> This idea actually _does_ have appeal - hey, I'm right now busy with
> creating an SVG drawing - but I see one drawback here:
> Airport-creators or -maintainers are not _forced_ to think of the
> logical layout. Let's assume some flight simulation does not honour the
> logical layout at all and we'll experience people submitting airports
> without _any_ logic, not even the direction of the taxiway centerline,
> just consisting of the outlines of taxiways and runways.
Better have just the outlines than having nothing at all. People more
experienced in airport layout could take over and add the missing parts.
Welcome to the power of open source. I for myself would volunteer for this
since I don't like redrawing runway borders from an aerial. Its all about
collaboration :-)
> In order to do it 'right' (TM, yes, I know ;-) I'd prefer to have an
> airport description language that consists of nothing but the logical
> layout at least for those objects, that relate to the core airport
> operations (runway, taxiway, apron, tower location), forcing the user
> to create a logical sense behind _every_ object.
This is exactly what I have in mind. It just contains 'embedded' svg
descriptions of the physical layout of the parts that make up the logical
model. Something like this
<fg:runway id="03L" >
<fg:runwaypart material="concrete">
<svg:polygon ....
</fg:runwaypart>
<fg:runwaypart material="asphalt">
<svg:polygon ...
</fg:runwaypart>
</fg:runway>
(NOTE I dont know svg syntax :-))
Of course this also means that only an svg editor is not enough to fully
specify an airport.
> Yes, I feel that this
> path might be a bit steep in the beginning but I believe it's the only
> one that saves us from major trouble once we expect every airfield to
> contain a certain amount of logic and realizing that noting's there.
> Opinions ?
I think this is a quality control issue. So it should be solved in the process
rather than in the data format.
> I must admit that from reading some explanations on the 8.50 format I
> still didn't understand which route this new format is heading for - I
> simply failed to find the logic in the description ....
ASFIU they only want to provide the high-level description and leave
everything else to the sim. That makes it easy for airport modellers since
there are less options but I can see issues arising regarding flexibility.
Example case: I've seen taxi lights standing besides the asphalt and on the
other hand others buried within the taxiway concrete. Just specifying that
there is taxiway lighting is not enough in my opinion.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
