On Tuesday, 2 December 2003 00:12, David Megginson wrote: > Yes, I did use it -- it was a very well-thought out little program, but it > had some pretty disasterous problems: > > 1. The generated scenery was enormous: we couldn't dream of making > worldwide scenery available online (TerraScene scenery was never available > for more than tiny areas).
Yeah that's because the scenery is pre-rendered. Who said we have to pre-render the scenery? :) Rendering in real time would only require a library of geodata which would be similar in size to the current FG scenery. > 2. The GIS data TerraScene used was mostly U.S.-only. Yip but the results still looked better than default scenery outside of the US. One can always add more data as it becomes available. > 3. It looked great at altitude, but absolutely horrendous when you got > close to the ground, as it blurred out into giant pixels. That made it > very unsuitable for low-flying vehicles like helicopters, ultralights, or > balloons (or even the Piper Cub for that matter). Well it was only 7.5 meters/pixel - I was thinking of at least 4 meters/pixel and possible down to 1 meter/pixel. Also we can have extra high res textures around airports. > 4. There was no (easy) way to determine the terrain type at runtime, so it > wouldn't be possible to place 3D objects like trees or buildings, much less > generate appropriate ground reactions (when we get around to that). If you generate the scenery at run time you will know the terrain type. Alternatively you could use the geodata to find that out. > That said, it would be neat if we could support TerraScene-generated > textures for special applications. It would be neat if FG could properly support large ortho photos to start with. Paul _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
