Comments on: New Scenery Tools: MeshTool 2.00r6

By: Peter Russell

Peter Russell — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:54:46 +0000

Hi all While this is not really related it is very interesting. What this guy has achieved for creating scenery is nothing short of amazing. What do you think? Regards Pete

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:11:28 +0000

In reply to Dan.

Yep – MT is the wrong tool for artists…it was never meant to be that – it’s too low level.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:52:11 +0000

Maybe MT is the wrong tool for the job, I wouldn’t know. What I do know after trying to wrap my head around MT and all things GIS is that it is extremely daunting for an “artist” like myself. Maybe experiened programmers have a better understanding of how to deal with GIS data, but for the average user the barrier is just to big. And then there’s the question of having access to the right tools, not to mention even work on the OS you’re running.

To have a simpler solution with straightforward GUI would be a huge step in the right direction, for me at least! But then again, maybe there are more powerful tools out there for the job that I just don’t know about yet…

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:56:41 +0000

In reply to Dan.

My original naive assumption of MT was that users would “condition” their DEM (that is, make it smooth) _before_ sending it to MeshTool. For example, you can open up a 16-bit DEM in an image editing program and apply filters to runway areas. (It seems clear from the comments to this post though that having flattening in MT is of interest to a number of authors.)

re: X-Plane 10 itself and the bumps, yes, I agree, having a better interpolation than piece-wise linear (with triangles, giving hard creases) would be a win, and allow airports to have higher frequency “data” in the airport mesh without damaging aircraft.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:59:17 +0000

We definitely need better tools to control the mesh. Not only runways, but also the terrain mesh under large buildings such as terminals and hangars. Personally I’ve given up designing airports for this very reason!

I also think the mesh underneath runways needs a sophisticated algorithm to increase the resolution of the mesh to smooth out the slope of the runway. In version 9 you get abrubt changes in slope/angle between two triangles, so it’s almost like if you’re hitting a wall sometimes. And the plane jumps into the air on take off/landing. I really hope this is an area you’re improving with version 10!

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:42:35 +0000

In reply to Arista.

Yes it is – look in src/XESCore/Airports.cpp – try ProcessAirports, for example.

By: bradleygolding

bradleygolding — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:02:39 +0000

Thanks Folks,

As madine says allowing X-Plane to flatten runways can result in a very alien landscape. There are of course times when this could be an interesting idea. Because of the large are flattened it is only a really usable when the area is pretty flat anyway.

Steve

By: Arista

Arista — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:58:34 +0000

> we have code to roughly flatten an airport area

Is that code already in the scenery tools repository somewhere? I had a quick scan through part of the sources the other day, but haven’t seen anything obvious in that direction.

Judith

By: Nickster

Nickster — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:29:16 +0000

Gimmie a GUI !

Making scenery for the prairies, I often place a building and find it perched on a terrain bump.
Making scenery in mountainous terrain (Nepal), runway flattening produces absurd results.
Many small runways have slopes, humps and dips. It would be wonderful to have an easier-to-use tool to get these just right.

So I’m in full agreement with all the above responders.

Nick

By: bradleygolding

bradleygolding — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:12:45 +0000

If someone could remove my email address from the above post, that would be helpful. My bad.

Thanks,

Steve