VTP edges
VTP edges
Is there any way to dither or otherwise smooth the edges of VTP polys so that they are not so harsh? I just created some polygons and the edges are very jagged and not smooth.
Hi,
It is a coincidence that just 1/2 hour ago I was discussing this problem with Vlada by email. Please see:
http://www.ptsim.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=324
Vlada interpolation is more robust than the one I implemented into SBuilder. In SBuilder I use a very rudimentary method which gets confused when the line (or polygon) under interpolation has "corners". However your question gives me the oportunity to explain an undocumented feature of SBuilder (I forgot about it when I was writing the Help and remember when I was sending an email to Vlada). The feature is:
- when the AutoCheck window opens, pressing E (Ends) will skip interpolation at the Ends of line.
- pressing C (Corners) will skip interpolation at the Corners of line.
I made a line with 5 points. I copied and pasted 4 times so that I end up with 5 identical lines. Then I used interpolation on line 2 3 4 and 5 using the referred to above options. The result is in the figure and I hope that is useful.
I would like to integrate Vlada's algorithm into SBuilder but I promised to myself that I need to concentrate on my next scenery "Airfields of Portugal". I will, of course, update SBuilder in case of bugs.
I take the oportunity to thank designers that allowed me to use their freware macros in my upcoming project.
Regards, Luis
It is a coincidence that just 1/2 hour ago I was discussing this problem with Vlada by email. Please see:
http://www.ptsim.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=324
Vlada interpolation is more robust than the one I implemented into SBuilder. In SBuilder I use a very rudimentary method which gets confused when the line (or polygon) under interpolation has "corners". However your question gives me the oportunity to explain an undocumented feature of SBuilder (I forgot about it when I was writing the Help and remember when I was sending an email to Vlada). The feature is:
- when the AutoCheck window opens, pressing E (Ends) will skip interpolation at the Ends of line.
- pressing C (Corners) will skip interpolation at the Corners of line.
I made a line with 5 points. I copied and pasted 4 times so that I end up with 5 identical lines. Then I used interpolation on line 2 3 4 and 5 using the referred to above options. The result is in the figure and I hope that is useful.
I would like to integrate Vlada's algorithm into SBuilder but I promised to myself that I need to concentrate on my next scenery "Airfields of Portugal". I will, of course, update SBuilder in case of bugs.
I take the oportunity to thank designers that allowed me to use their freware macros in my upcoming project.
Regards, Luis
Hi Luis,
Funny, you answered another question that I have not asked yet. I see that you are talking about smoothing or what we used to call "splining" in the CAD field. That would be very useful at times and thanks for sharing that undocumented feature. I have much to learn about your software.
No, what I was really asking about is more like "dithering" around the edges of a polygon in a way similar to what they do in the sim with landclass cells. It would be nice to be able to define a level of edge "fuzziness" in a polygon to allow it to fade into the next softly rather than having a "hard" border. I hope I am making sense. It is a hard concept to explain in words. I guess I am talking more about cross fading of textures of one polygon into another. Almost like what is done in film editing when you overlap one video clip with another to produce a cross fade.
Funny, you answered another question that I have not asked yet. I see that you are talking about smoothing or what we used to call "splining" in the CAD field. That would be very useful at times and thanks for sharing that undocumented feature. I have much to learn about your software.
No, what I was really asking about is more like "dithering" around the edges of a polygon in a way similar to what they do in the sim with landclass cells. It would be nice to be able to define a level of edge "fuzziness" in a polygon to allow it to fade into the next softly rather than having a "hard" border. I hope I am making sense. It is a hard concept to explain in words. I guess I am talking more about cross fading of textures of one polygon into another. Almost like what is done in film editing when you overlap one video clip with another to produce a cross fade.
Hi,
I see what you mean. But you are asking a lot, if I may say so [:D]
!
As far as I know we can not control the matching between polys. I think that land classes use a built-in process based on masks, which I never understood. The masks can be seen in the standard texture folder (thin textures).
When you make an airport grass polygon, it reasonably matches with the rest. The matching zone is about 4.8 meters and it is sufficient. But if you have a polygon that represents a city, the 4.8 meter zone is not sufficient. If the transition is, for example, from city to forest, you will see a clear transition. You would really need a transition of 48 or even 480 instead of 4.8 meters.
I see what you mean. But you are asking a lot, if I may say so [:D]
!
As far as I know we can not control the matching between polys. I think that land classes use a built-in process based on masks, which I never understood. The masks can be seen in the standard texture folder (thin textures).
When you make an airport grass polygon, it reasonably matches with the rest. The matching zone is about 4.8 meters and it is sufficient. But if you have a polygon that represents a city, the 4.8 meter zone is not sufficient. If the transition is, for example, from city to forest, you will see a clear transition. You would really need a transition of 48 or even 480 instead of 4.8 meters.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">citação:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Mensagem original de Luis Sá</i>
<br />Hi,
I see what you mean. But you are asking a lot, if I may say so [:D]
!
When you make an airport grass polygon, it reasonably matches with the rest. The matching zone is about 4.8 meters and it is sufficient. But if you have a polygon that represents a city, the 4.8 meter zone is not sufficient. If the transition is, for example, from city to forest, you will see a clear transition. You would really need a transition of 48 or even 480 instead of 4.8 meters.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I understand it is asking for a lot. I just wanted to mention it as a useful thing. In my imagination it would not involve interfacing between polygons as much as providing a "fuzzy" or dithered border on a single polygon. If that polygon were overlayed on top of another the edges would allow the underlying polygon to "bleed" through. I have no idea how it would be done technically but you are probably right in that it would involve some sort of border masking. I read in the help files something about making an edge mask with a gradient for a photo poly. At least I think it was something like that. But anyway, it might be something like that. For example, if I have a woodland polygon overlayed on top of a much larger grass polygon that would be a situation where this would be useful. The smaller woodland polygon could have some sort of designated "fuzziness" on the edges to allow it to not have a harsh hard border that looks unrealistic. This could be a very powerful tool when painting scenery. Just something to think about. Thanks Luis.
<br />Hi,
I see what you mean. But you are asking a lot, if I may say so [:D]
!
When you make an airport grass polygon, it reasonably matches with the rest. The matching zone is about 4.8 meters and it is sufficient. But if you have a polygon that represents a city, the 4.8 meter zone is not sufficient. If the transition is, for example, from city to forest, you will see a clear transition. You would really need a transition of 48 or even 480 instead of 4.8 meters.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I understand it is asking for a lot. I just wanted to mention it as a useful thing. In my imagination it would not involve interfacing between polygons as much as providing a "fuzzy" or dithered border on a single polygon. If that polygon were overlayed on top of another the edges would allow the underlying polygon to "bleed" through. I have no idea how it would be done technically but you are probably right in that it would involve some sort of border masking. I read in the help files something about making an edge mask with a gradient for a photo poly. At least I think it was something like that. But anyway, it might be something like that. For example, if I have a woodland polygon overlayed on top of a much larger grass polygon that would be a situation where this would be useful. The smaller woodland polygon could have some sort of designated "fuzziness" on the edges to allow it to not have a harsh hard border that looks unrealistic. This could be a very powerful tool when painting scenery. Just something to think about. Thanks Luis.
Hi,
Yes, I agree. This would be very useful indeed. I also think that the way to do that would be the inner VTP engine to use something similar to the gradient masking of SB photo tiles. Randomizing the vertex position of the VTP polygons (this could be implemented in SB) would not be sufficient.
When I said you were asking too much, I was thinking in adding this feature to SBuilder (which I think it is impossible). Adding this feature to a future version of FS will be an important improvment.
Regards, Luis
Yes, I agree. This would be very useful indeed. I also think that the way to do that would be the inner VTP engine to use something similar to the gradient masking of SB photo tiles. Randomizing the vertex position of the VTP polygons (this could be implemented in SB) would not be sufficient.
When I said you were asking too much, I was thinking in adding this feature to SBuilder (which I think it is impossible). Adding this feature to a future version of FS will be an important improvment.
Regards, Luis