Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Trying to make docks from the default FSX wharf objects, Sbuilder allows me to resize and reproportion them, but in the sim they appear with apparently their default size and proportions. Before I resort to making my docks up out of lots of them - should they be resizing in the sim?
- luisfeliztirado
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 9:15 am
- Location: Santo Domingo
Re: Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Would you please indicate precisely how you re-sized these objects? Within the SBuilderX Object window, you can use the Scale parameter to change the size of the object.
Best regards.
Luis
Best regards.
Luis
Re: Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Firstly, I have used the scaling parameter which works. However, my query was about the handles attached to the object footprint in SBX, which give the impression that the model can be resized as well as re-placed and oriented by this method. However, when I do this, the resizing is not reflected in the sim.
Also, even when I don't resize, some models - I'm talking in particular about the wharf objects - don't appear in the sim where the footprint appears in SBX, and this makes it very difficult to create docks (which is what I am trying to do) using combinations of them. This becomes even more difficult with re-scaled models.
I am trying to create a dockland area. In FS9 I did this by the workaround of sinking large flat-roofed buildings into the ground, so to speak - I've tried this in SBX too, but a negative altitude parameter crashes it. If there are better ways of creating dockland areas raised about 2m above sea level, I would be pleased to know what they are.
Thank you,
John.
Also, even when I don't resize, some models - I'm talking in particular about the wharf objects - don't appear in the sim where the footprint appears in SBX, and this makes it very difficult to create docks (which is what I am trying to do) using combinations of them. This becomes even more difficult with re-scaled models.
I am trying to create a dockland area. In FS9 I did this by the workaround of sinking large flat-roofed buildings into the ground, so to speak - I've tried this in SBX too, but a negative altitude parameter crashes it. If there are better ways of creating dockland areas raised about 2m above sea level, I would be pleased to know what they are.
Thank you,
John.
- luisfeliztirado
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 9:15 am
- Location: Santo Domingo
Re: Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Hello John,
Thank you, your explanation clears it all up. You should not use the footprint in order to modify the scale of an object. Only use the Scale parameter. If you wish to change the footprint for your newly scaled object, then change the footprint dimensions in the same window next to the Scale parameter.
The docks and wharfs and a certain number of other objects do not have their reference points in places one would expect. I noticed this from the start and found it as strange as you, but perhaps the designers had some particular purpose in mind, even if we have trouble understanding it. In the thumbnails images I provided, I clearly indicate the reference point as a green cross-hair, and you should keep that in mind when placing these objects. Notice how the reference point is in towards the front of the object, but not quite at the end. Annoying, isn't it?
And this one has the reference point in a completely unexpected location. Yes, annoying is the word. But, we must live with it.
Good luck.
Best regards.
Luis
Thank you, your explanation clears it all up. You should not use the footprint in order to modify the scale of an object. Only use the Scale parameter. If you wish to change the footprint for your newly scaled object, then change the footprint dimensions in the same window next to the Scale parameter.
The docks and wharfs and a certain number of other objects do not have their reference points in places one would expect. I noticed this from the start and found it as strange as you, but perhaps the designers had some particular purpose in mind, even if we have trouble understanding it. In the thumbnails images I provided, I clearly indicate the reference point as a green cross-hair, and you should keep that in mind when placing these objects. Notice how the reference point is in towards the front of the object, but not quite at the end. Annoying, isn't it?
And this one has the reference point in a completely unexpected location. Yes, annoying is the word. But, we must live with it.
Good luck.
Best regards.
Luis
Re: Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Ah right - thanks Luiz! Annoying it is. Glad to know I'm coming up against a real 'feature' of FSX, and that I'm not just being stupid (at least this time!) I did wonder why the problem was mainly with wharf models whereas hanger models (which I'm using for dockland buildings) seem to go where you put them.
In the meantime I've been experimenting with other methods of making docklands. I've created a photo map of the dock from background, chopped off the sea areas of the bitmap (using 'crop' in my favourite editor, Photofiltre, works - though I see the transparent mode is 255 so painting them out would presumably do as well) and raised it above sea level using an AB flatten, painting edges on it to represent the vertical edges of the dock. So far so good - the photo covers everything, so solving the problem of covering the water, and if you're near to it, it looks OK. The only problem is that when you're further away from it, the sea of the hydro polygon 'climbs' up the edges of the dock. (1st picture below. I had to use a hydro polygon and small shoreline exclude to get rid of unwanted default terrain that was conflicting with the photo bitmap.) This is why I'm still thinking of trying to use wharf models as edges for the dock area. Of course, I'd be pleased to know if there is another method of avoiding this water climbing 'feature'.
In experimenting with this I found another odd 'feature'. Holes in the water polygon don't seem to work unless they're on top of the flatten (this is with the photo bgl removed for test purposes - it covers everything otherwise, as you know, which is one reason why it seems to be a useful way of making a dock over water.) If you put holes beside the flatten, in an 'unraised' area of the water polygon, they don't show up at all. And even if the hole is much bigger than the flatten, only the 'raised' part shows up as the underlying landclass, and even then there's a considerable 'margin' of water poly that's still raised but has no 'hole' landclass - only water which forms a raised water margin around the edge of the landclass (2nd picture below). Is this another unfortunate 'feature'? If so, doesn't it make it difficult to make small islands near an airport with a flatten?
In the meantime I've been experimenting with other methods of making docklands. I've created a photo map of the dock from background, chopped off the sea areas of the bitmap (using 'crop' in my favourite editor, Photofiltre, works - though I see the transparent mode is 255 so painting them out would presumably do as well) and raised it above sea level using an AB flatten, painting edges on it to represent the vertical edges of the dock. So far so good - the photo covers everything, so solving the problem of covering the water, and if you're near to it, it looks OK. The only problem is that when you're further away from it, the sea of the hydro polygon 'climbs' up the edges of the dock. (1st picture below. I had to use a hydro polygon and small shoreline exclude to get rid of unwanted default terrain that was conflicting with the photo bitmap.) This is why I'm still thinking of trying to use wharf models as edges for the dock area. Of course, I'd be pleased to know if there is another method of avoiding this water climbing 'feature'.
In experimenting with this I found another odd 'feature'. Holes in the water polygon don't seem to work unless they're on top of the flatten (this is with the photo bgl removed for test purposes - it covers everything otherwise, as you know, which is one reason why it seems to be a useful way of making a dock over water.) If you put holes beside the flatten, in an 'unraised' area of the water polygon, they don't show up at all. And even if the hole is much bigger than the flatten, only the 'raised' part shows up as the underlying landclass, and even then there's a considerable 'margin' of water poly that's still raised but has no 'hole' landclass - only water which forms a raised water margin around the edge of the landclass (2nd picture below). Is this another unfortunate 'feature'? If so, doesn't it make it difficult to make small islands near an airport with a flatten?
- luisfeliztirado
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 9:15 am
- Location: Santo Domingo
Re: Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Hello John,
An interesting problem, although I am not sure that I understand what is going on. Perhaps it needs some thought first.
Normally, there should not be any problem making a hole in a water polygon, unless perhaps it is very small. And that could explain the raised water on the flatten. It is possible that if your display options are set too low, then the higher LODs of mesh and ground textures will not display very nicely and give that effect. So, have you recently lowered display settings by any chance?
Best regards.
Luis
An interesting problem, although I am not sure that I understand what is going on. Perhaps it needs some thought first.
Normally, there should not be any problem making a hole in a water polygon, unless perhaps it is very small. And that could explain the raised water on the flatten. It is possible that if your display options are set too low, then the higher LODs of mesh and ground textures will not display very nicely and give that effect. So, have you recently lowered display settings by any chance?
Best regards.
Luis
Re: Are FSX Objects Resizeable in Sbuilder?
Hi again Luiz.
My display options are pretty much turned right up at the moment, and I don't think I've altered anything. However, the hole/flatten problem isn't so much a concern at the moment, as I've decided to stick to covering the raised dock area with a satellite picture - this covers the entire flattened/raised water area and gives a more realistic representation.
This is working well, and beginning to look quite good as I cover the picture footprints with building objects.The one remaining problem is the 'bleeding' of the water textures up over the 'edge' of the raised area, as in my first picture in my previous post. I tried to make a hole exactly the same size as the dock, in the hope that this would bar the water texture from the edge of the bitmap, which is when I discovered the hole issue.
At the moment I've got one big water poly underneath the whole area, to get rid of default land where it doesn't quite match the bitmap. I think I'll try using small water polys just where the non-fitting land is and see if the default water 'bleeds' in the same way - probably it will! Of course, I'll be all ears if there are any better methods.
My original idea of using wharf objects for the edges is difficult owing to the fact that they sit on top of the raised area, and SBX won't accept a negative altitude number, or having the 'agl' altitude option unticked. If they are placed beside the raised area it's difficult to avoid a trench between them. Perhaps I'll have to experiment with resampling them directly as a separate bgl?
My display options are pretty much turned right up at the moment, and I don't think I've altered anything. However, the hole/flatten problem isn't so much a concern at the moment, as I've decided to stick to covering the raised dock area with a satellite picture - this covers the entire flattened/raised water area and gives a more realistic representation.
This is working well, and beginning to look quite good as I cover the picture footprints with building objects.The one remaining problem is the 'bleeding' of the water textures up over the 'edge' of the raised area, as in my first picture in my previous post. I tried to make a hole exactly the same size as the dock, in the hope that this would bar the water texture from the edge of the bitmap, which is when I discovered the hole issue.
At the moment I've got one big water poly underneath the whole area, to get rid of default land where it doesn't quite match the bitmap. I think I'll try using small water polys just where the non-fitting land is and see if the default water 'bleeds' in the same way - probably it will! Of course, I'll be all ears if there are any better methods.
My original idea of using wharf objects for the edges is difficult owing to the fact that they sit on top of the raised area, and SBX won't accept a negative altitude number, or having the 'agl' altitude option unticked. If they are placed beside the raised area it's difficult to avoid a trench between them. Perhaps I'll have to experiment with resampling them directly as a separate bgl?