On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 10:09 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
Rendering ---------
<snip>
This one, and some fractal subdivision of soft-edges, would give far and away the best visual improvement for the current data set, in my opinion. The issues get fairly complex though (this is what I tried to do for my final year project, and didn't get very far at all). What you'd 'like' to do:* Material edge blending
- use a generic coastline texture for sea boundaries (and a 'narrower' one for non-tidal inland water)
- use shore gradient to pick a rocky texture, and, just maybe, VMap sand/mudflat land coverage to get decent tidal zones (of course then people will demand correct tides ... yukc)
- blend the major 'massy' land use types together, based on their type.
- fields / agricultural areas have sharp edges and mostly straight boundaries
- snow / rock / moorland / pasture tends to have very rough edges
- urban areas have rough transitions of empty but non-agricultural land and smaller 'chunk' sizes.
- forrest have varying edges based on whether they're natural or managed!
So this gets to be quite a major task very quickly, and your polygon count is soaring through the roof all the time. The attribute data in the VMap files can help, eg it differentiates between parkland (hard edges) and open grassland, natural vs managed forests, and so on. Making sensible guesses is still a huge undertaking and guaranteed to go badly wrong in some places.
H&H
James
--
You whine like a mule. You are still alive!
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
