Sebastian Bechtold schrieb: >> te: >> >> >> >>>> As a very first attempt to contribute to the flightgear source code, I >>>> have tried to write a patch that automatically sets a scenery model's >>>> elevation to ground level at the object's site if an elevation < 9999 is >>>> defined in the .stg file. >>>> >>> >>> >> For some cases this is certainly a good idea. The Berlin Scenery for >> example that we used for LinuxTag2007 has places where the elevation >> differs from the standard Scenery - simply because this special Scenery >> >> Cheers, >> Martin. >> > > Hi Martin, and thanks for your reply. > > Unfortunately, I am unable to read from your posting what the problem > is. Of course I know that the possibility to define an explicit > elevation value for an object is required for the things you described. > I don't want abandon it, I just want to add the possibility to set it to > some special value that is recognized by the program as "place this at > ground level". If you think -9999 isn't a good value, what about > -10000000 or, say, 23804234,234 ? As far as I understand this thing, the > only criterion is that it's an elevation which is probably never > explicitly stated for an object which does -not- sit on ground level. > > The idea was that I want to provide a way to place scenery objects on > ground level without having to know the scenery terrain elevation at > this point. This would greatly simplify the creation of sceneries > without having to use the UFO. I's easy to find out "believable" lat/lon > coordinates for an object, since nobody notices a few meters of > abberation, but it's practically impossible to find out the ground > elevation in the scenery without starting flightgear (or some other tool > capable of reading and displaying terragear terrain data). I didn't even > think about the possibility to use the same object placement files with > different terrain scenery files, but you are perfectly right that this > is another situation where this feature would be very useful. > > I can understand and accpect if my idea and/or implementation wasn't the > best. Actually, that's what I expected, but I expected something like > "don't do this there and in this way, a concept (...) in class/method > (...) is the better way to go". > > So what's the point now? > > > With best regards, > > Sebastian > > Hi Sebastian,
as someone doing a lot of scenery work I really like your idea which could make things easier for some objects. The problem was - after my view - that you typed "< 9999" and not " < -9999". Your new post corrects this, the implementation should be possible without any "collateral damage". Thank you for the nice work from my scenery designer's point of view :-) Georg EDDW ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
