> David wrote: > > > Aside from eye candy, we need buildings at airports for two practical > > reasons: > > > > 1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and > > > > 2. they give the user a visual cue for distance and altitude during an > > approach. > > Hmmmmmmmmm, You know I was kinda thinking planes but yah got a good point > here! Think I'll push for buildings and pick away a little with the planes. > Love to read all the good ideas! > to add to that thought, it is the relative angular motion of near and distance objects that a pilot learns to recognize during an approach/landing to help judge the aircraft's motion and vertical structures and buildings really make a difference. JW _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
- RE: [Flightgear-devel] buildings... Jon S. Berndt
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings... Alex Perry
- RE: [Flightgear-devel] buildings... Jon S. Berndt
- RE: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? D Luff
- RE: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? David Megginson
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? Jeff
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? John Wojnaroski
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or plane... Alex Perry
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or ... David Megginson
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings... Alex Perry
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings... David Megginson
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or ... Curtis L. Olson
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? Christian Mayer
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? Marcio Shimoda
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? Marcio Shimoda
- Re: [Flightgear-devel] buildings or planes? Curtis L. Olson