KFLL - Early Observations

[B777ER]

Ya, I still have the halo's around the trees as well...looks ugly, very ugly.

[virtuali]

Found them on disk two and still didn't change anything. Seems most prominent when the parking garage is behind them like the system doesn't see it as solid. Below the horizon the problem goes away. No idea, but here is an illustration.

The issue is created by the fact that, when you have 2 objects (trees and parking) with alpha elements on them, they should be sorted before drawing. Unfortunately, sorting is a *very* expensive process, probably one of the slowest things to do in flight sim, because all objects will have to be sorted and re-sorted, and each frame. Also, to be sorted, each tree should be an independent objects, which will slow down further the sim. Right now, they are grouped, because a group of, let's say, 500 polygons, draws MUCH faster than 50 objects with 10 polygons each. But we should un-group them, in order to sort them...

Sceneries that use those very old design methods (each small object being independent + sorting of all the one having alpha ) were those made for FS2000 that run in FS9 (like Simflyers, that why they have the peformance they have), that would not need these methods, because it uses the much faster z-buffer for perspective sorting so, sorting is not usually needed in FS9, except for alpha, which would be highly inefficent to do, if you have so many objects that needs to be sorted, like trees.

Converting the tree textures in DXT1 fixes somewhat the effect on the tree foliage, but makes for really UGLY tree shadows because, after the conversion in DXT1, the shadow, that is made as part of the texture ( for the obvious reason that a textured shadow is WAY faster than letting FS9 calculate the shadow in realtime ), becomes pitch black, with no smooth grey overlayed on ground, that is only possible with DXT3. We tried this before releasing the upgrade, but it really looked bad, MUCH worse than having the blue halo in certain viewing angles, because it would appear always. So, we decided to leave it like this.

Of course, this only happens in FS9, because FSX has an entirely different handling of transparencies, so there's no problem there.

We *might* be able to fix it, by making the trees with two different materials, one for the foliage in DXT1 and one for the shadow in DXT3, of course getting a performance penality, because of the somewhat costly material switch (every new material in an object, has an added drawing cost)

[AaronMyers]

I follow the explanation, but I'm not sure I'm seeing that in practice. I converted the tree textures to DXT1 and there was no change. The photo I posted was after the default trees were replaced from the original disks, and as you can see no change there either. Are the trees in the scenery custom?

[virtuali]

Are the trees in the scenery custom

As I've said in my last message, the texture that needs to be converted is the KFLL_tree.bmp. The default tree texture doesn't have anything to do with this problem, and is not used.

[AaronMyers]

I'm sorry, but I don't see where in this thread you've said which texture was the culprit. Nevertheless you have now which answers the simple and polite question I posed.

[virtuali]

I don't know why, but I've edited my last message after posting it, specifying that you could try yourself the effect, by converting the KFLL_tree.bmp to DXT1, and see how it's probably better to leave it like it is now, because the halo is not really visible except from certain angles and only when close, but the ugly black shadows are always visible from anywere.

I don't know why, the additions hasn't appeared on the forum.

[AaronMyers]

I've made the conversion and it's a big improvement in my opinion. I do see the mentioned shadows, but I find them to be much less noticeable. When taxiing, the halos always seem to be right at the wrong level, and very much in your face. The shadows on the ground are much more subtle to my eye.

I do seem to have a lot of trees popping up through various roadways though. Any thoughts on that?

[virtuali]

I do seem to have a lot of trees popping up through various roadways though. Any thoughts on that?

Nothing related to our scenery. Have you installed some kind of autogen replacement textures ?

[AaronMyers]

I have Freeflow Florida installed. Possibly related?

It's not a big deal, but thought I'd bring it up to see if it was something easy.

[Captain2000]

We'll surely have a look at the runway lights.

Thanks to the FSDT crew for the v1.2 update.  Any plans to revisit the approach lighting? There should not be any on 13/31 or 9R/27L....only on the main runway 9L/27R.

[virtuali]

Any plans to revisit the approach lighting? There should not be any on 13/31 or 9R/27L....only on the main runway 9L/27R.

No, because Flight sim, when the approach lights are set to None, the PAPI will be disabled as well. I guess it's best to have an approach light that doesn't exist in real life, but certainly doesn't create any trouble, than to lose the PAPI, which will make landing more difficult, even in daylight.

[Captain2000]

Any plans to revisit the approach lighting? There should not be any on 13/31 or 9R/27L....only on the main runway 9L/27R.

No, because Flight sim, when the approach lights are set to None, the PAPI will be disabled as well. I guess it's best to have an approach light that doesn't exist in real life, but certainly doesn't create any trouble, than to lose the PAPI, which will make landing more difficult, even in daylight.

Thanks for the reply, although I must say that I find it extremely disappointing. I fail to see why these can't be controlled independantly of each other in your custom work. After all, we have had the ability via AFCAD for default and other airports to have any combination of runway markings, approach lighting, touchdown zones, runway lighting type and VASI/PAPI in any position of any variety. That they must now be tied together makes no sense to me at all.

While "it doesn't create any trouble" it is not accurate. On approach and even up through short final to 9L you can see all three sets of flashes, 9L, 9R and 13. This wouldn't be accurate even if they were supposed to exist.

I'm a big fan of your scenery work, and as a local to FLL was thrilled to see the outcome and happy to provide Fabrizio with the resources needed to make things accurate. I beleive this is a step back from "as real as it gets" and your stock has lost a bit in my book. Perhaps I am in the minority on this small point because this is my home airport, but I really believe that this should not have been a complicated detail to get correct.

Thank you,
Kelly Wilbar

[virtuali]

I fail to see why these can't be controlled independantly of each other in your custom work.

The runway lights are standard FS, only the runway textures are custom.

That they must now be tied together makes no sense to me at all.

It doesn't make much sense to us either, but that's how it works. If it was possible to turn off approach lights without losing PAPI, we would already done that.

While "it doesn't create any trouble" it is not accurate. On approach and even up through short final to 9L you can see all three sets of flashes, 9L, 9R and 13. This wouldn't be accurate even if they were supposed to exist.

I repeat and confirm that I don't see why seeing an approach light that is not supposed to be there can cause "troubles", it might not be 100% realistic, but the real trouble would be losing PAPI instead.

I'm a big fan of your scenery work, and as a local to FLL was thrilled to see the outcome and happy to provide Fabrizio with the resources needed to make things accurate. I beleive this is a step back from "as real as it gets" and your stock has lost a bit in my book.

You still don't get it: there's nothing we can do about it, regardless of how many information you would have provided. BTW, fact that no approach lights are on those runways, was already apparent from the charts, we were always aware of this, the fact they are not made as in real life, is not an oversight on our part, it's how flight sim (unfortunately) works.

[Captain2000]

You still don't get it: there's nothing we can do about it, regardless of how many information you would have provided. BTW, fact that no approach lights are on those runways, was already apparent from the charts, we were always aware of this, the fact they are not made as in real life, is not an oversight on our part, it's how flight sim (unfortunately) works.

I think I "get it" just fine. Certainly I will accept your response at face value, although frankly I have a hard time reconcilling it with the fact that via AFCAD we can change this lighting on default airports any way one would desire and that other custom work (even ancient by your design standards like FT Miami) doesn't force one type of lights with the other. Apparantly Flightsim "works" differently depending on the design approach.

As I stated earlier I am perhaps more sensitive and expect too much as this is home. Approach lighting notwithstanding, the work on FLL is first rate and I wouldn't dream of giving it up. No other designer gives the level of detail and performance that you guys do. Looking forward to the next project.

Thank you.

[virtuali]

Approach lighting notwithstanding, the work on FLL is first rate and I wouldn't dream of giving it up. No other designer gives the level of detail and performance that you guys do. Looking forward to the next project.

So, with the file attached, we might just say it's finally done...

We checked better, and the PAPI limitation was related only to threshold lights, meaning, you can't have PAPI if there are no threshold lights. But it's possible to have PAPI without approach lights indeed, which is what you'll find on the attached file.

The file it's the same for FS9 and FSX so, it can be used in FSX as well as it is. We'll not include in the installer for the time being, because it's really too small to justify a separate patch.