Martin Spott ha scritto:
> Defining fixed boundaries around airfields is a bad idea in the long
> term. To my understanding FlightGear still focuses on methods that are
> laid out in a forseighted manner and fixed boundaries is definitely not
> a part of this collection. While claiming this I have three reasons in
> mind:
>
> 1.) Airport boundaries change. I'm subscribed to the monthly update of
> the "Jeppesen Bottlang Airfield Manual" and from reading almost
> every page in these updates I remember that I've seen changing
> boundaries from time to time.
I agree. Those boundaries are a limitation sometimes rather than an
advantage. I understand they're usefull when dealing with Terragear though.
> 2.) Maybe one day we'll see a modification maybe not only to the
> Scenery format itself but also to the process of Scenery creation.
> If you start adding 'proprietary' geometries into the terrain then
> you are likely to waste this work one day because you'll probably
> be unable to reverse-engineer the information on which your
> detailed airport layout was based.
That's something you cannot describe as bad practice though. Ok, adding
proprietary geometry can be a waste of time if the global terrain
changes in time and you want to have the old custom geometry too (that
may be tricky). But a bad low detailed terrain geometry is even worse.
I don't care if I cannot reverse enginner my new geometry if that's not
_my_ new geometry. Nowadays we have few tools to modify the terrain. I
am not a GIS expert but I am able to use 3d modelling softwares in a
quick and effective way; I can modify a 3d mesh with very nice results,
but that's useless if I cannot import it into the FGFS tile scheme.
That's the point here. Being stuck to a lowres incorrect terrain
geometry (even if that have the ability to be easily upgraded with a
future nicer terrain database) is useless. I'd like to create my own
airport area terrain geometry now, not in the future.
> 3.) It's very likely that people not only want to create a detailed
> arrangement of their local airfield entourage but of other places
> of intersting geography as well. This would mean scattering fixed
> boundaries around numerous places around the world - something that
> definitely will get us into trouble over the time.
That has been happening since earlier versions of MS-FS and has made a
lot of people happy. People pay a lot of money for custom scenery
addons. Just a few complained about not being able to use the old
scenery addons with the new FS release, they simply buy a new addon
upgrade when available if they want to.
OpenSource gives FGFS more flexibility, we can think about new
strategies in order to minimize this problem, but I don't like thinking
we have to stay with the bad scenery when we can get more (even if that
works with a single terrain database version only).
Anyway, which software tools do you suggest me to use in order to get a
more detailed/realistic terrain geometry? I am not talking about big
areas, I'm just interested in a few airport areas. I'd like to have a
clean taxiway/apron geometry. I'd like to correct a few roads which lead
to (and into) the airport area. The other point is adding a few
corrections to the terrain heights which are sometimes changing inside
the airport boundaries. Not to mention (again) the taxiway lights,
textures and ground markings (ILS, CAT II/III, STOP, H, etc...).
That could be easily accomplished with any 3d modeller. Beside
suggesting me (I hope you will do that anyway) new tools and techniques,
do you think abandoning those high sofisticated and very user friendly
software tools is really a good choice?
Another personal note about the impact of high detailed terrain geometry
in performances: that is not a problem! That is a false problem.
I am sorry to hear people saying high resolution has to be avoided
because computer hardware is not powerful enough. That is changing day
by day. We get new and more powerfull hardware every day. If a user has
not enough hardware power to render a high detailed scene he can grab
the old resolution version, stop. I don't play Oblivion if I don't have
enough power to let it render the scene, it's simple as that. Please
stop with that old song. And do not think I have a high-end system
inside my computer case, it's just an Athlon 2400+. FGFS users have
generally more powerfull computers than I have.
The correct approach is to try and find an equilibrium between
performance and quality, it's not "make it low quality just in case
user's computer is not powerfull enough". That's crap.
Roberto
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
