Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Melchior FRANZ wrote: I'm sure he meant boeing.com (hey, Stacie was first!). Now with Boeing and Sikorsky on board, where is EADS/Airbus? Come on! We know you are here! And Fokker!? And *cough* Diamond *cough* ... ;-) I get the sense (from little bits and pieces I've gleaned over time) that there are a lot more big name companies using FlightGear that we are generally aware of. A lot of these companies are using FlightGear as a visualization or engineering tool in conjunction with various high power dynamics and controls modeling software. Many of these companies are competition sensitive so they don't necessarily advertise exactly who they are and exactly what they are doing. Often they are just using FG as an off the shelf tool. I suspect that FlightGear's use as an engineering tool within universities and industry will continue to grow over time as more and more people discover it (and as FlightGear's capabilities increase.) I just got back from a Mathworks matlab/simulink symposium in LA this week. (Thank you John, Alex, and Trisha for all your efforts! And I have to thank Mathworks who went all out to help us get John's 747 sim down to the show and make it a success.) Mathworks has a neat tool (simulink + aero blockset) where you can assemble a flight dynamics model and all the real time flight controls (i.e. fly by wire stuff) in a graphical format. They have created a direct interface to FlightGear so the modeler can click a button, run the simulink simulation in real time and see a real time visualization of their aircraft in FlightGear with animated control surfaces and gauges if they want to set that up in FG. Mathworks has customers (plural) :-) requesting a direct interface to FlightGear which is why they implimented an interface in the latest release of their aero blockset (available yesterday) and invited me and John Wojnaroski to come be a part of their show. John brought his 747 sim along and it was (predictably) :-) one of the bigger hits there. This is probably 2nd or 3rd hand, but I hear that the unofficial ratio of FlightGear interface requests to X-Plane interface requests is about 5-1 which is why mathworks built the FlightGear interface first. That's music to my ears. :-) Oh, and let me tack on one extra thought here at the end. Not everyone there at the show was a big simulink aero block set fan, so I suspect that many people are using JSBsim or one of the other FG fdm's directly. We aren't trying to eventually replace JSBsim with a proprietary flight dynamics model here so please, I don't want anyone to worry. :-) coughJon/cough :-) My main goal for attending this show was to show the flexibility and adaptability of FlightGear as an engineering and rapid prototyping tool. I think FlightGear will have a big future in that area. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
directly. We aren't trying to eventually replace JSBsim with a proprietary flight dynamics model here so please, I don't want anyone to worry. :-) coughJon/cough :-) My main goal for attending this show was to show the flexibility and adaptability of FlightGear as an engineering and rapid prototyping tool. I think FlightGear will have a big future in that area. At $1900 for a commercial license for Matlab (only Matlab - not simulink) it's no surprise that some are bypassing Matlab. It's obviously a great tool with a well-established history, but there are some alternatives in the Open Source world (SciLab/SciCos, IIRC). Also, I'm working on JSBSim Commander, which will make using JSBSim with flight controls development a little more fun, if not useful and practical for broader uses. I think it's great that FlightGear is getting so much attention from commercial partnerships. It helps/benefits us all. JSBSim has lately been adding 2 or 3 people per week to the mailing list, so that's encouraging. The newsletter also publishes the new and innovative ways that JSBSim is being used in industry. There's a place for everyone ... Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Hello Curt, thanks for your resume ! Curtis L. Olson wrote: I just got back from a Mathworks matlab/simulink symposium in LA this week. (Thank you John, Alex, and Trisha for all your efforts! And I have to thank Mathworks who went all out to help us get John's 747 sim down to the show and make it a success.) Mathworks has a neat tool (simulink + aero blockset) where you can assemble a flight dynamics model and all the real time flight controls (i.e. fly by wire stuff) in a graphical format. They have created a direct interface to FlightGear so the modeler can click a button, run the simulink simulation in real time and see a real time visualization of their aircraft in FlightGear with animated control surfaces and gauges if they want to set that up in FG. That sounds interesting, but it's not completely clear to me what they acutally did to achieve this ;-) Did they create an interface within their own simulation that connects to stock FlightGear, did they extend FlightGear with their specific interface (source code available ?), did they modify the existing FlightGear interface to match their needs ? And a second question, please: Does their Aerospace Blocks have any relation the AeroSim Blockset by U-Dynamics as presented on these pages: http://www.u-dynamics.com/aerosim/ Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Martin Spott wrote: Hello Curt, thanks for your resume ! Oops, did I misclick with this stupid laptop touch pad and attach my resume by mistake? That sounds interesting, but it's not completely clear to me what they acutally did to achieve this ;-) Did they create an interface within their own simulation that connects to stock FlightGear, did they extend FlightGear with their specific interface (source code available ?), did they modify the existing FlightGear interface to match their needs ? They use FlightGear's existing netfdm and netctrls structures (they support both v0.9.3 and v0.9.8 versions) within their own code. This way you can connect up to a stock version of FlightGear with minimal messing around. They had a neat demo of a lifting body vehicle returning from space on final approach to KSFO. The dynamics and control was all done in simulink with the aerospace blockset and flightgear was used to visualize the flight in real time. They setup a simple model of the vehicle with animated control surfaces ... they exaggerated the actual movements and painted the underside of the surfaces orange so you could see when they deployed or moved. http://www.mathworks.com/cmsimages/ae_flsimulator_wl_10579.jpg It was a really nifty little demo. And a second question, please: Does their Aerospace Blocks have any relation the AeroSim Blockset by U-Dynamics as presented on these pages: http://www.u-dynamics.com/aerosim/ No, the u-dynamics stuff is completely independent. I believe it's similar in scope and purpose, but the Mathworks version is integrated directly into their current aerospace blockset release (available for download (to customers) starting yesterday.) It's not a cheap product but for those that have it, FlightGear adds a *lot* of functionality to what they can do with it. In addition, the Mathworks stuff supports version 0.9.3 and 0.9.8 (current version) where as the u-dynamics stuff only supports v0.7.9 and v0.9.2 last I checked. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Hello Curt, thanks for your resume ! Oops, did I misclick with this stupid laptop touch pad and attach my resume by mistake? :-)) No, you didn't, I was just echoing the funny habit of a British colleague in the way he translates the French word 'resumee'. Thank you for the explanation, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
* Alberico, James F -- Thursday 26 May 2005 16:42: Erik Hofman wrote: Harald JOHNSEN wrote: Alberico, James F wrote: Hi Jim, It good to see some big names showing up on the list. This might give the project a boost to get to the next level. You certainly mean Harald, not me, unless you are commenting on the ugly format of my name here. :-) I'm sure he meant boeing.com (hey, Stacie was first!). Now with Boeing and Sikorsky on board, where is EADS/Airbus? Come on! We know you are here! And Fokker!? And *cough* Diamond *cough* ... ;-) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Alberico, James F -- Thursday 26 May 2005 16:42: You certainly mean Harald, not me, unless you are commenting on the ugly format of my name here. :-) I'm sure he meant boeing.com (hey, Stacie was first!). Now with Boeing and Yep. Sikorsky on board, where is EADS/Airbus? Come on! We know you are here! And Fokker!? And *cough* Diamond *cough* ... ;-) Fokker? I'm working on that. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
I understand the fear that many companies have of open source software, and the concern that the product that is their bread and butter might be illegally transferred among those users. However, there's another side to this that could be very positive for both sides. Just like giving away free samples at the grocery store is designed to sell more of that item, it seems to me like it could be a huge advantage to a company that deals with land imaging to donate a sample of their product to an open source project like FlightGear. I'm not talking about giving away the rights to all of their images for free here. A more sensical approach might be to license, for no charge, a small chunk of scenery (like the bay area, for a good example) to users of FlightGear for personal use. The license would of course retain copyright, forbid redistribution of any form, etc. Just because the software is open source doesn't mean the scenery has to be, right? The scenery could even be distilled down or lower quality versions of their actual product. The company's name could appear in the acknowledgements for the software and maybe gain a spot on the home page for such a donation. The point would be to create something that looks really cool that would both show off their product as well as enhance the flightgear experience. My speculation is that very little business would be lost to people trying to illegally copy this limited set of images when it can be licensed for free from the company's web page. Rather, it might be a good demonstration of their product that brings them more business from people looking to purchase higher quality images of other places besides the default flightgear airport. Just a thought. In reality, it might be too much to expect a company to work this closely with the feared open source community, but I do see some real potential for mutual benefit. Maybe I've just got my head in the 3d virtual clouds. (Just enabled 3d clouds in flightgear for the first time today... very nice!) -Adam Matthew Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Mally, I wasn't aware that you were an MSFS developer and since I currently do a bit of x-country practice in MSFS with the VisualFlight scenery I'd like to cong ratulate you on an awesome job! I for one would be elated to see a commercially available version of the getm apping derived scenery for FGFS not only for extra realism that it presents, but commercial recognition could only be positive for the project as a whole. As Dave said, I would also be willing to pay for the scenery even if it was a little more expensive to offset the lower demand. It would be wonderful i f VisualFlight permitted purchasers to use the textures in FGFS, but realisti cally that probably won't happen...yet. It's human nature to try and maximise what you have available in this way but I don't want to infringe anyone's EULA or put anyone - especially the 'small guy' out of pocket either. I think the FGFS community is a little more open and honest in this respect. I'm leaving this well alone until it becomes ac ceptable to do so or I can buy the scenery 'for FGFS' :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Hi Mally, I wasn't aware that you were an MSFS developer and since I currently do a bit of x-country practice in MSFS with the VisualFlight scenery I'd like to congratulate you on an awesome job! I for one would be elated to see a commercially available version of the getmapping derived scenery for FGFS not only for extra realism that it presents, but commercial recognition could only be positive for the project as a whole. As Dave said, I would also be willing to pay for the scenery even if it was a little more expensive to offset the lower demand. It would be wonderful if VisualFlight permitted purchasers to use the textures in FGFS, but realistically that probably won't happen...yet. It's human nature to try and maximise what you have available in this way but I don't want to infringe anyone's EULA or put anyone - especially the 'small guy' out of pocket either. I think the FGFS community is a little more open and honest in this respect. I'm leaving this well alone until it becomes acceptable to do so or I can buy the scenery 'for FGFS' :-) All the best, Matt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mally writes: Dave ... It would be nice to know whether visualflight regard buying the MSFS scenery and converting it for personal FlightGear use as fair use or not. As you (Dave) know, I'm the developer of Visual Flight photo scenery, though I've been on the flightgear lists for many years under my nickname rather than my full name so this fact may not be generally more known. I've never wanted to mix work with leisure, so I've been trying to stay out of this discussion as far as possible, but that's become increasingly difficult, and it would not have been fair of me not to have declared an interest at this stage. Hi Mally, First of all my apologies for dropping you in it in this way. I did think long and hard before pressing the send button on that post, but it seems to me that the conversion mentioned will most likely be technically possible within the next 6 to 12 months or so, so it's something that needed clarifying really. I'm still thinking over what you've said, and my very preliminary thoughts are that it would be fair use provided that it was done for personal use only and by somone having a legitimate copy of the original scenery. The major concern would be if the converted textures started changing hands behind the scenes. Development of the photo scenery was a major undertaking and I'm only making a very small percentage on each sale, so anything which might undermine what little return I'm getting would be most unwelcome. Of course Getmapping would have a major interest which would have to be considered. Fair use or not, using the Visual Flight/Getmapping textures in this way would be in breach of the EULA, and I think Getmapping would take the view that a license of some sort would be required to uphold the integrity of the EULA, even if this was issued free of charge. Your comments above are quite encouraging. I agree that possible unauthorised redistribution must always be a concern, but my gut feeling is that its no more likely for converted FlightGear scenery to get 'passed around' than the original MSFS scenery. I also understand your comments about Getmapping and licensing issues. In the light of those comments, I certainly wouldn't make a conversion script available without explicit clearance from both yourself and Getmapping. In any case, I think that generating textures for FlightGear from the MSFS textures would not be the ideal solution. I've not been following the [ammended post quoted in line above] technicalities of the experiments carried out by Mat, but MSFS has a fixed resolution for scenery of this type, and it could be that FlightGear could better exploit the resolution of the original Getmapping imagery. The source data is available down to 0.25m/pixel or even 0.10m/pixel in major cities, though I've no doubt Getmapping would want a return on their investment commensurate with the resolution used. I doubt that it would be acceptable to the FlightGear community to produce a commercial photographic scenery from the Getmapping data, but that's a bit of a shame as it should be possible to come up with something which would exploit the potential of data such as Getmapping's Millennium Map much more fully than is currently possibly with MSFS. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I would *love* to see the Getmapping data (image and elevation) become commercially available as scenery for FlightGear. The data has been generated by a private company running very real costs in airtime, film costs, processing costs and who knows whatever other costs, and I don't think anyone would begrudge the fact that it costs very real money to buy it. I'd go so far as to say I'd be prepared to pay a reasonable premium above the cost of the MSFS scenery in view of the likely lower sales expected, especially if it were to better exploit the original as mentioned. I guess that at the moment this whole discussion is still relativly moot, since FG doesn't have support for scenery texture paging, but that's likely to change at some point in the not too distant future, and I think that the posts generated by the screenshots of Mat's experiments certainly show there is considerable interest in photo scenery among FG users. All ten of us. (Joking ;-)). Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Just to clear up the visualflight question, the scenery I have built does not use the visualflight scenery rather the same source material as visualflight. This is a UK company called Getmapping that has done an almost complete aerial survey of the UK. They actually sell this data in fairly large chunks for 15 pounds a CD here. http://www2.getmapping.com/Catalog/ProductList.asp?ProductTypeDropDown=8 The CD uses the Enhanced Compressed Wavelet (ECW) image format which is non Linux at the moment apparently. http://www.terracolor.net/ecwinfo.htm http://remotesensing.org/gdal/frmt_ecw.html The CD comes with the ERmapping windows program that views converts the .ecw file to ESRI Bil + Geospot, Geotiff, .bmp and jpegs. I ran it OK using codeweavers wine on my Mandrake box and got it to produce a single 2.1GB jpeg for Cornwall. Having used the ermapping program under wine for a few weeks now it does seem that the .ecw format is not only very good at compressing scenery, but that it also is very quick at decompressing it. The idea I was following was that it would be fairly straightforward to bring together some existing terragear tools to fully or partially automate the process of chopping up (chop.pl) and assigning a lat/long (tguserdef) to any aerial photos. If the photos were purchased by the Flightgear user or publicly available, then it seems that this would only comprise an innovative way of viewing the images. Re-sale, or distribution being another matter. Another interesting source for the UK is here. http://venus.aerial.cam.ac.uk/ Mat ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Dave ... It would be nice to know whether visualflight regard buying the MSFS scenery and converting it for personal FlightGear use as fair use or not. As you (Dave) know, I'm the developer of Visual Flight photo scenery, though I've been on the flightgear lists for many years under my nickname rather than my full name so this fact may not be generally more known. I've never wanted to mix work with leisure, so I've been trying to stay out of this discussion as far as possible, but that's become increasingly difficult, and it would not have been fair of me not to have declared an interest at this stage. I'm still thinking over what you've said, and my very preliminary thoughts are that it would be fair use provided that it was done for personal use only and by somone having a legitimate copy of the original scenery. The major concern would be if the converted textures started changing hands behind the scenes. Development of the photo scenery was a major undertaking and I'm only making a very small percentage on each sale, so anything which might undermine what little return I'm getting would be most unwelcome. Of course Getmapping would have a major interest which would have to be considered. Fair use or not, using the Visual Flight/Getmapping textures in this way would be in breach of the EULA, and I think Getmapping would take the view that a license of some sort would be required to uphold the integrity of the EULA, even if this was issued free of charge. In any case, I think that generating textures for FlightGear from the MSFS textures would be the ideal solution. I've not been following the technicalities of the experiments carried out by Mat, but MSFS has a fixed resolution for scenery of this type, and it could be that FlightGear could better exploit the resolution of the original Getmapping imagery. The source data is available down to 0.25m/pixel or even 0.10m/pixel in major cities, though I've no doubt Getmapping would want a return on their investment commensurate with the resolution used. I doubt that it would be acceptable to the FlightGear community to produce a commercial photographic scenery from the Getmapping data, but that's a bit of a shame as it should be possible to come up with something which would exploit the potential of data such as Getmapping's Millennium Map much more fully than is currently possibly with MSFS. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mat If you've not already read it, please read my reply to David Luff before reading on. Just to clear up the visualflight question, the scenery I have built does not use the visualflight scenery rather the same source material as visualflight. I'm not sure David was implying this, but it's certainly worth clarifying. This is a UK company called Getmapping that has done an almost complete aerial survey of the UK. They actually sell this data in fairly large chunks for 15 pounds a CD here. I very much doubt that they sell the data. It is far more likely that they license it for specific uses as detailed in the EULA. The EULA will also detail the restrictions on what you are allowed to do with the data. The idea I was following was that it would be fairly straightforward to bring together some existing terragear tools to fully or partially automate the process of chopping up (chop.pl) and assigning a lat/long (tguserdef) to any aerial photos. If the photos were purchased by the Flightgear user or publicly available, then it seems that this would only comprise an innovative way of viewing the images. Re-sale, or distribution being another matter. This very much depends on the terms of the EULA which I haven't seen, but I've be very surprised if purchasing by an individual user would allow this, and I can't imagine what you're referring to when you say that the photos may be publicly available - even the Getmapping imagery on the multimap web site remains copyright of Getmapping. There seems to be a widespread misbelief that anything available on the internet is fair game, but this is very often not the case. Even the images on terraserver.com remain copyright of the data suppliers, and there are limitations on what you are allowed to do with these. It's important to remember that copyright remains with the copyright owner even if it is not specifically stated, and you cannot assume any rights over the data that you have not been specifically assigned. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery - CORRECTION!
In any case, I think that generating textures for FlightGear from the MSFS textures would be the ideal solution. I've not been following the Oops, I meant to say that it would NOT be the ideal solution! Sorry about that. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mally, After a phone call I have emailed Richard Cook at Coch Media the makers of the High in the Sky distribution of the Getmapping scenery. He is going to get back to me with a definitive answer on the EULA for this product and has said he will speak to their partner in the product Getmapping as part of this. From what you say there may be restrictions as to how I can legally view the scenery having paid for a copy of it. This is something I hadn't considered, so I will wait to hear back. We did discuss that there were several products that would allow you to view the data on the CDs without using the included software and that it would be prudent to check the eula. Until then it is probably worth clarifying a couple of points that I think you might have misunderstood: You are probably correct in terms of the semantics of sell this data however my intention when I used it was to mean sell a CD with images licensed for domestic, social and pleasure purposes and not for commercial use (back of the box). It was my understanding that basic copyright concepts would be understood by other readers of the message. I anticipated that users of a linux developers mailing list would already be familiar with some of these issues and that a reasonably informal use of language is normal in these discussions. Publicly available was not a reference to GetMapping images at all. In fact it was a reference to other possible sources. Flightgear is an international community, most of whom I imagine have a lesser interest in UK scenery, but might also want to view photo scenery in Flightgear. An example of use of the phrase publicly available can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3399809.stm which to be clear I am not assuming is copyright free etc etc. There seems to be a widespread misbelief that anything available on the internet is fair game I have had a quick look through recent postings on all the Flight/Terragear mailing lists and cannot find any reference to interest in the distribution of copyrighted material, scenery or otherwise. Nevertheless thank-you for the reminder. I am however slightly concerned that someone reading your email might think that there has been discussion of this, something you should perhaps make clear. I hope the above has answered your concerns and would be keen to know what others think on this. Regards Mat Churchill ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mat From what you say there may be restrictions as to how I can legally view the scenery having paid for a copy of it. This is something I hadn't considered, so I will wait to hear back. It's possible that the EULA will have a restriction against modifying the images, but obviously I'm speculating. Best to wait to hear as you say. You can always check the EULA for yourself in the meantime if you can find it on the CD of course. You are probably correct in terms of the semantics of sell this data however my intention when I used it was to mean sell a CD with images licensed for domestic, social and pleasure purposes and not for commercial use (back of the box). It was my understanding that basic copyright concepts would be understood by other readers of the message. I anticipated that users of a linux developers mailing list would already be familiar with some of these issues and that a reasonably informal use of language is normal in these discussions. I've always been very impressed at how seriously the flightgear community takes these issues, and the particular care that is taken in ensuring that anything included in the distribution is properly licensed. By the way, I wasn't aware that this was a linux development list (I thought it was cross-platform), but in any case, I don't think it's helpful to assume a holier-than-thou stance on behalf of any group, linux or otherwise. The issues affect everyone, and there will be pockets of ignorance and knowledge in any group. Your choice of words could reinforce misconceptions for some people, even if this wasn't your intention. Publicly available was not a reference to GetMapping images at all. In fact it was a reference to other possible sources. Flightgear is an international community, most of whom I imagine have a lesser interest in UK scenery, but might also want to view photo scenery in Flightgear. An example of use of the phrase publicly available can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3399809.stm which to be clear I am not assuming is copyright free etc etc. Your example is interesting: The copyright statement on the image web site says that use of the images is restricted to a non-commercial purpose of private reference, research or study, which would appear to rule out using it in FlightGear (without entering into a separate agreement with them for this purpose of course). You've possibly chosen a bad example, but from the point of view of illustrating what I was saying, it's quite a good example as it shows that even the BBC can put out misleading statements about copyright (or at least statements that can be misinterpreted by those not fully understanding the issues). There seems to be a widespread misbelief that anything available on the internet is fair game I have had a quick look through recent postings on all the Flight/Terragear mailing lists and cannot find any reference to interest in the distribution of copyrighted material, scenery or otherwise. Nevertheless thank-you for the reminder. I am however slightly concerned that someone reading your email might think that there has been discussion of this, something you should perhaps make clear. By widespread, I meant exactly that, widespread - not specifically related to the flightgear lists. I'm quite happy to clarify that I certainly wasn't targetting my comments specifically at flightgear developers. As I've already said, I'm very impressed by how seriously the flightgear community takes these issues. However there have been a few comments recently which have at least merited clarification. You can search back on my own contributions to this thread to see the sort of thing I mean. I hope the above has answered your concerns and would be keen to know what others think on this. Maybe my own approach is over-cautious, but the very first thing I did when contemplating using the Getmapping data for MSFS was to contact them for permission to prepare a test area using the data on their web site. I don't think it does any harm at all to seek permission at very outset then there's no possibilities of misunderstandings arising later on, or of development work continuing on a false premise. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:04:25 +, Matthew Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm interested in how you did this as I thought of extracting the files from the MS FS VFR scenery discs I have and somehow stitching it together for use in FGFS..? ..does the EULA allow it? ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped from the MS Scenery add-ons? Some info here: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/terragear-devel/2004-January/000859.html http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2004-January/006927.html Had just slightly improved this method after advice from Curt on how to stop the tile edges cutting into inclines. But have had loss of fat on my hardrive (linked to powercut I think). If anyone knows of a good file recovery solution that will work with reiser fs would like to recover contents of drive. Off topic I know, but it is all my flight / terragear stuff ! as well as the rest. Mat ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
mat churchill wrote: Had just slightly improved this method after advice from Curt on how to stop the tile edges cutting into inclines. But have had loss of fat on my hardrive (linked to powercut I think). If anyone knows of a good file recovery solution that will work with reiser fs would like to recover contents of drive. Off topic I know, but it is all my flight / terragear stuff ! as well as the rest. A good journaling file system like RiserFS would never lose (actually 99.995% of the time, and even then just very small portions of the) data. If it didn't recover after startup then there might me a larger problem with your hardware. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
* Erik Hofman -- Thursday 29 January 2004 13:57: A good journaling file system like RiserFS would never lose (actually 99.995% of the time, and even then just very small portions of the) data. Any reason why you don't recommend XFS instead? :-] m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
I'm interested in how you did this as I thought of extracting the files from the MS FS VFR scenery discs I have and somehow stitching it together for use in FGFS..? In theory you should be able to get at the data as Reiser should still be able to give you everything since the last time it wrote the journal file. Maybe you have a disk controller issue or the drive is caput? All the best, Matt. On 11:14 Thu 29 Jan, mat churchill wrote: Had just slightly improved this method after advice from Curt on how to stop the tile edges cutting into inclines. But have had loss of fat on my hardrive (linked to powercut I think). If anyone knows of a good file recovery solution that will work with reiser fs would like to recover contents of drive. Off topic I know, but it is all my flight / terragear stuff ! as well as the rest. Mat ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
mat churchill wrote: That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped from the MS Scenery add-ons? Some info here: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/terragear-devel/2004-January/000859.html http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2004-January/006927.html Does anyone know where one can obtain images of this quality for the southwestern U.S.? Not necessarily free but reasonably cheap... -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Russell Suter wrote: mat churchill wrote: That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped from the MS Scenery add-ons? Some info here: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/terragear-devel/2004-January/000859.h tml http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2004-January/006927. html Does anyone know where one can obtain images of this quality for the southwestern U.S.? Not necessarily free but reasonably cheap... I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Fred I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. Derived work in a GIS context would usually refer to taking vector road lines off the images or something similar. I very much doubt if you could pass photographic scenery off as anything other than redistributing the images themselves. I'd be interested to know what the actual license agreement was - there's very little about this on the terraserver web site. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Russell Suter wrote: mat churchill wrote: That's pretty good scenery! Is that straight from TerraGear or ripped from the MS Scenery add-ons? Some info here: http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/terragear-devel/2004-January/000859.h tml http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2004-January/006927. html Does anyone know where one can obtain images of this quality for the southwestern U.S.? Not necessarily free but reasonably cheap... I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. I'm not planning on redistributing the work. The work would be for a client of mine who is trying to upgrade their simulator's visual database... Thanks, I'll look at that... -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Russ I'm not planning on redistributing the work. The work would be for a client of mine who is trying to upgrade their simulator's visual database... Are you sure that doesn't count as redistributing? Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
The ones I have are from www.visualflight.co.uk and are about 20GBP per region. I bought the regions aroung my airfield to help with VFR practice in MSFS but I'd like to see them in FGFS much more :-) An extension script to rip these into FG for people who have purchased the images would be useful... I believe they are taken from an aircraft at about 5000ft so the detail is much better than sat images. I don't know of anything in the US done in a similar way though. All the best, Matt. On 13:15 Thu 29 Jan, Russell Suter wrote: Does anyone know where one can obtain images of this quality for the southwestern U.S.? Not necessarily free but reasonably cheap... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
On 1/29/04 at 10:05 PM Frederic Bouvier wrote: I once been a Terraserver subscriber. I was allowed to download everything i want at full resolution for a short period of time. I have now the bay area at 1m resolution in color. You are not allowed to redistribute images but derived work is yours. Last time I looked at the terraserver-usa site (different from terraserver.com) they had free USGS color images of the Seattle area at 0.5m (I think) resolution, and stated that further US urban areas were to be added. I would be very surprised if you really could freely redistribute derived work from any non-USGS commercial images unless the original images were clearly non-recoverable from said work, and photographic scenery by its nature would tend to preclude that. I would welcome being proved wrong though :-) Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
Mally wrote: Russ I'm not planning on redistributing the work. The work would be for a client of mine who is trying to upgrade their simulator's visual database... Are you sure that doesn't count as redistributing? Not if they buy the images and I simply provide the labor... -- Russ Conway's Law: The structure of a system tends to mirror the structure of the group producing it. -- Mel Conway Datamation (1968) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery
On 1/29/04 at 10:08 PM Matthew Law wrote: The ones I have are from www.visualflight.co.uk and are about 20GBP per region. I bought the regions aroung my airfield to help with VFR practice in MSFS but I'd like to see them in FGFS much more :-) An extension script to rip these into FG for people who have purchased the images would be useful... If you look at the TerraGear list archives over the last few months there's a number of discussions on how to add small areas of photos to scenery. Larger areas would require support within FlightGear for scenery texture paging. It would be nice to know whether visualflight regard buying the MSFS scenery and converting it for personal FlightGear use as fair use or not. I'd be somewhat reluctant to write a specific conversion script otherwise. I believe they are taken from an aircraft at about 5000ft so the detail is much better than sat images. I don't know of anything in the US done in a similar way though. The whole of Massechucetts is available - Google massechucetts (sp?) orthophotography or similar and you'll find it. Free, but I'm not sure if GPL-compatable - non-commercial use only might be mentioned, but I can't remember clearly. Cheers - Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery mirrors
Martin Spott writes:
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is one of the reasons that relative links are a good idea. As a
made up example, a link from http://gnucash.org/en/contribute.phtml to
http://gnucash.org/pub/gnucash/sources/stable/ should use
a href=../pub/gnucash/sources/stable/ instead of
a href=http://gnucash.org/pub/gnucash/sources/stable/;
I think Curt does not really need beginner's lesson to HTML
The main problem is that directory layouts of different ftp-mirrors are
likely to differ _and_ the hostname will be different.
_This_ is a lesson I'd be interested in: How do you substitute
'http://www' by 'ftp://ftp' automagically _without_ a dynamic
web page !?
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
How about this :
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/rewriteguide.html -- check out the part
about the Archive Access Multiplexer..
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_rewrite.html#mapfunc -- check out
randomized plain text
I assume that since it's Debian / Apache 1.3.27 [flightgear.org] that
mod_rewrite is installed.
You have a list of sites through which mod-rewrite round-robins. You would
have to change the image map to request
http://flightgear.org/scenery/$filename instead of ftp. Then add this to
your server configuration in httpd.conf :
RewriteEngineon
RewriteMap servers rnd:/path/to/servers.map
RewriteRule ^.*/scenery/(.*)$ ${servers:uptodate}$1 [R,L]
Then, put this easy to update servers.map file in a world readable locaion :
uptodate
ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/|ftp://ftp.de.flightgear.o
rg/pub/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/|ftp://obgyn.edu.pl/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/|ftp://ftp.
flightgear.org/pub/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/
Voila, auto_magic! You could even use a perl script as a map and then, of
course, the possibilities are endless : btw, this is the list of mirrors
that has the new scenery.
Cheers, Simon.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery update feedback
This is really a question. I live near Jeffco (KBJC) half way between Denver and Boulder, CO and often shoot practice ILS approaches in fgfs in this area. The new scenery, etc., make Jeffco much more realistic from the air. There used to be a huge hump in the middle of 29R (the main ILS runway). It appears that significant smoothing has been done. Thanks! Question: What is the source of the nominal field elevations used to do the smoothing? The field elevation on KBJC approach plates is 5670. The approach end of 29R is now at 5545 (in fgfs with the new scenery) and increases to about 5580 at the other end. With the smoothing, there are now high and steep hills between the runways and the taxiways. It appears that if the whole airport was raised 90 feet, it would fit the surrounding elevations much better. Hope this feedback helps. Dave ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery update feedback
Dave Perry writes: This is really a question. I live near Jeffco (KBJC) half way between Denver and Boulder, CO and often shoot practice ILS approaches in fgfs in this area. The new scenery, etc., make Jeffco much more realistic from the air. There used to be a huge hump in the middle of 29R (the main ILS runway). It appears that significant smoothing has been done. Thanks! Question: What is the source of the nominal field elevations used to do the smoothing? The field elevation on KBJC approach plates is 5670. The approach end of 29R is now at 5545 (in fgfs with the new scenery) and increases to about 5580 at the other end. With the smoothing, there are now high and steep hills between the runways and the taxiways. It appears that if the whole airport was raised 90 feet, it would fit the surrounding elevations much better. This is strange that the whole airport is set below ground ... I'll have to play around with that and see if I can figure out what is going on. Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery doesn't load after cvs update
* Curtis L. Olson -- Saturday 09 August 2003 04:53: Ooops I didn't catch that because I was explicitely specifying the scenery path. SHould now be fixed in cvs. It does still not work under Linux, because sgDirPathSepBad is still defined to be ':' and hence replaced by '/' in SGPath::fix(). I simply replaced ':' by '\\' to make it work. :-) m. Index: sg_path.cxx === RCS file: /var/cvs/SimGear-0.3/SimGear/simgear/misc/sg_path.cxx,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -p -r1.6 sg_path.cxx --- sg_path.cxx 9 Aug 2003 02:54:15 - 1.6 +++ sg_path.cxx 9 Aug 2003 08:01:05 - @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static const char sgDirPathSep = ':'; static const char sgDirPathSepBad = '/'; #else static const char sgDirPathSep = '/'; -static const char sgDirPathSepBad = ':'; +static const char sgDirPathSepBad = '\\'; #endif #if defined( WIN32 ) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery doesn't load after cvs update
Something is not making sense to me here. What are you using for your --fg-scenery= and --fg-root= options? Thanks, Curt. Melchior FRANZ writes: * Curtis L. Olson -- Saturday 09 August 2003 04:53: Ooops I didn't catch that because I was explicitely specifying the scenery path. SHould now be fixed in cvs. It does still not work under Linux, because sgDirPathSepBad is still defined to be ':' and hence replaced by '/' in SGPath::fix(). I simply replaced ':' by '\\' to make it work. :-) m. Index: sg_path.cxx === RCS file: /var/cvs/SimGear-0.3/SimGear/simgear/misc/sg_path.cxx,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -p -r1.6 sg_path.cxx --- sg_path.cxx 9 Aug 2003 02:54:15 - 1.6 +++ sg_path.cxx 9 Aug 2003 08:01:05 - @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static const char sgDirPathSep = ':'; static const char sgDirPathSepBad = '/'; #else static const char sgDirPathSep = '/'; -static const char sgDirPathSepBad = ':'; +static const char sgDirPathSepBad = '\\'; #endif #if defined( WIN32 ) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery doesn't load after cvs update
* Curtis L. Olson -- Saturday 09 August 2003 15:11: Something is not making sense to me here. What are you using for your --fg-scenery= and --fg-root= options? export FG_ROOT=/usr/local/share/flightgear export FG_SCENERY=/home/m/.fgfs/Scenery:$FG_ROOT/Scenery FGTileLoader::add() SGPath::set()s the path, and SGPath::set() calls SGPath::fix() on it. And this replaces sgDirPathSepBad (:) by sgDirPathSep (/). m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery doesn't load after cvs update
Ooops I didn't catch that because I was explicitely specifying the
scenery path. SHould now be fixed in cvs.
Thanks,
Curt.
Alex Romosan writes:
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yesterday's CVS works fine on my machine (except disappearing sound,
but that's probably plib and new sound card issue).
found the bug:
diff -u -r1.2 FGTileLoader.cxx
--- FGTileLoader.cxx8 Aug 2003 20:11:22 - 1.2
+++ FGTileLoader.cxx8 Aug 2003 22:43:47 -
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
tmp.set( globals-get_fg_scenery() );
} else {
tmp.set( globals-get_fg_root() );
- tile_path.append( Scenery );
+ tmp.append( Scenery );
}
tile_path = tmp.str();
beenhere = true;
this is in src/Scenery.
--alex--
--
| I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active |
| advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with |
| automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion |
| and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. |
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
--
Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org
Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: scenery doesn't load after cvs update
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yesterday's CVS works fine on my machine (except disappearing sound,
but that's probably plib and new sound card issue).
found the bug:
diff -u -r1.2 FGTileLoader.cxx
--- FGTileLoader.cxx8 Aug 2003 20:11:22 - 1.2
+++ FGTileLoader.cxx8 Aug 2003 22:43:47 -
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
tmp.set( globals-get_fg_scenery() );
} else {
tmp.set( globals-get_fg_root() );
- tile_path.append( Scenery );
+ tmp.append( Scenery );
}
tile_path = tmp.str();
beenhere = true;
this is in src/Scenery.
--alex--
--
| I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active |
| advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with |
| automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion |
| and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. |
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
* Matevz Jekovec -- Sunday 03 August 2003 11:34: Do we have a CVS for scenery files too or are those on flightgear.org server the latest ones? These are the latest official ones. But you can get newer and better scenery here: http://www.randdtechnologies.com/fgfs/newScenery/world-scenery.html m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
* Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 03 August 2003 11:39: These are the latest official ones. But you can get newer and better scenery here: [...] Well, better is relative. Some of the tiles are a serious step back. The Madeira islands are beautiful in the original scenery, while in the randtechnologies scenery they look somewhat ridiculous: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/madeira.jpg m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Melchior FRANZ -- Sunday 03 August 2003 11:39: These are the latest official ones. But you can get newer and better scenery here: [...] Well, better is relative. Some of the tiles are a serious step back. Like FDM's, there is no best here. They both have good and bad points and a combination of the two would be a step froward, but that could turn out to be difficult. The Madeira islands are beautiful in the original scenery, while in the randtechnologies scenery they look somewhat ridiculous: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/madeira.jpg You don't like the view of that? :-D Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
* Erik Hofman -- Sunday 03 August 2003 13:30: The Madeira islands are beautiful in the original scenery, while in the randtechnologies scenery they look somewhat ridiculous: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/madeira.jpg You don't like the view of that? :-D :-) But seriously: compare the two pictures, both taken with the following settings: $ fgfs --aircraft=ufo --lat=32.8185 --lon=-16.7519 --altitude=700 \ --visibility=4 --heading=235 http://members.aon.at/mfranz/flightgear.jpg (14 kB) http://members.aon.at/mfranz/randtechnologies.jpg (14 kB) m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
Melchior FRANZ wrote: But seriously: compare the two pictures, both taken with the following settings: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/flightgear.jpg (14 kB) http://members.aon.at/mfranz/randtechnologies.jpg (14 kB) Ouch! I already had the impression something wasn't completely right with the vmap0 data, but this beats everything. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
Erik Hofman writes: I already had the impression something wasn't completely right with the vmap0 data, but this beats everything. The elevation doesn't come from the vmap0 data. What happens is that we have to build with --min-triangle=0 because TerraGear cannot handle the complexity of the extra information in vmap0, and occasionally, that causes TerraGear to break down a bit and produce something like this. If we start adding roads, rivers, etc. from any other source, we get the same problem. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
David Megginson wriyes: Erik Hofman writes: I already had the impression something wasn't completely right with the vmap0 data, but this beats everything. The elevation doesn't come from the vmap0 data. What happens is that we have to build with --min-triangle=0 because TerraGear cannot handle the complexity of the extra information in vmap0, and occasionally, that causes TerraGear to break down a bit and produce something like this. If we start adding roads, rivers, etc. from any other source, we get the same problem. I don't think this particular case has anything todo with the 'min triangle' issue. Instead it is simply that the coastline is not sufficiently accurate for the area involved. This is a common problem with smallish islands and the DCW data. note that the GSHHS data was intended to be used for 'crude' navigation and often has a much better resolution then its nominal scale in situations like this. ie look at the vmap0 representation for many islands and you will find that they are just 3 or 4 points wheas the same in GSHHS will show things ike atols and barrier reefs for the same place Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
Norman Vine writes: ie look at the vmap0 representation for many islands and you will find that they are just 3 or 4 points wheas the same in GSHHS will show things ike atols and barrier reefs for the same place Again, it depends on where you're looking -- it's just the opposite situation for the Great Lakes (vmap0 has the detail). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery development question
David Megginson writes: Norman Vine writes: ie look at the vmap0 representation for many islands and you will find that they are just 3 or 4 points wheas the same in GSHHS will show things ike atols and barrier reefs for the same place Again, it depends on where you're looking -- it's just the opposite situation for the Great Lakes (vmap0 has the detail). The Great Lakes are not the Ocean which is what GSHHS was designed to portray :-) FWIW Adding a *much* better Great Lakes coastline is relatively easy todo. The tricky part is getting the river mouths to line up between the GSHHS and whateser hi-res data one wants to insert Also note that a higher res Great Lakes Boubdary might not correspond well with the lowres roads that one gets from the vmap0. Then again you can get a road dataset at 1 / 25 for all of North America Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery Strangeness
* Paul Deppe -- Tuesday 05 March 2002 21:53: With the latest CVS (1400 EST 3/5/2002) on my Cygwin/Win2k system the textures in mountainous areas seem to walk across the ground and appear and disappear in a very strange manner. I am wondering if anyone else sees this problem. Same here. It's a consequence of David's changes from today (see thread CVS: FlightGear/src/Main main.cxx,1.245,1.246) and will probably get reverted soon. :- m. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
