Compared to G3

[ddwaner]

[TreeHugger]

[ddwaner]

[lcsaba]

Hello,

I am not taking part in discussion on FMS / reflex. The problem for me is a little bit different.
But first of all I would like to thank for your information above.

I have downloaded three panorama airfields from rc-sim.de.
All of those are free, the authors are different.
Those are 4H Camp, StOstwald, and Mfc-Achim, having considerably different characteristics, as far as the vision, and the collision problem is concerned.

To practice various flight situations is much more convenient as to do with FMS original landscapes.

My goal is to construct a FMS landscape of my airfield(s). (I have my own sailplanes.)

I would like to quote ggunnerson, who says:
"I can't afford them to compare them".
And my problem is similar.

Should I buy a Reflex XTR for more than 250 USD to have a tool for constructing my own airfield, and afterwards to transform it to FMS.

If I have bought reflex there would be no need to use FMS, at least for this reason.

My question is the following. Is it sensible to search for tools and methods and is it possible to construct my panorama airfield from scratch? I mean from digital photos and perhaps a replacement technology using one of the above mentioned airfields, but withouth reflex. This will be only for my personal use therefore no personal right problems exits. Is it true?

Laszlo

[ddwaner]

1. Look on the web, you may find a better price than that for REFLEX.
2. I have constructed several panorama's of the fields I fly at for Reflex and now FMS.
3. If you have the panorama of your field try using the converter program for FMS to get your airfield pano sim flyable. Your pano may be like the version of St_Oswald I have which would give you a start, no collisions other than the ground.
!!! NOTE !!! Paying money for the Reflex sim would most likely not supply you with ANY software for creating a FMS pano (in ANY WAY), you would just be out the money. Phoenix may be the ONLY company publishing that they will do a landscape for someone (It may or may NOT be free!!!) and Phoenix is NOT free and they supply NO demo to compare that it is worth ANY money at all.
!!! Suggestion !!! Make the pano of your field and use FMS Photo Lanscape to make a flying stub for FMS... (This step would cost NO money and just a little of your time (if you already have a digital still camera).

[lcsaba]

Thanks,

I will do that.

Laszlo

[lcsaba]

I am using now PTGui to stitch my photos 4 rows 20 pictures, each. I am progressing slowly but reasonably well. My first cylindrical landscape can be published soon, while it is only for demonstration of some things, mainly two types of crash objects, and decreased diameter of the cylinder. Most of my crash objects are like yours at 4H_Camp but there are trees which are covering the airplanes while flying behind them. I have found this solution at Riesa (smcxx66 pointed to this).

As spherical projection is concerned I am using the geometry and mapping made by TreeHugger. I am waiting for his permission to do this. On the other hand I have difficulties to make the upper row, namely the sky around the zenith, because of lighting and stitching problems.

Now I am writing because of a different question. TreeHugger at the other topics (FMSXYZ New Version V.1.1.0) made a contribution presenting the difference between the cylindrical (equal distances) and (equal angles) spherical projections. I guess that is clear for me. On the other hand PTGui when stitching and editing is ready offers various projection types. Cylindrical and spherical are among those.
FMS_PL and I guess other cylindrical mapping (FMSXYZ for instance) requires +/- 100% distances which is +/-45 degrees.
Bad_Oldesloe and other spherical projection methods require +90 degree, - 45 degree (because we are using airplanes and not submarines)

I believe that all reflex originated panos are such.

My problem is that your 4H_Camp_Winter is made by FMS_PL meanwhile the .jpg picture of the scenery is a reflex type (8160*3060 for spherical mapping).
Because I couldn’t find your full photo I can’t figure out if the two rows of 4H_Camp_Winter are cut out from the pano made for spherical projection or you made a conversion to cylindrical. (You can do this because you have the original set of photos.)

This is interesting for me because of the discussion at “FMSXYZ New Version V.1.1.0” about horizon and various projection methods. If I am right and there are no conversion programs to convert from spherical to cylindrical, distortion free cylindrical FMS landscapes can not be produced from reflex photos. This is the reason I have offered my pano for those who wish to play with cylindrical pictures.

Finally I have found a landscape at RC_sim, the “Abhang” which is very tricky, great fun, not perfect, but demonstrates that the 3D and panorama methods can be combined. “Chase” option is available. One can fly behind the wall of the skybox. I have a feeling that the bottom face of the box is the 3D map, but the problem is that it is not flat, on the other hand it might be the design goal because it is for slope soaring.

[TreeHugger]

Hi Iscaba,

I'm pleased to hear your project is still progressing!
Concerning permission to use scenery data, I've sent you a PM.

Cylindrical Mapping:
What was the question - I don't really get your point? First you mentioned PtGui has output option "cylindrical", then you said converting from spherical to cylindrical was impossible. That's a contradiction, right - if PtGui can input "equirectangular" and deliver several cylindrical projections (Mercator et. al.), that would be the essence of a conversion.

I'm using hugin instead of PtGui, but since both are frontends for PanoTools, I think differences between either don't matter much. My suggestion is not to make things harder than necessary. Why use cylindrical at all when a convenient flat projection is right at your hands? It's called "rectilinear" in hugin and is just a flat plane, ideal for use with polygons. If your source pano has ca. 8k resolution, try an eight-sided cylinder (octagon) with top and bottom cap. Six-sided cylinders are useful for smaller source images, but be careful when using cubes:
with 1024px images the resolution just plain sucks and with 2048px your graphics driver might compress the texture before display (so it sucks again..). This will depend upon your graphic board and driver, I've had it work on one machine but not on another...


Spherical Mapping:
I chose a spherical projection because I was starting from different initial conditions: I had a pano made to ordinary reflex-dimensions and wanted to use it without any remapping or resampling to conserve resolution. That's why I chose to cut it in pieces and map in onto a sphere. If you have the original single photos to begin with, nobody forces you to create a spherical mapping - choose something easier instead. Dodecahedron, anyone?



All I can say about "FMS_PL" is, I couldn't get anything useful out of it. Whatever settings I tried, the result would be notably blurred compared to the original. I prefer when the "inner working" of a software is documented, so I know what to expect. Hence my recommendation to stick to panotools/ptgui/hugin.

Slope Soaring is certainly possible and quite easy. All you need is a sloped ground and some wind uphill. It doesn't matter whether the ground is a grayscale heightmap (3D_LANDSCAPE) or made of actual polygons. Just keep in mind heightmap is limited to 64 meters height difference. Simply tilt the ground polygon towards the wind and have fun. If you're using this in conjunction with a panoramic scenery, make sure the pano doesn't have a top. That's right, the top cap of a sphere will deflect the wind like a ground and ruin the lift. Leave a big enough hole over the pilot's position.

Regards

[TreeHugger]

Sorry, double post deleted.

[lcsaba]

[lcsaba]

[lcsaba]

I have loaded FMS_PL with Mercator pano (8176*2042) The width of the pano is 81.9 degree because it is, althougt in a less extent than cylindrical, is streched.

The FMS_PL mapping is showing that the highest “x” –“z” values are 1200, the highest “y” (vertical) is 1024. Arctangent of 1024/1200 is about 40.5 degree (multiplied by two 81). This is the value (more or less) I got making Mercator picture.
Can we say that Mercator pictures are required?

If this is the truth Perry should be asked to inform the users about this opening FMSXYZ in pano mode because the same mapping is used.

[smcxx66]

I took the winter H4 camp photo from relex
and did a some graphic air brush. I bascailly smared the sky
and add a len flash like riesa for an over head shot of the sky.
and airbrashed in the gray conner and air brush the bottom
panel of the skybox. These are the basic tools most peaple
use to make corrections, it's alot easier if i have some original
photos of time of place. it removes shadows of the aurthur
or the camera pod and bascilly gives you a complete view
of the under your feet shot. if you sticth it good it'll good, it'll look
good.lol

Art weaver also has a sky/cloud filter, bascially it gernerate a sky.
I've also used this tech to fix of the sceneries from reflex.
It's a bit time consuming...but i guess that's why some sims
are not free.

The reflex photos are missing the bottom protion of a complete
equirectangular photo
you can also get scenes from clearview..some are the same sceneries
as the reflex..You'll notice just brown or green on the bottom of
clearviews sceries.lol
look they're in 8160 x 4080

to convert into a skybox you simple just have to increase
the total canvas to 8160 x 4080. (360x180) or equirectangular
is the term use to discribe these type of panoramic photos.
i don't have project problems so whatevever.
Cleaview also runs in skybox as will for certain sceneries.

I choose to fly without the the fix camera posistion.
This bascailly truns FMS into a beast. The modle will
float from coner to coner of the screen and not stay fixed
in the center of the screen...Big, big big differents
in how the model feels and flight character.
Excellent for learnding to hover a heli
i can actaully see the model make a big loop on the screen.
this also gives me a wider view of the scenery
Pretty close to me flying a real R/C model as far as sims gose.
Notice the G3 and clearview also floats

The trick is to get proper aircraft posistion and camera position.
you just have to understand the x,z,y and zoom of the pilot(camera)
posistioning. it just takes time so you have to mess with it
or try it out.

Preflight has a quick edit menu. in FMS you have to go into
the .scn file to adjust it manually. preflight also has a quick
object add menu. FMS dosn't...again it can be done manually.
I bascially can run any reflex scenery in prefight via skybox
or sphere..same as clearview.

Notice even the G3 has the same sceneries as the reflex's
that someone converted.

I'm plaining on using the same photo (panel) and blacking out
certain parts for transparent. bacailly it should give layers
of whats in the original scenery already..kind of like going UV
but I'll be able to fly behind trees or objects and set my crash
piont accrodingly. it's a time consuming project to paint in black
area with ditails.lol

I don't know one of these days I'll just creat a sphere and
map in some texture in maq. for FMS.

[smcxx66]

if you take a closer look at some of the reflex's.
the photos had been doctored. But they look great
Example, on the dieterdorf take a closer look at the
models that's sitting near the run way. They had been added
in after the photo was taken.
Notice the grass looks different around the CUB
Notice the bush shadows in certain protions of Aero club scenery
just stops.lol

Notice the Model city scenery has airbrush splader marks all over it.lol

Notice some of clearview sceneries has swirl or line marks all
over the sky.lol
Notice the G3 DEMO has the same types of lines in the sky.lol

Notice the stitch mark on Preflight baseball field scenery.
it's a little bit to the left at the end of the runway.

i think photoshop cost over $500 .lol

there's even a site that sell just skys for panoramic photos.
$100 for three..lol
it's difficult to get a perfect picture of the sky due to shadows
and lighting conditions.

There's even a link the gives instrutions how to correct sky
or insert a new sky back ground, Via BLENDER

[smcxx66]

Hello,

pertaining to flying behind objects or have the model disappear behind
trees in photolistic sceneries.

my idea has already been done.

while the projection of photolistic sceneries from RC-SIM has
improper fisheyes effects. The sphere to cube convertor resovled
that issue.

most of the files from RC-sim has instructions in german or french.
bascailly if you don't convert those jpg files into .bmp files
those sceneries won't work.

look in the Arzier scenery...this scnery is in skybox formate.
Look in the ADD ON for Arzier....
it has images of trees from the bmp. files that's been blacked out
except for the tree lines, for transparent.

it also has a .scn files with the mesh of the objects....woo hoo

so it's basically a matter of just switching out the .bmp files
and setting the objects.

in order to get a complete view of the bottom panel, you simply
just have to add crash pionts and a crash bmp. file.

easy..just copy and paste from other .scn and set them accordingly.

also if you look in the AshhurstII scenery.
the way this skybox photolistic scenery is set up for being on a hill top...woo hoo. So bascially switch out .bmp files for slopes.lol

If you don't like the skybox....the skybox allows for lower resolutions,
if you don't have the greatest graphic card in the world.
around 18mb 36mb with crash pionts and objects.

Look in Aero Club_Bad_Oldesole and St_Oswald
it's set up just like reflex..and the .scn files has all of the conversion data.
it has proper fisheyes projections...all you have to do is convert those
jpg files into .bmp files to make it work.
or switch out other reflex scene files to get another reflex scenery
in that formate. better resolutions at around 50mb to 80mb per scenery.

both type of these format will give you a complete view of the sky
and ground. the skybox will give you a complete veiw if you have
a complete equirectangular photo to start off with.

the reflex equirectangular images are missing the bottom part of a complete image. So bascially it's missing the bottom view of the camera pod. You don't really see it unless you fly the model into your feet.lol