Hi Steve, > FlightGear uses WGS84 coordinates, but I'd not expect such a big > deviation between WGS84 and any other geodesic system. > > Proving FlightGear's dataset is easy if you have a GPS receiver. Go > stand on some part of the airport that has a reference point in > FlightGear's data file. (The touchdown point on the main runway for > instance... :-))
I _would_ do that if only I had a GPS receiver. I will find one and test that anyway :-) > Then, scrape yourself off the wheels of the Jumbo Jet that just landed > on your head, and tell everyone if the FlightGear data is good or not. | <0 :-) | > If UTM33N really is 550m displaced from WGS84 at that location, you can > probably still use the UTM33N data if you offset it by the right amount. > You may have to rotate it a bit too. Over such a small area, any ground > distances you measure will be the same in both systems after simple > correction. Sorry, I really don't understand you here. UTM33N and WGS-84 cannot be displaced in any locations; one is the coordinate system and the second is the datum. What do you mean with that? Anyway, do you think is possible that apt.dat is that wrong (550m)? Scenery files for Europe are not precise at all. Are airport locations affected by the same kind of errors? Maybe because of not enough precise source informations? Roberto -- Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail gratis + 3 Ausgaben stern gratis ++ Jetzt anmelden & testen ++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail ++ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
