Phoenix Flying Site Checklist!!! - Page 35 - RC Groups
Nov 30, 2012, 02:23 AM
Registered User
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ftherrmann Problem: In order to make taxing into the pits look realistic you have to tilt the ground plane up. All the primitive collision objects have to be tied to the ground plane. As far as I can tell this makes it impossible to create a primitive for the top of the shed which is not attached to the ground plane. I have a skyline connected to the ground plane which is not drawn so that you can see a plane crash in the parking lot. However it also appears to fly thru the top of the shed????
I have said that to construct a flying site the first thing should be set the light,
the second is to make a reasonable ground.
It is not easy.
Fist step is a plane (default) which is horizontal, and the size is infinite and not tilted.
((Remark I have sent an e-mail to Phoenix support, they are not responding, that the "pano orientation" icon or manipulator should be taken out. If it is there, should not be touched. If the pano orientation is used the relation of objects and the "scenery preview is lost, the skyline wil not match the background image and by this way the 3D design))

Next step is to install large (temporary) cubes at the location of relevant and far objects.
The distance of those should be accurate.
If exported hitting those objects collision can be seen. The debris or the model if reaching the object by taxiing MUST be at the foot of the object on the image.
If not one should play with plane or planes, tilting or deciding to use several h-maps instead of planes.
At Tempelhof instead planes there are six large h-maps, material conrete or grass, tilted, lifted, positioned as should.
Last edited by lcsaba; Nov 30, 2012 at 06:05 AM.
Nov 30, 2012, 05:59 AM
Registered User
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ftherrmann Problem: In order to make taxing into the pits look realistic you have to tilt the ground plane up. All the primitive collision objects have to be tied to the ground plane. As far as I can tell this makes it impossible to create a primitive for the top of the shed which is not attached to the ground plane. I have a skyline connected to the ground plane which is not drawn so that you can see a plane crash in the parking lot. However it also appears to fly thru the top of the shed????
This is my second observation:
The definition of skyline:
Skyline is a multiple sheet, has two attributes: "draw" and "collide"

Each sections of skyline is bounded by two line sections.
A line section is defined by two points, to be edited.
There is a "base" point and an "external" point.
The external point can be under or over the
base point. (In general those are over the base point)
THE BASE POINT IS always at the y=0 coordinate.
There is a virtual line between two adjacent base point.
(The edge of the red sheet at Creator)
Those points can be over or under the ground defined.
If the base points are over the ground points the model might moove below the skyline even if "collide" is defined.
In this case other object, for instance a cube should be inserted.

The use of "draw" and "collide".
The general use is if both attributes are checked.
In this case the model will collide hitting the object, and will not be visible if behind the skyline.

It is good sololution if the skyline is copyed.
One copy should have "collide", the other "draw" setting.
In this case the colliding skyline can be a little bit lower providing realistic collision
other higher sometimes not a copy but a large single sheet, because
THE CUBEMAP's alpha masking makes possible to have transparent areas of the skyline where non zero alpha value is set.
Here it good to know that not the cubeface images (the six) instead the cubemap.dds image (rotating preview) is holding transparency information.

There is a possibilty to create two not overlapping skyline to cover trees. The colliding is back the "draw" not "colliding" is in front, in this case the model hitting the tree can intrude into it as in real life (see: Bever).

Alpha masking is binary: transparent or not. This is not the case if the coverage image of models is made. At "model coverage" 0 to 100% transparency can be defined.

To come back to your problem. If ground over the whole site is correct, I would
do the following.
Make a large skyline covering the building, define it as "nocollide".
Make a cubemap where all transparent areas are set, inside the building and around he building.
Make the relevant parts of the buildig as cylinders or cubes.
Those should not cover properly the building because this is done by the cubemap, just enough face to provide realistic collision.
The roof is a flat cube.
If you wish to know my experinces about the ground construction I can say someting.
Last edited by lcsaba; Nov 30, 2012 at 06:07 AM.
 Nov 30, 2012, 07:08 AM Registered User Brillant, László! Thumbs up for your detailed clarifying!
 Nov 30, 2012, 10:16 AM Registered User Laszlo, Thanks for the detailed info. However at this point I can't get creator to actually place a Sun object into my scene so that I can cast a shadow. It simply will not save the Sun object! So without a Sun I don't have a shadow. I've tried creator on Win7 64b and XP 32 bit with same results. Here is the link to the pxf file. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j2ukjork2c8nq2d/RCRC.pxf Can you or Harold please place a working sun object that casts a shadow into this file and send it back to me? email is ftherrmann ATTTT bellsouth dooooooot net. I know how to fix the skyline problems that you'll see with my tree line. No sense in proceeding until the sun is fixed. Thanks, Fred
 Nov 30, 2012, 11:35 AM Registered User ooppss.. made a mistake.. Here is the pxq project file for creator... https://www.dropbox.com/s/0fz4cmv3yo1vspv/RCRC.pxq
 Nov 30, 2012, 01:02 PM Registered User Harald, I got the RCRC.pxq file and the shadow is there!!!! Yea... Not sure why Creator likes your computer better? Maybe something going on with a dll, or library file. Thanks, Fred
 Nov 30, 2012, 03:16 PM Registered User May I suggest something? I have made the first steps and have an RCRC and have realised something. Later you might find a problem. Creator makes possible the rotation of plane and h-map. There is a tool to do this but there is no numerical indication of the degree of rotation, which should be similar to PTGui rotation method. The consequence of this is that it is extremely difficult to do a managable rotation around two axes if needed. As an example: if the runway is tilted and a grass h-map at one side should be inserted, this would be difficult, because those two should be matching sheets. My solution is this, but should be done at the beginning of the design, at RCRC now. I am rotating the equirectangular image accordingly. The blue axis should be parallel to the edge of the runway. I did it preparing the construction of Ganderkesee. This is easy at PTGui level, can be done at equirectangular image level, but a little bit hard.
 Nov 30, 2012, 03:24 PM Registered User Another good idea! This rotation can also be done by Photoshop filter (other filters->offset-effect).
Nov 30, 2012, 03:52 PM
Registered User
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ftherrmann Problem: In order to make taxing into the pits look realistic you have to tilt the ground plane up.
I have made the next step.
One plane no tilting.
Made an Google Eath measurement an did see that the distance of pits is about 12 m.
I have inserted a large cube at a distance of 11 m.
Collided and this is perfect which means that may be objects at larger distance should be checked or this direction no tilting is needed.
See the following two pictures:
 Dec 01, 2012, 12:50 PM Registered User I created a Do-Group to which I invited you two. Because I don't like too large white areas in sky, I restitched and reworked the whole panorama. I like better this sky: http://www.szenerien.de/PhoenixRC-Sz...untsville.html Harald
Dec 02, 2012, 03:52 AM
Registered User
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EPPforFUN I created a Do-Group to which I invited you two. Because I don't like too large white areas in sky, I restitched and reworked the whole panorama. I like better this sky: http://www.szenerien.de/PhoenixRC-Sz...untsville.html Harald
I am a member of Do-Group now, although I have no idea how to use it.

Thanks, I had a look at the new scenery image it is OK.

((( As, it is easy to find the former position of the camera,
it will be easy to make a new panorama when the weather and the grass is nice. To replace the cubefaces and adjust the 3D environment, if needed, will be easy.)))

Next step is to fit it to the edge of the runway to the h-map axes.

If it is restitched and rotated as should it is OK., if not and You send the pano to me I will rotate at equirectangular level. I need an image which is 12868 (4096*PI) pixels wide.
If I have the new pano I will make (if you don't mind) the first steps:
Lighting,
Large cubes inserted, for ground checking,
Concrete runway, grass field.
If ready I will send to you as a "first stage" info, a PXQ and the "high" folder, to have the new cubefaces.
I will keep the temporary large cubes. (you will see a very strange effect, deficiency of the simulator).

If you find it acceptable we (everybody) can decide how to step forward.

Fred, I need a distance, I could not identify the remote row of trees at the right side.
Google earth measurements are giving the following figures:
Row of trees at left side: 230 m,
Row of trees at center (right): 310 m
Row of trees behind the shed right: 70 m.
Two ends of the runway: 75 m
Shed: 12m,
I guess the fence about: 5 m.)
Dec 02, 2012, 06:46 AM
Registered User
Quote:
 Originally Posted by lcsaba I am a member of Do-Group now, although I have no idea how to use it.
Welcome to the group! I'm just checking out if this could be a portal for cooperation and data exchange. I've been testing some others before. Maybe my formerly founded Google Group will work better. I find it very useful to have a platform for scenery-development with extended functionality compared to a forum like this one.
 Dec 03, 2012, 05:35 PM Official Old Git! Hi, We are trying to get our local flying site into Phoenix. The photos are done, stitched and in Site Creator, and I can look all around me using the mouse right-button. Trying now to do the collision objects, but so far I can't make head or tail out of the user interface in order to do so. Anyone got any sensible instructions that actually tell you how to use the tools to do this? (The formal Phoenix docs basically just say use the tools - but not any detail on how to use them. Basically they are pretty useless!). I can move and change the pano icon etc but can't get any sense out of it or when I randomly get one of the other collision object icon-things (the 3 colour axis lines). Also I can't see how to actually position anything for depth etc. so that you can go out to the item, or even then go behind it etc.) I'm using Win7 64bit - if that makes a difference. Any help gratefully received.
 Dec 04, 2012, 02:35 AM Registered User Hi Norman, welcome to the club! First of all: You're not alone with your frustration. Each new user of the permanent BETA is wondering how to use these non-intuitive tools. The functionalities of this program are not comparable with 3D-construction programs like 3ds, Metasequoia, AC3D and Blender. Some tools are very useful, some are hard to handle, some are unready or even useless. I had found a very experienced teacher who taught me the basics and many tricks and workarounds with Creator and we had Skype-sessions for hours and hours. It was a mutual give and take. I helped him with panorama-issues and he helped me with construction problems. I suggested to write a tutorial and we founded a Google Group. When the funcionalities of the Groups were changed by Google, I put the whole stuff in several PDF-files and had very good help with the English translation. You can find the tutorial on the formidable site of Detlef Jacobi: http://phoenix-sim-szenerien.de.tl/S...n-Tutorial.htm German speaking users can visit my e-learning-course: http://szenerien.de/efront/www/index.php Before you start constructing you should verify that your panorama is stitched well. Can you show your cubefaces? Best regards and I hope you do well in your first steps! Harald Last edited by EPPforFUN; Dec 04, 2012 at 05:23 AM.
 Dec 04, 2012, 05:46 AM Official Old Git! Harald, Many thanks for the response. Indeed, this tool is very frustrating. (I've spent many years software testing, and this is a typical example of how a geek programmer thinks - alongside the fact that they are also rubbish at doing usable documentation - thinking that it's all 'obvious'! ) I had actually found the tutorial you mention, and whilst it shows what can be achieved it misses out some of the basics to get someone started. (It does give the idea that you create collision objects based on putting together regular shapes, and these are manipulated by each of their 3-axis icons. Hence the reason for ensuring you name the shapes sensibly, so you can find them again.) For example - how to position and size the initial ground (collision) plane? How to accommodate the fact that the ground plane isn't ever a real rectangle? How do you remove individual collision points - if you have made wrong ones? (You have the option to add or edit, but not to remove). It looks like, from what I experimented with so far, the skyline collision object can only be built up from the edge of the ground plane (otherwise I never seem to get any base points to place on the scene.) Also there are obviously the bugs, like the weird 'zooming' of the collision point somewhere else on the scene if you gone too low on the positioning etc. (another reason for wanting to be able to delete odd ones.) BTW - It's not obvious from your tutorial files that you have to hover over the yellow 'booklet' to get an English translation. The translations are generally good, but not quite right - or I don't understand enough to make sense of some of the sentences (I haven't done any 3D modelling.) As I discover how to do things I'll perhaps try to add to your explanations some of the things I think are missing - nice and simply for people like me! Thanks again.