Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
On Sunday 13 July 2003 00:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, [snip] 3. What about AI controlled airplanes AND ships? It would be great to see some airplanes in the air and ships on the sea in flighgear that fly/drive their routes. Is such a dynamic scenery feature in development? If yes, how long do you expect (in months) will it take to see such feature in a stable version? Will this feature be scalable? In other words, the faster my computer the more ships and airplanes i will be able to see? Ships sounds like a great idea and shouldn't be too difficult to implement (not that I'm volunteering). Someone mentioned carrier landings recently didn't they? :) 4. Citys at night seem to be a problem. Last week i flew over Los Angelas by night in flightgear, but the city was very very dark by night. In realitiy Los Angelas is extremly bright at night. So the question is, is someone working on this? Are their any night city scenery textures in the work including support for brighter ambient light (- like bright clouds and yellow/orange looking fog and things like that)? Night textures would be nice too but texture space is at a bit of a premium atm. ;) There are already some nice sky effects though. http://www.overthetop.freeserve.co.uk/YF23-20030615-fgfs-screen-017.jpg LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Lee Elliott writes: Night textures would be nice too but texture space is at a bit of a premium atm. ;) There are already some nice sky effects though. Texture space shouldn't be a problem I am assuming of course that the 'daytime' and the 'nighttime' textures wouldn't need to be in memory at the same time :-) Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
On Sunday 13 July 2003 14:38, Norman Vine wrote: Lee Elliott writes: Night textures would be nice too but texture space is at a bit of a premium atm. ;) There are already some nice sky effects though. Texture space shouldn't be a problem I am assuming of course that the 'daytime' and the 'nighttime' textures wouldn't need to be in memory at the same time :-) Norman I think they'd have to be blended to look any good at dusk/twilight. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Lee Elliott writes: On Sunday 13 July 2003 14:38, Norman Vine wrote: Lee Elliott writes: Night textures would be nice too but texture space is at a bit of a premium atm. ;) There are already some nice sky effects though. Texture space shouldn't be a problem I am assuming of course that the 'daytime' and the 'nighttime' textures wouldn't need to be in memory at the same time :-) Norman I think they'd have to be blended to look any good at dusk/twilight. Good point but ... It would be cool to have lights in the windows and I doubt if we need to 'blend' them on :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Lee Elliott writes: On Sunday 13 July 2003 14:38, Norman Vine wrote: Lee Elliott writes: Night textures would be nice too but texture space is at a bit of a premium atm. ;) There are already some nice sky effects though. Texture space shouldn't be a problem I am assuming of course that the 'daytime' and the 'nighttime' textures wouldn't need to be in memory at the same time :-) Norman I think they'd have to be blended to look any good at dusk/twilight. How would you do night texture for buildings, with lit windows that need emissive color. Do we need multitexturing to apply an emissive map ? -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
On Sunday 13 July 2003 15:33, Norman Vine wrote: Lee Elliott writes: On Sunday 13 July 2003 14:38, Norman Vine wrote: Lee Elliott writes: Night textures would be nice too but texture space is at a bit of a premium atm. ;) There are already some nice sky effects though. Texture space shouldn't be a problem I am assuming of course that the 'daytime' and the 'nighttime' textures wouldn't need to be in memory at the same time :-) Norman I think they'd have to be blended to look any good at dusk/twilight. Good point but ... It would be cool to have lights in the windows and I doubt if we need to 'blend' them on :-) Cheers Norman My bad - was thinking about ground area scenery textures, not model building textures. My first thought when I realised I had the wrong end of the stick was you're right - you wouldn't need to blend the lights in on a building - exactly the opposite in fact. It's just occurred to me though, that the 3d s/w I use makes use of blending to achieve global illumination effects. While the algorithm it uses would be too heavy and complex for a sim, I wonder if it still might be workable. What I'm thinking is that if an illuminated window had a degree of blurring it would lighten the surrounding area too. I think it would need to be done in two stages - the first to deal with the window area, with hard edges, and the second to handle the blur/lighting overspill, which would blur/smear/spread the light over a larger area of the texture. It would have to be at a distinctly lower intensity so that the window outline is still clear and sharp through the blur but light enough to mimic the overspill. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Lee Elliott writes: Ships sounds like a great idea and shouldn't be too difficult to implement (not that I'm volunteering). Someone mentioned carrier landings recently didn't they? :) That's harder -- we'll have to do some work to make sure that the planes on the carrier move when the carrier itself moves -- otherwise, it will just slip out from under the planes on its deck. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
I am the one that designed the San Francisco buildings ( and San Mateo Bridge ). They look great, very good work. I am not aware of development for other cities. I would not design the whole earth alone. People are invited to contribute for other places. I have a question about this. Yesterday i visited the terragear Project website an read at the following page ( http://terragear.sourceforge.net/docs/scenery-tutorial/fg-scenery-tutorial.html ) about vmap that sentence: This dataset (formerly known as the Digital Chart of the World) contains non-airport vector data for all of North America, including landmass (shorelines), lakes, rivers, cities, towns, roads, railroads, rivers, landcover, and many other coverages that we are not using yet. Now my question is, why are you don't using those vmap data? And if you use those, at what detail do you use them? At maximum detail: everything the vmap data gives or lower details to save framerates or internet hosting costs? I also visited the the FlightGear Scenery Designer Home Page which is for creating excat sceneries but the terragear website says: TerraGear generates FlightGear scenery automatically from free, publicly-available geographical datasets: you do not have to (and are currently not able to) paint roads, rivers, and so forth by hand. So my question is when i don't have to create those things by hand because vmap data is available and accurate enough why do i need that Scenery Designer to modify the landscape? (That i need it for buildings too is obvious, that's not what i mean) Or other question, are the vmap data (especially Areas over Europ) not accurate enough so that i have to use the Scenery Designer and edit the landscape by hand? (like on those screenshots: http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html) Good source of information about Sky Scrapers are here : http://skyscrapers.com http://skyscraperpage.com Thanks for the link. Their would be a problem of hosting those models that don't fit in the base package. So if i edit some sceneries does that mean that they wouldn't be added to the additional scenery data? http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/world-scenery.html Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Oliver C wrote: I have a question about this. Yesterday i visited the terragear Project website an read at the following page ( http://terragear.sourceforge.net/docs/scenery-tutorial/fg-scenery-tutorial.html ) about vmap that sentence: This dataset (formerly known as the Digital Chart of the World) contains non-airport vector data for all of North America, including landmass (shorelines), lakes, rivers, cities, towns, roads, railroads, rivers, landcover, and many other coverages that we are not using yet. This dataset is only accurate and complete to create maps at the scale 1:1.000.000. They do not match well compared to data at 1:25.000 ( topo maps ). For exemple, it doesn't include the width of rivers. Now my question is, why are you don't using those vmap data? vmap was used to build the latest scenery at randtechnologies by William Riley ( see the download page ) And if you use those, at what detail do you use them? At maximum detail: everything the vmap data gives or lower details to save framerates or internet hosting costs? I also visited the the FlightGear Scenery Designer Home Page which is for creating excat sceneries but the terragear website says: TerraGear generates FlightGear scenery automatically from free, publicly-available geographical datasets: you do not have to (and are currently not able to) paint roads, rivers, and so forth by hand. So my question is when i don't have to create those things by hand because vmap data is available and accurate enough why do i need that Scenery Designer to modify the landscape? (That i need it for buildings too is obvious, that's not what i mean) It depend on how accurate you want your scenery. If it is OK for you to see the rivers at the top of mountains, crops instead of forrest, and missing lakes, FGSD is useless for you. But you wouldn't cure the whole world with fgsd. It would be more efficient to find a better dataset, but I am afraid they are not free. Or other question, are the vmap data (especially Areas over Europ) not accurate enough so that i have to use the Scenery Designer and edit the landscape by hand? (like on those screenshots: http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html) vmap0 seems to be evenly (not) accurate around the world, but good terrain elevation at good accuracy ( 90m or less ) is not freely available ( yet ?) for outside America ( that is new. I year ago, it was only US ). FGSD is there to enhance scenery by hand using image data ( map, aerial photo ). This is only applicable for very narrow areas ( a town or an airport ). ( Disclaimer: FGSD, which I maintain, is for from being usable for anything else than placing 3D object in the scenery for the moment. And I am distracted creating 3D models for fg ) ... Their would be a problem of hosting those models that don't fit in the base package. So if i edit some sceneries does that mean that they wouldn't be added to the additional scenery data? http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/world-scenery.html The world is based on data ( height, contours, airports ). If you don't have data made by other at hand ( building, bridge, special hand-edited contours ), they will not appear in the scenery. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This dataset (formerly known as the Digital Chart of the World) contains non-airport vector data for all of North America, including landmass (shorelines), lakes, rivers, cities, towns, roads, railroads, rivers, landcover, and many other coverages that we are not using yet. The default scenery in the base package uses the vmap0 data at maximum available resolution. Curt's official scenery for the rest of the world does not, yet, but this scenery does: http://www.randdtechnologies.com/fgfs/newScenery/world-scenery.html Note that the vmap0 scenery is nominally 1:1,000,000 resolution, like the World Aeronautical Charts (WAC's). In fact, it *is* the WACs, at least around here -- I bought the Canadian WAC for the area around Ottawa, and it contains exactly the same polygons and errors as the vmap0 dataset, right down to a missing city to the west of Ottawa. At that resolution, you cannot expect every twist and bend of a road or riverbank to be modelled accurately. vmap0 does a much better job of the Great Lakes shorelines than the other dataset we were using, but it can be a bit off on other stuff -- it's not unusual to find a road 100m or so off of where it should be (possibly much more outside North America). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Frederic Bouvier writes: This dataset is only accurate and complete to create maps at the scale 1:1.000.000. They do not match well compared to data at 1:25.000 ( topo maps ). For exemple, it doesn't include the width of rivers. There is a cutoff where rivers switch from polygon to line coverage. I'm guessing that it might be around 500m wide, but I'm not sure (and I'm not even sure if it's consistent across vmap0). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
Lee Elliott write: True, the carrier landings would require more work but a few ordinary ships on the oceans would make flying across vast expances of water a bit more interesting. Just design a few ship models, the dynamic scenery would do the rest. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some Questions about Flightgear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First i want to thank you for your great work. Flightgear has made substantial progress in the last months, especially the gui menu, very nice done keep up the good work. Thanks 1. I read in the mailinglist devel archive from last month and found a link to a screenshot of Flightgear that had real world buildings from San Francisco. Here's the screenshot of those buildings i am talking about: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frbouvi/flightsim/fgfs-emb-02.png Now my question is, what do i need to do to be able to see those buildings in Flightgear (at the moment i use the last stable version 0.9.2). It is in CVS When this feature is only in the cvs version available, what cities with real world buildings can i expect to see in the next stable version (or the one that has that feature)? Is it only San Francicso or are there more cities (that will have real world buildings) in development at the moment? (For example what about Chicago?) I am the one that designed the San Francisco buildings ( and San Mateo Bridge ). I am concentrating on the default scenery because it is what people will see first. I am not aware of development for other cities. I would not design the whole earth alone. People are invited to contribute for other places. My other area of interest is Paris. So don't expect Chicago from me. For the moment, I am at the Golden Gate Bridge. Good source of information about Sky Scrapers are here : http://skyscrapers.com http://skyscraperpage.com People at SkyscraperPage.com kindly allowed us to use their diagram for FlightGear. skyscraper.com is a good source of photography. Their would be a problem of hosting those models that don't fit in the base package. [...] I cowardly leave the other questions to someone else. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
