>* [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tuesday 01 March 2005 18:39:
>> Please consider contributing them to the database.
> Yes. But please concentrate on *landmarks*: Buildings and structures you
> actually see from an aircraft. Things that help with orientation and allow
> to recognize unique locations. Try not to waste megabytes with substandard
> appartment houses that 99,999% of people don't even find in the scenery
> if they *search* for them. :-}
Well, yeah, I agree, objects that are hard to spot aren't so helpful.
But since the original poster's stated intent was to try to improve
the VFR experience, I guess I presume he knows that.
When you landed at KMDW on Runway 31 (I think), you used to fly right
over a White Castle just before landing. That's something you wouldn't
have picked out from a distance; but I'd love to see that in FG.
And as a slight shift of topic, even if a structure's model doesn't
really belong in the database, it may be useful in another way. We
have generic 2-12 story random structures in FG -- but a small number
of models of them, and so there's a lot of "sameness". If a model
seemed appropriate for such, I think it'd be great to add it to the
shared models used for random structures, with appropriate adjustments
of materials.xml coverage values to keep the total density of
structures the same. Despite how boring the architecture of most
mid-rise apartment buildings is today, they don't really all look
Flightgear-devel mailing list