While it would be neat if flightgear could generate the default scenery off of high quality data, there is still a fair bit of manual work involved to get good results. OSM and Corine, while both very accurate, don't necessarily agree with one another. I've spent a considerable amount of time tweaking the roads and rails to clean them up, and move them to agree with Corine, especially around the lakes and rivers. The other thing I'm spending a fair amount of time on is the identifying tunnels for roads and rails, so they do not cut through mountains and such. A fair number of people have commented on my scenery about "that strange peak near LOWI" being fixed. That was was caused by railroad cutting through it in the default scenery. In real life that is a tunnel, and I cut out those parts of the rails that are tunnel in that area. Stuff like that would be hard or impossible to automate, good scenery simply needs real hands working on it.
Besides, there are advantages to not having the scenery part of the official scenery. Sometimes it is necessary to step outside of "official" channels in order to achieve your goals, or push things to a new level. For me to achieve my long term goals for the scenery, I simply cannot follow some "official" methods, practices, and recommendations. In other words, even if I used gpl compatible data I would still be maintaining my scenery separate from flightgears official scenery. ;) cheers! -- Jacob (aka Tuxklok) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
