Discussion area flattening experiment - SUCCESS

[kuddel]

The impressive prove-of-concept is still a "hack", so minor issues are to be expected.

 

[Face]

It is weird that the shadow of the untouched area are high.

My guess is that the shadows are calculated for the height at the base position, not for each individual building.

 

[4throck]

Indeed... Here the best fix would be to remove ground shadows from base blocks.
It's already common practice to do that (mesh flag) for launch pad / tower meshes.

 

[llarian]

Still think I'm doing something wrong. I'm trying to flatten an area on Mars at Pavonis Mons. I've written a file called PavonisMons.flt and stored it in Textures/Mars/Flat. It contains one line:

Rect 100 0.5 -112.5 5000 1000 0 50

Zo, I'm trying to flatten an area 5000 m x 1000 m at a latitude of .5 and a longitude of -112.5 (112.5 W) to 100m just for a test.

Can't see it. Any suggestions?

 

[dgatsoulis]

Still think I'm doing something wrong. I'm trying to flatten an area on Mars at Pavonis Mons. I've written a file called PavonisMons.flt and stored it in Textures/Mars/Flat. It contains one line:

Rect 100 0.5 -112.5 5000 1000 0 50

Zo, I'm trying to flatten an area 5000 m x 1000 m at a latitude of .5 and a longitude of -112.5 (112.5 W) to 100m just for a test.

Can't see it. Any suggestions?

First longitude then latitude

RECT 100 -112.5 0.5 5000 1000 0 50

 

[llarian]

Thanks. I'll give it a shot. Rather excited about this development for 2016.

 

[4throck]

Yes, it's confusing because it doesn't follow coordinate convention.
But base definitions are like that, and the reasoning behind this is to flatten bases

 

[Face]

Yes, it's confusing because it doesn't follow coordinate convention.
But base definitions are like that, and the reasoning behind this is to flatten bases

Indeed. I initially had it reversed as well, but quickly ran into the mismatch while copy/pasting base coordinates.

 

[4throck]

Second that. Better leave it as it is. :hmm:

 

[llarian]

Still playing with it. I do not see any surface flattening at the site on Pavonis Mons. However I do know that something is occurring. If I rotate the camera view to view under the surface, I do notice an effect much like a cone under the surface and reaching up to the surface but no surface flattening. Sorry I forgot to take a screen capture.

Is the one line sufficient in the .flt file or are more needed?

 

[gattispilot]

So I want to try this at Moonbase Alpha. So the shape is a rectangle. The elevation is ?

 

[Face]

Still playing with it. I do not see any surface flattening at the site on Pavonis Mons. However I do know that something is occurring. If I rotate the camera view to view under the surface, I do notice an effect much like a cone under the surface and reaching up to the surface but no surface flattening. Sorry I forgot to take a screen capture.

Is the one line sufficient in the .flt file or are more needed?

One line is sufficient, and it works as designed. What you see is the consequence of digging a hole to MSL 100 when the terrain is at MSL 12600. The cone is due to the 50% falloff desperately trying to make up for the huge level difference :lol: .

 

[llarian]

Isn't learning fun? :rofl:

Besides, if I volunteer to ask the dumb questions, it might save you from having to answer them again and again. Might even help improve the documentation. :blink:

Thanks, guys.

Edit: Latest test worked fantastically! Guess I really shouldn't be testing at 0300. Daylight is so much better.

One line is sufficient, and it works as designed. What you see is the consequence of digging a hole to MSL 100 when the terrain is at MSL 12600. The cone is due to the 50% falloff desperately trying to make up for the huge level difference :lol: .

 

[Face]

Besides, if I volunteer to ask the dumb questions, it might save you from having to answer them again and again. Might even help improve the documentation. :blink:

Documentation? Never heard that word, what kind of exotic fruit is this, if I might ask? :rofl:

 

[llarian]

Exactly. :rofl:

 

[4throck]

if I volunteer to ask the dumb questions

The question was not dumb.
If you aren't used to terrain mesh resolution, point interpolation, etc some results might seem confusing.

A good starting point is to define a large area for flattening. For example 3 or 4 km.
It should be easily visible. Then experiment until you get what you need. Best way to learn.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:51 ----------

The elevation is ?

Surface MFD displays altitude...

 

[llarian]

Thanks 4throck. Truly the only dumb question is the one unasked. The truth is I did know. Because I was working primarily on Mars and in its highlands, I had disregarded height above MSL and confused myself with what I was seeing when I went looking under the surface.

My thanks to Face and fred18 and all of you who worked on this. It will make base preparation much more convenient and I do hope that Dr. Martin will incorporate it into the core.

Work well done, gentlemen.

 

[acsheehy]

Face - you are a star. I am now able to recreate the locations in my books and fly to them. Brilliant!

 

[Face]

Nice to see that it is actually helpful to someone. Wow, already more than a year old now.

 

[acsheehy]

Nice to see that it is actually helpful to someone. Wow, already more than a year old now.

Yes. I can get away with adding ground coloured bases to smaller items, but the larger items need subtle help even on roughly level ground.
And of course, for runways, which, on Mars, have to be a lot longer than usual. The good thing is, that most of Mars is underground, so you only have to have what sits on the surface. You just have to use your imagination and see those three pads as elevator pads with a full hanger and administration buildings underneath... with an underground rail line that connects the city you see above...