Am Samstag, den 01.04.2006, 10:57 +0200 schrieb Georg Vollnhals: > Rob Oates schrieb: > > New scenery update! > > > > Hopefully this gets everyones blessing :) > > > > Hi Rob, hi all! > > I am very glad you are such an engaged contributer to FlightGear and > have seen that you are improving your skills during the work. > > But I am sorry to say - after testing your latest work - that these > textures should not be the default FlightGear textures for the next release. > 1. They are not "universal" or "generic" world-wide > They might fit for US-America but absolutely not for the local area of > Northern Europe. The old textures were not best possible but fit much > more better if I compare it.
I don't agree, the new textures work a lot better for the region I live, (Cologne-Bonn area) than the old ones. Flying through the rhine valley and not seeing crop fields on steep rock is definitely an improvement. Also the wooded areas are a lot better recognizeable (like the woods around the "Nuerburgring") > 2. General quality is poorer > And the new textures are POOR IN CONTRAST especially in the areas where > the satellite made his shots through clouds. This is also the main > reason I am not satisfied. Poor contrast gives the impression of poor > color display (not "wrong" color display). > The old textures have more contrast and "better" colors. In my opinion too much contrast doesn't look realistic. The mid european (bad) weather and haze is not very rich in contrast. Airports are a lot better recognizeable with the new textures. The edges of the texture regions are looking better with lesser contrast. > 3. Structure sizes wrong? > One can also discuss wheather the size of the displayed structures > (fields, houses) are as they should be, especially comparing the > different textures against each other. > I never measured them, but I once flew in real live over a graveyard and thought that were parking places ;-) > THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR ME as I just take the old ones. > But the impression a newcomer to FlightGear will have at first glance is > important and therefore we should provide the new textures as an > alternative to the old ones, not as the default. > I believe a newcomer will be impressed by the new textures. > Rob, hat up for your work. But please understand that I frankly and free > tell my opinion. If something replaces really good stuff in the > FlightGear default package then it should be of higher quality than the > old materials. You have not reached this point now with your work after > my opinion. > Keep on working. Get better basic photos free from cloud disturbances > and more universal. Improve your graphic skills. Show us what you are > able to. Accept for now your textures are a good alternative but are not > able to hit the old ones. > > Georg EDDW > > > > > > > > Anyways, Thanks for everyone's input. These textures are really looking > > good! > > > > -Rob Oates > > This is just my personal opinion: Rob, your work is great! > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel