James Turner writes: > This got me thinking. The dynamic scenery can place arbitrary models, > so presumably it could place tall buildings too. So let's say I want to > improve my local city, we'd like to maximize the bang-per-buck (in > terms of investment of labour in the scenery). How about if fgsd > allowed the creation of polygons / regions which the dynamic scenery > would then fill in. Given a few classes of buildings (and ultimately > some regional variation) it seems like this would allow people to > 'flesh out' scenery areas quickly and in a future proof way > (improvements to the models / dynamic generation code are reflected in > all the scenery). > > Obviously we'd still need custom models for landmarks. > > Just random musings, but might help the 'one landmark in isolation' > syndrome. Of course many issues (compass alignment of dynamic generated > models, for example) exist.
There is a database available someplace of the location of all the larger sky-scraper type buildings in the US, as well as things like radio transmitter tower locations and such. On my todo list someplace buried is to track down this data and integrate it. That doesn't mean we'll have the right look to the buildings, but at least there'll be a cluster of tall rectangles where you'd expect to see them. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
