Hi there, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > --- Chris Wilkinson wrote: > >>Flightgear should be focusing on making it easier for Joe Averages >>like me to create new scenery and aircraft. The tools are available >>but can be (for Linux users) incredibly difficult to install. Thats >>one thing preventing me from fixing some really bad runway/taxiway >>layouts in my local area. > > You certainly aren't Joe Average, Chris. Unfortunately you are "cutting > edge" whether you want to be or not :) Linux users who don't compile their > own code are not as common as Windows users in the same position.
If I was not Joe Average I would be able to get the tools working. I have failed to, so if I am *not* Joe Average I'm either less than Joe, or the tools really *are* too difficult to get working... > I notice that a windows binary of Taxidraw is available, but not an > equivalent for SUSE. Presumably you've tried compiling this and hit > problems? There is a binary rpm of fgfs hidden in some unknown suse repository, but no taxidraw or fgsd or terragear. >>The river/sea boundaries are also a complete dogs bollocks, > > I'll translate this as "dogs breakfast" - over in the U.K. the "dogs > bollocks" is a very positive term - i.e. "FlightGear is the dogs bollocks > when it comes to flight simulation". Thats my kiwi-ism coming into play. Something that is 'bollocks' in NZ is not good, but if it was 'primo' or 'choice' it would be good. Flightgear is at a stage where its pretty choice, but the scenery generation/creation tools are falling behind the main app. >>and a model of the Brisbane CBD I've built is a waste >>of time because the river that winds around the CBD is really badly >>defined in the default scenery. I didn't create nice models of CBD >>skyscrapers to have them dabble their feet half way across a river. >> >>http://users.tpg.com.au/blobster/innaccurate-river.jpg > > It isn't a waste of time. As has been pointed out on the dev list, scenery > generation is _hard_. In particular creating a framework where user > modifications can be incorporated into the generic scenery easily is > particularly difficult and people are working to get that right. > > What certainly would be a waste of time would be making scenery > adjustments that aren't compatible with future scenery releases. Hence the > work that Martin Spott and others are doing. > > Unfortunately TerraGear does require quite a bit of savvy to use and has a > steep learning curve. I don't realistically see this getting any easier in > the future. I suspect that the best you can hope for is a system where you > download a small section of the world into a GIS viewer, edit it, submit > it back to the scenery database and then wait for a new set of scenery to > be generated. In case you haven't seen this before, see here for further > details: http://www.custom-scenery.org/ I can throw SRTM30 hgt data into Blender now with a script, place a texture on it, and export to AC3D. If I created tiles of AC3D objects like that, and used them instead of the default terrain I'm sure it would look gorgeous, but I'm also sure it would be a slideshow not a realtime 3D experience. :-( >>I have placed the buildings to within a few metres of the real thing. >>The green lines represent roughly where the river banks should be. >>At (1) should be a botanic gardens, and at (2) should be the Kangaroo >>Point cliffs, a 30-40m drop down to the river. The use of 90m terrain >>means the cliffs will never be a reality, but thats where the Joe >>Averages come in to play. I can get some more accurate terrain data >>for that area, but since I cannot get the terrain tools working its >>a moot point. The tools are too complex for Joe Averages to install. >> >> >>>Good to hear about the 737s...don't suppose one can do anything but >> >>wait. >> >>>On the A340 issue, I do believe that VA's most common is the -600. I >>>think the main user of the -500 is Singapore, who use it in their >>>ultralong EWR-SIN route >> >>It would be easy for me to stretch the A340-500 model, but I'm afraid >>it might just become another half-finished project, along with my >>Brisbane/YBBN airport scenery, Christchurch/NZCH airport scenery, >>777-300 model, 737-800 model, Gold Coast Australia scenery, and my >>Brisbane CBD scenery. >> >>I want to finish these projects, but now I find I cannot because the >>tools are not able to compile/work on my openSUSE 10.2 system. I'm >>completely in the dark about programming/coding so suggestions that >>I learn to code will not be taken in good humour... :-) > > I think you are doing yourself a dis-service here. Animating an aircraft > is always going to require some level of programming ability - analysis of > the problem, encoding it into XML to do what you wish etc. > > I think the XML animation system is as simple as it can be. I guess one > could write a plugin for Blender that would create animation scripts for a > model, but it is probably more hassle than it is worth. > > If you are able to do XML animations, then with a bit of effort you should > be able to move on to using Nasal for more complex animations. Luckily > there is plenty of code to copy and look at. I suggest you take it one > step at a time. > >>Thats my gripe for the month. Constructive discussion on this is >>welcome, but defensive subjective criticism of what I've posted >>will not be. > > You'll be lucky ;) > > Making FlightGear and it's associated tools easier to use is a very hard > challenge. Rightly or wrongly, contributors in a position to make it > easier to use often have other projects which are more interesting and > more important to them. Additionally, they are alsmost by definition, > experts. Changing mind-set from that of an expert to Joe Average is quie a > challenge. It can be done. Other sims have comparatively easy to use tools for that very purpose. Consequently a lot of user-created scenery exists. Some of it is very realistic looking. Flightgear wins on its FDM accuracy, but I think to do credit to that now requires some focus on making scenery generation a much more user-friendly task, so that the project can entice users like me to create nice scenery. If Flightgear can combine its existing operational excellence, with easy to use eye-candy tools - it'd be a hands-down winner. > I don't believe that creating aircraft/scenery is ever going to be > anything that Joe Average will do - simply because Joe Average won't use > FlightGear - he'll use MSFS. It is also no unreasonable to expect that > anyone wishing to create an aircraft or scenery go through some sort of > learning curve to understand what they are doing. After all, there is > learning associated with flying in the first place. > > Learning is part of the fun! I got more out of learning how to create the > Vulcan bomber than I did out of flying it. Thats fine for some. People like yourself, with the patience and grey matter to get to grips with such tasks I might add are a rare breed. Because the numbers of such people are thin on the ground consequently the amount of new scenery and planes will be correspondingly small. Me? I'm a go-getter person, and dead keen to contribute as much as I can to the project, but patience and intelligence are not virtues I consider myself to have in bulk... :-) Kind regards, Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-users
