Hi Rob! First of all let me thank you for your contribution. I've been experimenting with textures in FGFS myself for a while and I know how hard it is to get to such quality textures. So keep up the good work ;-)
When I had a first look at the textures I initially liked them better than the default textures. After that I also shared the opinon of Melchior and Georg about the images. I specially modified them with increased contrast and other adapitions which actually made them look worse. That means more like in MS-FS 2002, which looks unnatural to me. So being unsatisfied with that, I reverted to the default-set. It's true that the default textures are sharper and have more contrast, but I feel your textures do look and mix better after all. But of course they're not perfect yet. For example the crop textures don't actually show crop and look more like grassland / prairie. It could look a bit more like this for southern Germany: http://www.akermann.org/fgfs/mixedcrop.jpg [The picture is of a unknown source, so it may not be distributed.] The city textures are OK and do suit my local surroundings better than the original ones, which look kinda american. I like the town texture from the default set better, since it isn't as dense as yours and has more vegetation. However, since it's not available in hires, yours does look better in the simulation. Shrub, sand and tundra textures are definately an improvement while I still would like to see better ones for forests and deciduous areas. So much to my comments.. Since I've also been playing with textures, I thought I might also contribute the better ones I created. I did use textures from various sources and so it's not possible to share all of them for copyright reasons. A source I found very useful is NASA's Website: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ . You can find a texture-pack containing my snow, galcier and packice images here: http://www.akermann.org/fgfs/fg_phototex_ma.tgz I would be happy to see them included in your set ;-) Another issue I was thinking about is Copyright. As far as I could see, you are not distributing your textures with any copyright notice. This is ok for sharing it in the community, but actually you should name the original source and terms of use in a file somewhere, even if they are in the public domain. And if the textures are used as official set, this will be a MUST. I have provided a file for my files and you could just add your lines to it (I actually already added your name in the header). Mark Georg Vollnhals wrote: > 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. > 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. > 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. > > 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. > > 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 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
