Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Martin: please explain again in very great detail for me how exactly
GSHHS has been improved?
I didn't compare the shorelines of the whole world between old and new
version :-)
I actually had a look at a few places (my personal favourites) and
noticed something that
David Megginson wrote:
The problem might be that TerraGear is now cropping against just the
landmass -- it actually has to crop against the union of the landmass,
islands, lakes, and everything else.
I'm pretty sure this is the correct explanation - even without looking
at the code :-)
The
David Megginson wrote:
The TerraGear scenery bug with the Great Lakes (and possibly other
large inland lakes?) is pretty serious -- it leaves many midwest U.S.
and central Canadian cities perched on giant cliffs overlooking the
lakes.
I'd call this an early pre-release, especially because
Martin Spott wrote:
While the machine performs quite well as WWW-, FTP- and database server
(as well as our local fileserver !), is was not sized to to the job of
an online web mapping server. The server is running only with 256 MByte
of RAM at a 400 MHz clock cycle, [...]
Sorry: 440 MHz
On 10/03/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VMAP0 is about political boundaries so it appears not so much to care
about small details in the shoreline. GSHHS is very accurate at those
places where I had a look at and is now split into four categories:
coastline, lakes, islands in those
On 10/03/06, David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GSHHS is excellent for ocean shorelines and bays, but wildly
inaccurate for large inland bodies of water (especially the Great
Lakes). It often puts the shoreline more than 1km off from where it
should be, so that airports near the shore
Hi,
David Megginson schrieb:
The problem, though, is not the accuracy of the shorelines (though
that's obviously important), but the type -- for some reason,
TerraGear has started to misinterpret the Great Lakes as ocean rather
than lake, and thus, it's cutting them right out of the scenery
Hello David,
David Megginson wrote:
GSHHS is excellent for ocean shorelines and bays, but wildly
inaccurate for large inland bodies of water (especially the Great
Lakes).
You should have a look at the new 1.3 dataset from October last year,
this is where the split between the different types
On 10/03/06, Ralf Gerlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that it's exactly that. I wasn't yet able to verify that, but
it seems that the Great Lakes are not part of the landmass and are thus
zeroed in altitude. I'm not sure why that worked in the previous releases.
I haven't looked at the
Hi,
It seems that it's exactly that. I wasn't yet able to verify that, but
it seems that the Great Lakes are not part of the landmass and are thus
zeroed in altitude. I'm not sure why that worked in the previous releases.
I haven't looked at the TerraGear code for a long time, but in the
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 10:59 -0600, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
3. Any other major issues?
Curt,
Last month I suggested a change[1] to TACAN_freq.dat and carrier_nav.dat
to enable TACAN to work on the proper channels. I'd like to see this go
in so the F4E I'm working on can use the TACAN.
3. Any other major issues?
I wonder if somebody (since Erik has retired from the patch integration
work) has my most recent rain cone patch (stage 2) in the incoming queue.
Or does it mean I have to ensure myself that enough other folks have
it tested also, and then check-in it myself? I haven't
On 09/03/06, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. Any other major issues?
The TerraGear scenery bug with the Great Lakes (and possibly other
large inland lakes?) is pretty serious -- it leaves many midwest U.S.
and central Canadian cities perched on giant cliffs overlooking the
lakes.
Hi,
David Megginson schrieb:
Here's another one -- the DME is no longer working unless the DME is
associated with a VOR. That's a big problem for anyone who uses
FlightGear for IFR practice (since DMEs are often associated with
localizers or used standalone).
I remember fixing this one once
On Thursday 09 March 2006 17:59, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I would like to start working agressively towards the next FlightGear
release which will be called v0.9.10 (putting off the v1.0 release for
at least one more cycle.) We have quite a few important features and
aircraft added since the
On Thursday 09 March 2006 19:35, David Megginson wrote:
On 09/03/06, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. Any other major issues?
The TerraGear scenery bug with the Great Lakes (and possibly
other large inland lakes?) is pretty serious -- it leaves many
midwest U.S. and central
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On Thursday 09 March 2006 11:59, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
3. Any other major issues?
KSFO in FlightGear seems to be sinking with each scenery rebuild. It looked
relatively fine back in the days of 0.9.5, but now, it is half a meter below
the surrounding
David Megginson wrote:
On 09/03/06, Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. Any other major issues?
The TerraGear scenery bug with the Great Lakes (and possibly other
large inland lakes?) is pretty serious -- it leaves many midwest U.S.
and central Canadian cities perched on
On Thursday 09 March 2006 17:59, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
3. Any other major issues?
That mouse wrapping issue reported by Jean-Yves Lefort in an other thread
these hours.
I noticed that too, will look into ...
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19 matches
Mail list logo
