Posts by ussiowa

    Elevated H3:

    Seems easy enough to create, and I'd love to, BUT here is the catch:

    - I don't see the ground in the pictures, so length of pillars will probably not be right (also I don't have reference per say (square axis and reference origin), but I think I may be able to cunningly work around that)

    - I don't know how accurate the elevation map is, and I assume AC3D or FS2 would use it as a base. Maybe I make every pillar much longer (so they would protrude underground) and we set the whole highway at a single specific elevation. As I'm not familiar with the integration mechanics, I'm not sure what the best process is.


    On all other stuff it's all flat on sea level, easy enough.


    Michael

    Ray, on my Mac I would use a photo retouching software, rather than gimp. I'm pretty sure gimp can do the same process but I don't think gimp is set up to do batch processing. Typically some photo retouching software are, you set it up for one picture, and then batch apply it to a folder, or a set of pictures, much simpler, much easier. The harder part is fine tuning the original "retouching" needed.


    I started work on some Kaneohe buildings that I will send Dave. As usual the texture work is the most tedious and difficult, so that will take me some time. Here is WIP. Done the new tower, need the old one. Dave's job was great but while I'm at it making all the other buildings, the towers really don't take much time anyway. I like that square building, very distinctive, that one took me the longest so far about 10mn. The long rectangle in front, that's the jetty.



    Michael

    Ray,

    With a bit of work in graphic software, we can match the USGS tiles to the other one so it is seamless. Saturation and brightness are different but that's the kind of things that can be adjusted, and we probably can find a software that can batch it (i.e. we find the value on one tile, and then run all of them through the same filter)

    If you could send me a FSET tile, and a USGS tile (like the one that cut through a patch of forested area) so that I run some tests, that'd be great. Just bear with me on timing. Send me the tiles pre final conversion.

    Hartman already did something similar and posted somewhere else, here. I don't have photoshop, but I'm sure I have or can find software that have a similar process.

    He speaks also of water blending. I want to try an alpha channel weathering/air spraying with opacity gradient to see if FS2 can handle it, I don't see why it couldn't since it can process alpha channel.


    On other news, we're progressing really nicely with Dave on the 3D conversion of objects (Ford Island), soon I'll be able to produce objects that can be inserted or help Dave in creating his airports and other scenery by sharing the load of creating buildings and such.


    Michael

    Jan I love how you think.


    Ideally the computing power should be used in a sphere around oneself, so it's either used for cloud or terrain, whatever is visible around without obstruction. I don't think it really works like this yet (at least in 3D, in 2D sure).

    So with that, one would hope to have enough computing power to do interesting cloud stuff. maybe soon.

    These kinds of features are all done with multiplayer, using Internet connections. We need multiplayer

    Indeed, but multiplayer is way more complicated, because two different worlds need to be integrated and usually through a wider network (so solving latency, connection, etc.. issues, not easy)

    The software already broadcasts the info, so It probably is not much of a stretch to be able to input it also, and being two machines next to each other, latency, network security, etc.. is not much of an issue. Maybe I'm thinking wrong but that's what I imagine.

    It would be a pathway to multiplayer but not so much difficulty or requirements.


    Two VR sets on one machine is conceivable in theory, but in practice too much power is needed, and as far as I know it doesn't exist yet (or the price becomes similar to two machines. two machines is probably much easier)

    Nausea and motion sickness should not be the issue. It is people dependent, some people will get sick driving of being driven, some won't. When you get sick then VR flight sim is not for you.


    And yes I like sharing the flight deck idea :thumbup:but that also requires some more work and thinking. That would be top notch we could do real pilot and WSO, not that there is any weapon to work, but still, like comm or something. And it could be used for training indeed. But now it becomes bidirectional communication and an instant priority protocol of some sort: absolute for full interaction, either control can do and the other follow, time is the priority, or controlled, when one decides (switch or other) that one has control over the other or vice versa.

    VR "passenger" was the main idea for now as I believe it's not much work to get there from here (I could be wrong in which case, never mind) and a big step in experience.

    So what would be great for us, and probably in general as well is if we could "share a ride".

    One would need two rigs and two VR sets, but since FS2 can export its position through a port (at least so I understand from the menu), then all it would take is the possibility to receive such data.

    Then one could put two rigs on the same local network, one is the one with the pilot, a "master" and broadcasts the position, the other is "slave" and is used only for viewing as a ride.

    Then it becomes easy to be the WSO in the F15 (for example) and enjoy the ride. Of course the terrain in the second rig would condition what is viewed, but that's easy to fix.

    Next could be collaborative or adversarial gameplay, but that's another challenge altogether.


    So I put it out there, if it happens, great, if not great anyway.


    Michael

    Well actually for me shift click reverses the whole selection (excludes what was included, and includes what was excluded). Ctrl click allows me to exclude individual tiles.


    Michael

    I really hate to be the barer of bad news here but we are also not comfortable allowing anyone to post links to these sites that host scenery imagery that may be copyrighted. We take copyrighted material seriously, and until we can guarantee that none of this is illegal we will have to unfortunately shut the doors on this for now. Please just give us more time to verify things.

    Just an opinion:

    Please please, check onto what constitutes "derivative work". Derivative work is a separate entity from the original work and belongs to the author of the derivative work.

    There is a minimum that makes it "derivative" and I believe the IPACS treatment could make it so.

    Thus if someone were to use images (that seem to be in public domain, or at least non commercial domain and processed through a process that doesn't reserve copyright (i.e. IPACS software transformation (plugin or equivalent)) and that has been used in accordance. Then the new derivative work, if it is so, belongs to the creator of the work (the one applying the transformation to the material), and thus can be disposed at will by such creator.

    Of course this doesn't protect from risk of lawsuit, as nothing really does, but at least it would be a legal leg to stand on if one wishes to do so.

    And I'm certainly not trying to tell you guys what to do or not, just check it out and decide for yourselves.

    This is a touchy and complex subject so IPACS position is perfectly understandable.


    For USGS data, there is zero issue as this clearly states:

    https://www2.usgs.gov/visual-id/credit_usgs.html

    I quote: "U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information resides in the public domain and may be used without restriction" and they expand on credit to be given by case.

    Now keep in mind that is for use "as is" meaning no transformation whatsoever: I download and use exactly as downloaded.

    If I use a software to transform (photoshop or otherwise) then that software content creation notice rules anyway, etc.


    Michael

    Yes and I've seen these spikes since before the Utah download, so no evolution per say. But the trees are fixed AWESOME!


    Oh and they "collide", I checked^^

    OK I finally figured out how to get it. Phew it's not obvious.


    Anyway you can use the same radar at Pt Mugu here, there are a few of them and an open antenna (I can make if you want).

    https://www.google.com/maps/pl…d34.0855624!4d-119.060935


    Here is another spot in LA with two of them:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@3…367422,292m/data=!3m1!1e3

    I've noticed these in a few places (maybe 3 or 4 over 60 hours of flying). I never took a pict or took note of the location before, but this time I did:

    3 miles east from Kern Valley Airport , CA




    A professional photographer has some excellent views of Kaneohe at super high def resolution but he is in the business to make money off his work. I have been considering asking him for some free copies to assist in the expansion of Dave's work.


    For now, I think we could get more bang for the buck by adding a few more buildings, adding the large storage tanks, and the generally easier stuff. Then we could move on to Ford Island and Pearl City, then on to where ever.

    If they have picts with a watermark which sometimes they do, as long as it's high def it's workable for me. I may have to fiddle with some texture but it's fine.


    Do you have AC3D to convert stuff to Ipacs format? I can send you the Collada files which are supposed to convert. Right now that's the step I'm missing. I can create 3D buildings with texture, and export them (sketchup or Collada or DXF (but that one has no texture I believe).

    Then AC3D is supposed to import them, convert them to ac format, and then they can be placed.

    Dave knows how to do it, even though we haven't fully tried the workflow yet, but he's busy. At some point I may be able to do the whole chain, but I'm busy too and don't have all the elements yet.

    The other thing is like for Ford Island is it better for me to export the whole island with stuff placed on it, or to export individual buildings and features to be placed later, I don't know.


    Michael

    Well I can do building and structures fairly easily from pictures.

    Vegetation, no interest for me, and if I did there would be way too many poly probably, so generic trees from FS2 should be OK

    Golf courses, I pass, not much structure there, I don't know what you expect, the flags? A good aerial photo should be really close enough no? I mean if there is a prominent building like the club house and it's distinctive yes why not.

    Cars, we should have a few generic and basic cars (and trucks and buses), if we don't have them I can create a set when I have some time.

    Boats, we have a few ships, I wanted to create some basic boats around Ford Island, I may get to it.

    Personnel, not me.


    In general there is a level of detail that is too much I think. I know the engine seems to be good at displaying a lot of polys, but if we populate cities with cars, flag poles, etc.. and people all over, it seems to me that it's a lot of polys (and work to place them) for things that are barely noticeable on fly overs. Cars and truck, yes, but until they move, it's kind of meh.

    Now on airports it may be different, personally not my thing but sure.

    Personally I'd rather focus on a fully equipped and manned aircraft carrier (with moving deck handlers planes and equipment)

    Send them, I'll check what's already there and will create stuff for whomever wants to import (AC3D) and place them.

    I have picts of the old tower (on top of the building), so that part should be fine.

    This is typically the kind of picts I need, some kind of ground reference, hi def (anything less than 1Mb is useless, especially for aerial picts like this) so I have detail and can zoom on every building, and if there are multiples from different angles (like S and N), even better then I can get all the textures and details.

    Yeah well, I'm going to be busy with other stuff in he next few weeks, but yeah I may do more stuff for HI. I have yet to fly it, tomorrow probably when I'll be onboard and get the terrain.

    And I'm still far from finished with Ford Island (and the Superdome, and LA Harbor)


    Here is another question for the specialists. When I created stuff for Ford Island, as you see it in your picture "sticks out" of flat water. Should I create a 3D island and raise it a few feet, then project texture onto it so that things don't stick out?

    Wouldn't the terrain elevation map take care of that? (It doesn't look like it in your pict, but granted it's probably a few feet high anyway, so it's not that accurate)