• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Water, water everywhere. . . .

falcon409

falcon409

Moderator
Staff member
. . .just not where it's supposed to be, lol. I just wanted to pass on some images of a "senior moment" in action, lol. I was trying to add water to the small stock ponds on the property of the Winters Aire Park Airport. I did this once before with the Yellowknife scenery, but I've slept since then so the exact sequence had escaped me, lol.
Image 1. . .what happens when you forget to add the correct (or any) elevation for the hydro-poly (sort of "Superman Ice Castle-ish" look).
Image 2. . . The Great Flood of 2009. . .this happens when the water mask you produced is reversed, lol.
Image 3. . .Success!!
 
Lolz, Ed. We've all been there, I'm sure. Say, you know you don't have to place water polys when you add water to photoreal scenery, right? Just adding the watermask is enough, you don't need any other poly data.
 
LOL, as Bill pointed out, been there, done that.
Guess this proves one thing - NO SLEEP from now on! :bump:
 
spotlope said:
Lolz, Ed. We've all been there, I'm sure. Say, you know you don't have to place water polys when you add water to photoreal scenery, right? Just adding the watermask is enough, you don't need any other poly data.
Click to expand...
Even if there's no underlying water Bill?
 
spotlope said:
It doesn't matter. By using photoreal and marking an area as water on the watermask, it becomes water. You can basically just paint in water wherever you need it.
Click to expand...
Wow. . .thanks for that. I have always assume that a hydro poly was necessary. Good to know otherwise.
 
drum roll please, lol. Water poly's removed. I'm going to try using a line poly to edge the pond with. The low res image leaves a tacky looking pixelated edging.
Thanks again Bill!!:ernae:
 
The line polys won't show up over your phototerrain - photos always go on top, regardless. You can use a very small brush to draw the watermask, thus minimizing most of the objectionable jaggy lines, or you can go back to using water polys with shore lines and just cut the lakes out of your blendmask instead of your watermask. The one-bit jaggy alpha is how FSX does watermasks. I wish there was a simple way around it, but there isn't at the moment.
 
spotlope said:
The line polys won't show up over your phototerrain - photos always go on top, regardless.
Click to expand...
Yea, when I thought about what I planned to do, I realized that wasn't going to work.
spotlope said:
You can use a very small brush to draw the watermask, thus minimizing most of the objectionable jaggy lines, or you can go back to using water polys with shore lines and just cut the lakes out of your blendmask instead of your watermask. The one-bit jaggy alpha is how FSX does watermasks. I wish there was a simple way around it, but there isn't at the moment.
Click to expand...
Actually, when I did the watermask, I did the water areas with a small blurred edge, hoping it would allow some of the underlying color to show through as in the shallow areas of the pond. Instead I got the jaggies, lol.
 
I'm going to define the taxi areas a bit more, knock out a few more areas on the image and add a few more buildings to two areas in the background and it should be complete.
 
It was a good idea, that blurring, but due to how the resampler treats watermasks, it doesn't help. In fact, it's possible that having a blurred, smoother-looking line actually makes the problem worse. The only way I've gotten around it, so to speak, is to use a 1px hard-edged brush to pain in my water edges. At least then you can see exactly jaggy they'll be.
 
spotlope said:
It was a good idea, that blurring, but due to how the resampler treats watermasks, it doesn't help. In fact, it's possible that having a blurred, smoother-looking line actually makes the problem worse. The only way I've gotten around it, so to speak, is to use a 1px hard-edged brush to pain in my water edges. At least then you can see exactly jaggy they'll be.
Click to expand...
I'll give it a try, even if I can keep it "less jaggy" it'll help the overall appearance and normally unless you're hovering above the ponds it wouldn't be that noticeable anyway. I'll give it a shot, thanks Bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top