Ralf Gerlich writes: > > Hello, > > Martin Spott schrieb: > > [SNIP] > > Actually, I _do_ agree that having preprocessed scenery > > _is_ an advantage. But it does have disadvantages as well: > > 1.) At the current state it appears (to me) nearly impossible to inject > > user-contributed additions into the scenery, > > 2.) I don't manage to build the necessary tools on my server .... ;-)) > > Share your problems with us, perhaps we can help ;-) > > > Maybe the way to go might be to make it easier for everyone to build > > the tools (and to simplify the process of scenery generation) and to > > add his personal scenery improvements using common open GIS file > > formats but keep the preprocessed scenery as we are already used to it. > > I'm currently working on some more detailed scenery data > > I'm using GRASS (http://grass.itc.it) for digitising and the preliminary > results are quite interesting regarding better orientation - at least > for a local ;-) > > I had to write an additional tool to get linedata imported from GRASS to > TerraGear, but actually with all the support libraries available this is > far from complex :-) > > Most of the exporting and scenery generation tasks is automated using > scripts and a single configuration file.
This sounds great, Grass is a powerful tool. IMO the most useful approach would be modifying TerraGear to use PostGIS instead of the File System. Then one could use tools like Grass and UDig directlly on the data stream. For that matter it would be interesting to investigate using PostGIS to store the FGFS Scenery directly. Hmm this is starting to sound a lot like something that osgPlanet could render too :-) Cheers Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
