On Thursday 06 December 2001 8:47 pm, you wrote: > Jeff wrote: > > So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or > > planes? > > For me? Neither: > > Aircraft carrier! >
Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier > Adding a tail hook and catapult mechanism would be really, really > simple, and a meatball (and VASI/PAPI) renderer wouldn't be too hard. > A cockpit AoA indexer would be trivial (well, for someone with a knack > for making pretty gauges -- I could make an ugly one). But there's > got to be something to land on... > > That said, I'm sure other people have much more practical priorities. > I'd guess that buildings and other ground stuff would probably top the > list. In particular, bridges and radio towers are important landmarks > (obstacles) for VFR (IFR) navigation. Having the Golden Gate, Bay > Bridge and San Mateo bridge in the default scenery would be awfully > cool. All of these are really obvious during approaches into SFO and > OAK. Some of the SFO approaches go over the San Mateo bridge at > something like 400 feet. > > Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
