Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Jon Stockill wrote:

Make sure the tools aren't finding a lower res data set before the higher res set ...

Is there any reason to keep the old data around now? If it's not used by anything I'll free some space up.

I could think of a couple reasons, but they may not apply to you ...

- one day we might want a low res/light weight scenery set

While 2 and 3 sound like very good points, does it make more sense for 1 to use the high res data but process it so that the end result is small? That way you could still exceed the lower resolution for really bumpy parts of the world, and still have great big polys for the majority of the world, which is basically flat. In other words, you can always reduce a data set, but usually you can't increase it. Also, though I haven't worked with TerraGear, I suspect that for a given size of desired output it would produce higher quality scenery as the size of the input data set grows. Is this the case? I ask this not as a criticism, but because I'm curious.


- SRTM data doesn't cover the entire earth ... They never flew past +/- 6x degrees latitude (where x is a number I don't recall ... greater than 0 but less than 9.)
- SRTM isn't released yet for australia.

I'd think that most poeple could chuck the lower res data for which they have good SRTM coverage though ...

I managed to track it down in genapts eventually - it seems to use the airfield surface it generates, so I guess it wouldn't be easy to generalise for placing scenery objects.

Right, there are some difficult issues for placing objects at scenery load time that would need to be addressed. I've got a couple ideas, but I haven't had a chance to start playing with them.



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to