Hi there, Dene wrote: > Hi, > >>If its this easy then I can get SRTM meshes for NZ and start making >>Christchurch and Wellington LOOK like they should....especially Wellington, >>so many damn hills :) >> >>Andy >>NZCH >> > > The Wellington terrain is not that bad..(can't comment about CH as no > very little about it apart from that frustrating Lyttleton breakwater!! ;-) > A few areas in wellington that could be "fixed" with little impact ... > .. Somes(-Maitu) Island & Ward Island are missing totally > .. the northern end and southern end of NZWN are offset N-S so the > northern end pokes out into the water where-as the southern end > doesn't...totally arse-about-face (excuse the colloquialism). > > screenshots at; > http://denemaxwell.dnsdojo.net/users/ALBUM/Terrain-Mesh/index.html > >>>Some on this list will be getting annoyed with my little gripes >>>about the scenery tools being too hard to get working. The method >>>of creating AC3D models to replace the default terrain I've found >>>to be incredibly easy. Would others on this list have any comments >>>good or bad about this as a method of creating scenery improvements? > > Chris, I can totally believe your frustration, I got moderately > "flame-grilled" for similar sentiments about a year ago and subsequent > offers of assistance have been ignored. > I believe the problem is more that there is no way to feed any work in > this area back into the project. I spent hours modifying the terrain > around Wellington (primarily on the northern approach vector) only to > get it all blown away by the new scenery...this wasn't all bad as the > improvement of 0.9.10 terrain over 0.9.9 terrain was well worth it. > Hence I decided on focusing on placing objects into the scenery as I > believed this would provide a "legacy" contribution. But there-in is the > question. Do you place objects to their truthful lat/long positions and > have it look ridiculous with the current terrain, or do you place them > realistically in the current terrain? ....I don't know... I place some > faithfully on lat and long and accept that elevation corrections might > be needed and others (SugarLoaf TV building, Wellington Westpac stadium > and wharves, etc) for visual effect.
My Brisbane CBD is placed within a few metres of real-world lat/lon. As you've seen the buildings look daft sitting in the middle of the Amazon (OK, I know its only the Brisbane river, but with the rough as guts way in which the rivers are created by terragear its now wide enough to be the Amazon!) Are the landcover db boundaries vector-based? If they are then there is no reason why the terrain could not be created more accurately at those boundaries, for example between land and rivers. > All I do know for certain mate, is that due largely to yours and Andy's > efforts, the NZ scenery is looking alot better... NZCH/NZWN aren't > perfect but they're 500% better than nothing... please don't get so > dis-heartened that you give up.... its due to us"joe-averages" (and I > count my self less average than you and Andy) that little steps are > taken. (one small step for a man, one large step for man-kind ...etc) I don't know about you and Andy, but I'm not happy to let my models get used unless the terrain boundaries are improved so I can put a building precisely where it sits in the real world, so that it makes the default terrain look like the real thing. How can I do that when the river banks are so far offset from reality? :-( 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
