that Holger draws the boundaries of Germany, France and Italy rather generously.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i was Frank, i would work for Global + openLC as base making particular mountains that generally the mesh can't reproduce so well when the slope is very prominent and cause blurries to the textures.


Don't forget that many mountains are covered by trees, and using 3D objects you can't autogen the mountain anymore, so it becomes difficult to create the vegetation, you can only use library objects for that.


I have the same wish of Vora, because i know very well the Holger mesh, also my Cote d'Azur has got special mesh made by Holger, i wasn't happy with the default mesh and i asked his help to improve the scenery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank can work without LC even, see Monument Valley and Devils Tower. ;)

As Switzerland and Austria weren't even on the poll my hope is that Holger draws the boundaries of Germany, France and Italy rather generously.

Volker

 

I suppose he can hence the question ;) !

 

On the other hand, OrbX is embarked on a North GE project pushing a possible South GE into 2017 and, anyway, Holger got to draw the Southern borders VERY generously to include all of the peaks we are speaking of (including CH).

 

Discounting the geopolitical dimension of putting the Montblanc or the Matterhorn in a product labelled Southern Germay :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 .

Don't forget that many mountains are covered by trees, and using 3D objects you can't autogen the mountain anymore, so it becomes difficult to create the vegetation, you can only use library objects for that.

 

I had not thought of that ! Does it mean that a 3D model can only be used for the bare upper part of the peaks ? Multiplying library objects (trees)  could be drag the FPS down, I suppose ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you ... the Western Alps are a great scene ... there are also many airports (mainly in Switzerland) ... But was chosen GERMANY ... and there aren't  mountains.

 

 

 

 

Frank,

the top of the Germany's highest Mountain, the "Zugspitze", would be perfectly suitable for your technique

 

zugspitze.jpg

 

 

The same is valid for another iconic German mountain, the "Watzmann".

 

Watzmann3.jpg

 

 

watzmannffa56.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect (but don't know) that the Alps may have been outside the next region choice to give LM time to fix the altitude problems in P3D.  Those same issues that prevent some airport conversions from FSX even now.


 


After all, if we want an Alps full-fat scenery, we'll want a bunch of detailed airports there too.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had not thought of that ! Does it mean that a 3D model can only be used for the bare upper part of the peaks ? Multiplying library objects (trees)  could be drag the FPS down, I suppose ?

 

Hi Dominique, it's not this way, but it's difficult that a model lyes simply on the terrain, like a cap. Annotated autogen is automatically placed where the terrain is, but this is not considered in presence of 3D models. If you annotated a tree inside a building, the tree is not placed on the roof of the building but onto the terrain. To autogen trees on a 3D model is necessary there is the terrain below, and also few centimeters below, otherwise you risk to see an half tree.

Using trees like library objects instead, you place the tree where you want, at the heigh you want, but yes, generally library trees are more performance demanding. Apart this, library objects doesn't change with seasons, if you don't program them to change their textures according to the season.

If a mountain is empty inside, the only way to place objects on it, it's using library objects, not the autogen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

 

Discounting the geopolitical dimension of putting the Montblanc or the Matterhorn in a product labelled Southern Germay :lol:

Not Southern Germany, that would be indeed too generous :D , but France and Italy (which they intend to do as well). For Montblanc and Matterhorn there is no generosity needed as both are sitting squarely on the border. ;)

At least eastern Austria, Vorarlberg, and Tyrolia, should be in as it is squeezed between Germany and Italy (65 km max).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 At the French-Italian or Swiss-Italian borders, far from South Germany which is the only project on the roadmap after North Germany ! Who knows whether France and Italy will be ever made or when.  And there was no show of interest from OrbX for a cross-border Alps. So we have to do with what we have which aint bad at all already and Frank's Alpine works in a package nested into OpenLC EU+Mesh would sell like hot cakes in my opinion. And no need to wait for 2018, 2019 or 2020. Immediate gratification as Noel would put it   :)  ! 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...