RE: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
another view http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a000900/a000913/index.html not that we are trying to do this but . it makes for good comparison cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about dc
David Culp wrote: Even using 2, spacebar only the first engine ever starts... Are you using shift-2? That selects the second engine. Also, try shift-G to raise the wheels. shift+G is lowering the landing gear. g is raising the gear. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
Ivo wrote: Next question is: Are there any people from Holland on this list Zeker. who want to join me in creating add-on scenery (buildings, airports, et cetera) for The Netherlands? I have only created a nameless flat in Amsterdam where I happen to live and tonight I made the Carré Theatre. It greatly enhanced my flying experience when I circled around my own home (and yes, I parked it once in my livingroom :) ) and I would love to see more buildings around Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. Anyone interested in participating? I don't know if you've seen this page already, but we are allowed to use their work as textures since we credit them in out documentation: http://skyscraperpage.com It covers quite some buildings from The Netherlands. I don't know if I can help with creating buildings also (although I'd like to) but I also want to update the Dutch airfields where needed. BTW. Did anyone think about creating a directory tree to store static scenery for world coverage? I think it is highly needed. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
Erik Hofman wrote: I don't know if you've seen this page already, but we are allowed to use their work as textures since we credit them in out documentation: http://skyscraperpage.com It covers quite some buildings from The Netherlands. I don't know if I can help with creating buildings also (although I'd like to) but I also want to update the Dutch airfields where needed. Did you see http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=5303 ? The diagrams usually use the convention 1pixel = 1meter. It is accurate at least for height but the quality may vary greatly Another source of photo is on http://www.skyscrapers.com although you are not allowed to store them, I use them to check if the diagrams are good. I sometimes rescale them horizontally. My last source is terraserver.com where you can find aerial photos. BTW. Did anyone think about creating a directory tree to store static scenery for world coverage? I think it is highly needed. Yes it would increase the interest in modeling by sharing everyone's work. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about dc
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Ivo wrote: On Monday 08 September 2003 00:29, Ima Sudonim wrote: I tried ~ but it still only seems to start the first (left) engine on the dc3... ~ never worked for me either. I turn on the parking breaks (shift-B) and start the engines one by one with the middle mousebutton, clicking on the black switches. If you want, you can cycle through different view modes with 'v' to see if both propellors are spinning. Then release the breaks and increase speed. You'll need a lot of rudder to get it to take-off in a straight line, but once it's in the air, everything seems fine. It's also hard to land (might end up below the runway too), because as soon as the wheels hit the runway, it starts sliding again and rudder is needed. BTW I use v0.9.2 on Mandrake Linux 9.1; no CVS. This could be keyboard layout dependant... On a US keyboard ~ is to the left of 1 On a UK keyboard ~ is next to the enter key, and ` is to the left of 1 If we're going by key scan codes then you need to be pressing the key in the correct position, rather than the one with the correct keycap. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Norman Vine wrote: another view http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a000900/a000913/index.html not that we are trying to do this but . it makes for good comparison This gives a nice comparison: http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg I have to note two things though: 1. I had to changes ambient lighting quite a lot to show at least some shade in mountainous areas 2. The sand like areas are defined to be Default in the vmap0 data and hence is not covered by any type of coverage. We used to use define it like EvergreenBroadCover but that's as much as a wild guess as is sand. It is really difficult to make that look good I think. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW. Did anyone think about creating a directory tree to store static scenery for world coverage? I think it is highly needed. especially as we're now missing the embosomed buildings after employing Curt's new scenery samples, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman wrote: URL. http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/sand_tidal.jpg Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman wrote: http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg I have to note two things though: 1. I had to changes ambient lighting quite a lot to show at least some shade in mountainous areas 2. The sand like areas are defined to be Default in the vmap0 data and hence is not covered by any type of coverage. We used to use define it like EvergreenBroadCover but that's as much as a wild guess as is sand. It is really difficult to make that look good I think. Actually, replacing Default by tidal coverage and Sand by sand coverage (instead of tidal ... duh!) it looks better 9 out of 10 times. What do you think? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Erik Hofman wrote: http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg I have to note two things though: 1. I had to changes ambient lighting quite a lot to show at least some shade in mountainous areas 2. The sand like areas are defined to be Default in the vmap0 data and hence is not covered by any type of coverage. We used to use define it like EvergreenBroadCover but that's as much as a wild guess as is sand. It is really difficult to make that look good I think. Actually, replacing Default by tidal coverage and Sand by sand coverage (instead of tidal ... duh!) it looks better 9 out of 10 times. It is strange, that strip that cuts inland is tidal on the sample pic. I wonder how it'd look with a darker than the sand color, a grey or tan. The reason being is that even at high tide the area wouldn't be completely blue. In a lot of cases, anything less than high tide will show the sand or rocks underneath. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman writes: Erik Hofman wrote: URL. http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/sand_tidal.jpg Except for that big inland lake that now appeared in the middle of the city! I think this is a losing battle. Every place that vmap doesn't have a specific coverage area for get's left as default. This really does mean default ground cover ... not sand, not water. It could happen on the shoreline, but it could happen inland just as easily. There are large areas that are covered by the default area type if you fly around a bit. Personally I think that the previous default texture type was better than sand or water. Maybe we could come up with something a little more generic, but what we had before wasn't too bad as a general compromise. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Question about dc
Thanks, David, Martin, Erik, Jim and everyone who responded. Looks like I'm having one of those weeks/months/years. 8-) OK, Shift-2 selects magneto for the second engine. Shift-1 the first. Shift-g is lower the gear. dc3 is working fine and is a very nice plane! Next time I promise to re-read the documentation! 8-) Most embarrassingly, I seem to now recall discussions on this list about the very magneto/gear topic not too long ago. I wouldn't mind having no long term memory if I could at least have some short term memory in its place! 8-) Ima David Culp wrote: Even using 2, spacebar only the first engine ever starts... Are you using shift-2? That selects the second engine. Also, try shift-G to raise the wheels. shift+G is lowering the landing gear. g is raising the gear. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about dc3
Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SHIFT+1 left engine select SHIFT+2 right engine select This is one thing we might internationalize sóomtime Martin. This is a simple diagram that covers mainly the western european or derivative variations: http://std.dkuug.dk/keld/xkb_engravings.html Even on the arabic and japanese keyboards it seems that the 1 and 2 are in the same location. The keyboard mapping as it is now works by combining together two different key codes, rather than mapping to a specific character. So the mapping actually _is_ shift+2 as opposed to @ or or whatever the shift character on the 2 key happens to be. Note you can also map modifiers that aren't commonly used like ctrl+2. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Except for that big inland lake that now appeared in the middle of the city! I think this is a losing battle. Every place that vmap doesn't have a specific coverage area for get's left as default. This really does mean default ground cover ... not sand, not water. It could happen on the shoreline, but it could happen inland just as easily. There are large areas that are covered by the default area type if you fly around a bit. Personally I think that the previous default texture type was better than sand or water. Maybe we could come up with something a little more generic, but what we had before wasn't too bad as a general compromise. You're probably right. It is a problematic type. I like the type SomeSort also quite a bit ... (not). BTW. Who came up with the ambient, diffuse and specular values in the materials file? I experimented with the values ac3d uses for all it's default colors and in the end I'm happier with them and would like to commit it to CVS. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman wrote: I experimented with the values ac3d uses for all it's default colors and in the end I'm happier with them and would like to commit it to CVS. Some screenshots: http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_dawn.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_dawn_90deg.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_sunset.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_sunset_90deg.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_noon.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/old_sunset-90deg.jpg Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Except for that big inland lake that now appeared in the middle of the city! I think this is a losing battle. Every place that vmap doesn't have a specific coverage area for get's left as default. This really does mean default ground cover ... not sand, not water. It could happen on the shoreline, but it could happen inland just as easily. There are large areas that are covered by the default area type if you fly around a bit. Personally I think that the previous default texture type was better than sand or water. Maybe we could come up with something a little more generic, but what we had before wasn't too bad as a general compromise. Would elevation be helpful in splitting into different default types? Ocean shoreline vs. everything else? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
simulators and are hot on the tail of the more recent. More cockpit detail is needed on many of the other aircraft, which is on my short Speaking of cockpits, do we have any 3D clickable cockpits planned? I'm not aware of any sim supporting that (at least not Falcon 4, Flanker 2.x, LO-MAC, F/A-18). This feature would be no doubtly cool. The only question is how big will be the FPS hit. - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
Just for info, I downloaded w130n30.tar.gz and w130n40.tar.gz and my virus scanner (Dr Solomon's VirusScan v4.5.0 on W2K) flagged both files as infected and uncleanable. I doubt that the files are actually infected since I trust Curt and they have not been on a Windows system until they hit my PC, but this would be a bad thing to happen for released scenery. I will try to determine what it claimed they were infected by (it is happy now for some reason), and post a follow up... Richard -Original Message- From: Curtis L. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 September 2003 3:44 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update Ok, my latest beta scenery from last night's build has been uploaded to the main ftp server: ftp://ftp.flightgear.org/pub/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/ This build has much better road/river smoothing. The roads no longer carve huge V's into the terrain. I might want to add a bit more smoothing for rivers in the next build, but they aren't too bad. They do run up and down the hills a bit, but in most situations it's not noticable. This motly happens when the river location is very mismatched with SRTM and the river is climbing up and down the canyon sides. Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
More info... See http://sucs.org/~mocelet/fgfs/fake_virus.png for a screen shot (10KB) of the error message. It appears that it is opening the .gz and looking at the tar file, and having a problem. Note that it doesn't actually identify the virus that it has found (no wonder it cannot clean it). If this persists in the final release scenery we may need a note on the download page explaing that it is likely to happen. Richard Just for info, I downloaded w130n30.tar.gz and w130n40.tar.gz and my virus scanner (Dr Solomon's VirusScan v4.5.0 on W2K) flagged both files as infected and uncleanable. I doubt that the files are actually infected since I trust Curt and they have not been on a Windows system until they hit my PC, but this would be a bad thing to happen for released scenery. I will try to determine what it claimed they were infected by (it is happy now for some reason), and post a follow up... Richard -Original Message- From: Curtis L. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 September 2003 3:44 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update Ok, my latest beta scenery from last night's build has been uploaded to the main ftp server: ftp://ftp.flightgear.org/pub/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/ This build has much better road/river smoothing. The roads no longer carve huge V's into the terrain. I might want to add a bit more smoothing for rivers in the next build, but they aren't too bad. They do run up and down the hills a bit, but in most situations it's not noticable. This motly happens when the river location is very mismatched with SRTM and the river is climbing up and down the canyon sides. Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about dc3
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So the mapping actually _is_ shift+2 as opposed to @ or or whatever the shift character on the 2 key happens to be. No, in fact I have to use @, on our keyboard this is AltGr-q to select the second engine in FlightGear on the German keyboard, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Jim Wilson writes: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Except for that big inland lake that now appeared in the middle of the city! I think this is a losing battle. Every place that vmap doesn't have a specific coverage area for get's left as default. This really does mean default ground cover ... not sand, not water. It could happen on the shoreline, but it could happen inland just as easily. There are large areas that are covered by the default area type if you fly around a bit. Personally I think that the previous default texture type was better than sand or water. Maybe we could come up with something a little more generic, but what we had before wasn't too bad as a general compromise. Would elevation be helpful in splitting into different default types? Ocean shoreline vs. everything else? It may be ... Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Matevz Jekovec writes: simulators and are hot on the tail of the more recent. More cockpit detail is needed on many of the other aircraft, which is on my short Speaking of cockpits, do we have any 3D clickable cockpits planned? I'm not aware of any sim supporting that (at least not Falcon 4, Flanker 2.x, LO-MAC, F/A-18). This feature would be no doubtly cool. The only question is how big will be the FPS hit. The default C172 is 3d clickable, so is the P51d and the cub? Also I think the C310 is too??? FlightGear definitely has the infrastructure to support this, but it's a lot of work to create these sorts of cockpits. So use of this capability in most existing aircraft are a bit spotty or non-existant. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Question about dc
Ima Sudonim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, Shift-2 selects magneto for the second engine. Shift-1 the first. Shift-g is lower the gear. [...] Next time I promise to re-read the documentation! 8-) Concerning the gear the 'official' documentation is not up to date because Shift-g has been added _after_ the last official release. The sources that are used to build the manual are already adjusted. I see, I have to fix the anon CVS server Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
Richard Bytheway writes: Just for info, I downloaded w130n30.tar.gz and w130n40.tar.gz and my virus scanner (Dr Solomon's VirusScan v4.5.0 on W2K) flagged both files as infected and uncleanable. I doubt that the files are actually infected since I trust Curt and they have not been on a Windows system until they hit my PC, but this would be a bad thing to happen for released scenery. I will try to determine what it claimed they were infected by (it is happy now for some reason), and post a follow up... They are simply data files. There's nothing executable in there at all. As far as I know, MS hasn't added VB script support to .tar.gz files [ yet :-) ] so I can't imagine how they could ever be infected with anything. I'm guessing this has to be a false positive ... Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Matevz Jekovec writes: simulators and are hot on the tail of the more recent. More cockpit detail is needed on many of the other aircraft, which is on my short Speaking of cockpits, do we have any 3D clickable cockpits planned? I'm not aware of any sim supporting that (at least not Falcon 4, Flanker 2.x, LO-MAC, F/A-18). This feature would be no doubtly cool. The only question is how big will be the FPS hit. There should be no hit except when you're actually clicking. We have sort-of pseudo fake clickable cockpits now (try the 172). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Jim Wilson writes: Would elevation be helpful in splitting into different default types? Ocean shoreline vs. everything else? It won't help you with lakes, and it might turn the whole of the Netherlands into shoreline. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
Curtis L. Olson writes: They are simply data files. There's nothing executable in there at all. As far as I know, MS hasn't added VB script support to .tar.gz files [ yet :-) ] so I can't imagine how they could ever be infected with anything. I'm guessing this has to be a false positive ... I hate virus checkers with a passion only slightly less than the passion with which I hate a certain e-mail program that I won't name again. While the initial fault lay with the e-mail program, it was all the false virus-warning e-mail messages from that idiotic software that finally physically shut down my account. I imagine that they have a catch-all rule, along the lines of If it's not text, and it's not a binary format I recognize, then it's a virus. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg Someone was complaining about the lake in the middle of the city. I suspect it is the age of the vmap dataset that is to be blamed. There is the long straight dip going towards downtown and also the small lake on the San Andreas fault. In real life, both are fairly deep dips and were, I suspect, tidal and flooded respectively. I suspect that, since the vmap data was collected, the dips were drained and thereby turned into the parkland that you see in the photo. A similar effect is visible in San Diego for the Mission Bay area; any long term local who sees our scenery immediately knows when the vmap0 data was recorded; only recent arrivals refer to it as 'wrong'. Therefore, I suggest we leave the lake as-is (unless someone who has lived in the area for a couple of decades has better historical data). I don't think we can have a simple rule to determine which lakes and swamps will have been drained or paved over during the last 20-50 years. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
Alex Perry writes: From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg Someone was complaining about the lake in the middle of the city. I suspect it is the age of the vmap dataset that is to be blamed. There is the long straight dip going towards downtown and also the small lake on the San Andreas fault. In real life, both are fairly deep dips and were, I suspect, tidal and flooded respectively. I suspect that, since the vmap data was collected, the dips were drained and thereby turned into the parkland that you see in the photo. A similar effect is visible in San Diego for the Mission Bay area; any long term local who sees our scenery immediately knows when the vmap0 data was recorded; only recent arrivals refer to it as 'wrong'. Therefore, I suggest we leave the lake as-is (unless someone who has lived in the area for a couple of decades has better historical data). I don't think we can have a simple rule to determine which lakes and swamps will have been drained or paved over during the last 20-50 years. After all the scenery crunching is finished, this area comes out as type default. In other words, the vmap0 data has no opinion about what the coverage is there, but some place it is recorded as land so it is left as default. The real issue here is what texture should we choose for default areas for which vmap0 has no coverage opinion? I would argue that water or sand is not the best choice. It may work well for a few specific instances, but then you are going to get lake or water in a ***lot*** of places where it shouldn't be. Instead we need to use an existing ground cover texture or come up with something that is slightly more generic and nondescript ... i.e. it could be grassy, or maybe it's trees, we can't quite tell; and it's not too green, but not too dry, not too rocky, not too grassy, not too urban, etc. etc. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 04:07 pm, Alex Perry wrote: I suspect that, since the vmap data was collected, the dips were drained and thereby turned into the parkland that you see in the photo. The problem is, that 'lake' is the Golden Gate Park. Having it be anything other than green parkland would be as wrong as having Central Park show up as water or sand in NY city! Note I'm not arguing that the park isn't low enough (or sandy enough) at the western end to have been tidal flats in the past, but it's been a park for a long time, and the land rises up (and gets less sandy) less than a quarter of the way east. The impression I have is that no matter what texture is picked for 'default' landcover, it's going to be massively, obviously wrong much of the time. James ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The impression I have is that no matter what texture is picked for 'default' landcover, it's going to be massively, obviously wrong much of the time. This leads to the assumption that there is need for another source of landcover data. The SRTM mision not only collected data on earth elevation but also land coverage. Does anyone know if this data is acessible ? Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Matevz Jekovec [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: simulators and are hot on the tail of the more recent. More cockpit detail is needed on many of the other aircraft, which is on my short Speaking of cockpits, do we have any 3D clickable cockpits planned? I'm not aware of any sim supporting that (at least not Falcon 4, Flanker 2.x, LO-MAC, F/A-18). This feature would be no doubtly cool. The only question is how big will be the FPS hit. Yes. The p51d is already (but there isn't all that much to click on. I don't think there is any noticable performance hit. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] EAA Sport Aviation - article
From: Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've just been reading the April 2003 issue of EAA's Sport Aviation magazine and pages 50 through 58 are a nice article titled Virtual Building about Flight simulation for the homebuilder by Chuck Bodeen. It includes a discussion comparing the benefits of FlightGear, X-plane-0.66 and MSFS2002. From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] A comparison between FlightGear *and* MSFS *and* X-plane. This and David's post give me the feeling we're on the right track! Erik asked: Any conclusion on FlightGear? Alex asked: [...] I am writing to request permission to scan pages 2 and 50-58 and distribute the images to the engineers that develop the FlightGear product. Editorial at EAA replied: As long as it's an internal distribution, that would be fine. Thanks for asking. I'll send a set of scanned images to Erik (off list). Any other developers who're interested, just send me a note. Our license to the images (as above) allows you to forward them to other developers but not other non FGFS people. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Matevz Jekovec writes: simulators and are hot on the tail of the more recent. More cockpit detail is needed on many of the other aircraft, which is on my short Speaking of cockpits, do we have any 3D clickable cockpits planned? I'm not aware of any sim supporting that (at least not Falcon 4, Flanker 2.x, LO-MAC, F/A-18). This feature would be no doubtly cool. The only question is how big will be the FPS hit. The default C172 is 3d clickable, so is the P51d and the cub? Also I think the C310 is too??? Ah right. Forgot about that. Any of the cockpits that have 2D instruments mapped to the 3D panel are clickable. The c172-3d, c310u3a-3d, a4-yasim, ummm...probably most any with that type of panel. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim Wilson writes: Would elevation be helpful in splitting into different default types? Ocean shoreline vs. everything else? It won't help you with lakes, and it might turn the whole of the Netherlands into shoreline. gui keys...sigh that last message should have been... I was thinking something more like: if cover = default then if elevation near sealevel then use shoretexture else use defaulttexture No this wouldn't help with lakes, but I don't think it'd swamp the netherlands either, unless the entire country is already default cover. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim Wilson writes: Would elevation be helpful in splitting into different default types? Ocean shoreline vs. everything else? It won't help you with lakes, and it might turn the whole of the Netherlands into shoreline. What I was thinking was something like: if default then if near sealevel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
I hate virus checkers with a passion only slightly less than the passion with which I hate a certain e-mail program that I won't name again. While the initial fault lay with the e-mail program, it was all the false virus-warning e-mail messages from that idiotic software that finally physically shut down my account. I imagine that they have a catch-all rule, along the lines of If it's not text, and it's not a binary format I recognize, then it's a virus. For idiotic software, it would be hard to beat the email filter that a certain well-known bank installed several years ago. One of the bank employees was on a flight sim mailing list, and when an email come to him from the list containing the phrase you should have seen the b*ggers, the program intercepted the email and sent a message back to the list saying Your email has been rejected because it contains the word b*ggers. The full text of the message is below. The mailing list software in due course distributed this reply to all the list members, including the bank employee, and the message was again intercepted by the email filter. A new message of refusal was prepended and the whole lot sent back to the list. Given that the message was almost doubling in size each time round, it's just as well the mailing list software was only running once and hour or so. People with slow modems (most of us at the time) were not well pleased. Mally --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/03 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Erik Hofman wrote: I experimented with the values ac3d uses for all it's default colors and in the end I'm happier with them and would like to commit it to CVS. Some screenshots: http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_dawn.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_dawn_90deg.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_sunset.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_sunset_90deg.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/new_noon.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/old_sunset-90deg.jpg Are you talking about changing light properties or material properties? Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
Richard, The file in question needs to be sent to the software maker so they can fix this false positive. Thanks * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Bytheway) [2003.09.08 09:02]: More info... See http://sucs.org/~mocelet/fgfs/fake_virus.png for a screen shot (10KB) of the error message. It appears that it is opening the .gz and looking at the tar file, and having a problem. Note that it doesn't actually identify the virus that it has found (no wonder it cannot clean it). If this persists in the final release scenery we may need a note on the download page explaing that it is likely to happen. Richard Just for info, I downloaded w130n30.tar.gz and w130n40.tar.gz and my virus scanner (Dr Solomon's VirusScan v4.5.0 on W2K) flagged both files as infected and uncleanable. I doubt that the files are actually infected since I trust Curt and they have not been on a Windows system until they hit my PC, but this would be a bad thing to happen for released scenery. I will try to determine what it claimed they were infected by (it is happy now for some reason), and post a follow up... Richard -Original Message- From: Curtis L. Olson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 September 2003 3:44 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update Ok, my latest beta scenery from last night's build has been uploaded to the main ftp server: ftp://ftp.flightgear.org/pub/fgfs/Scenery-0.9.2/ This build has much better road/river smoothing. The roads no longer carve huge V's into the terrain. I might want to add a bit more smoothing for rivers in the next build, but they aren't too bad. They do run up and down the hills a bit, but in most situations it's not noticable. This motly happens when the river location is very mismatched with SRTM and the river is climbing up and down the canyon sides. Regards, Curt. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Cameron Moore [ If you're sending someone some Styrofoam, what do you pack it in? ] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] scenery update
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Curtis L. Olson writes: They are simply data files. There's nothing executable in there at all. As far as I know, MS hasn't added VB script support to .tar.gz files [ yet :-) ] so I can't imagine how they could ever be infected with anything. I'm guessing this has to be a false positive ... I hate virus checkers with a passion only slightly less than the passion with which I hate a certain e-mail program that I won't name again. While the initial fault lay with the e-mail program, it was all the false virus-warning e-mail messages from that idiotic software that finally physically shut down my account. I imagine that they have a catch-all rule, along the lines of If it's not text, and it's not a binary format I recognize, then it's a virus. What amazes me are the ones that actually send the intact virus attachment to the spoofed reply-to addresses...something that could easily open up companies that operate such software for civil liability. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
Curtis L. Olson writes: The real issue here is what texture should we choose for default areas for which vmap0 has no coverage opinion? It would be nice if we could do some kind of weighted average of the surrounding areas, excluding water. At least we'd be less likely to get something out of place (like an evergreen forest in the middle of the desert). We could also default to the 1 arcsec landcover raster. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
David Megginson writes: Curtis L. Olson writes: The real issue here is what texture should we choose for default areas for which vmap0 has no coverage opinion? It would be nice if we could do some kind of weighted average of the surrounding areas, excluding water. At least we'd be less likely to get something out of place (like an evergreen forest in the middle of the desert). We could also default to the 1 arcsec landcover raster. I would look up the center of the area in question in the global landcover This should be very quick Also for water area delineation the Hydrographic database in the message I forwarded to the terragear list should be quite good as it has had *lots* of corrections applied Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
On Monday 08 September 2003 10:37, Erik Hofman wrote: I don't know if you've seen this page already, but we are allowed to use their work as textures since we credit them in out documentation: http://skyscraperpage.com It covers quite some buildings from The Netherlands. I did came across this page before, and I thought the images were too small. But tonight I tried one anyway and I am surprised about how it looks. Not too bad at all for a texture that's only 150 pixels high. I have put some sample images here: http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/fgfs_rembrandt1.jpg http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/fgfs_rembrandt2.jpg It's the Rembrandt Tower, the heighest building of Amsterdam (135m roof, 150m antenna). Nice how it aligns with the Amstel river, I think. The building in the front on the second image, is the Carré theatre. It's slightly misplaced, but I corrected that already and I'm too lazy to create a new screenshot :) Close up of Carré is here: http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/ac3d_carre.jpg I don't know if I can help with creating buildings also (although I'd like to) but I also want to update the Dutch airfields where needed. I wanted to look into that too. For example, adding the fifth (actually sixth) runway to Schiphol. I have found some very accurate data about all six runways in 'Rijksdriehoek' coordinates and wrote a small program to convert those to WGS84. But I have no data on the taxiways and the current taxiways are a little misaligned with the new runway data I have. Maybe we can talk about it offlist and/or exchange data? BTW. Did anyone think about creating a directory tree to store static scenery for world coverage? I think it is highly needed. That would be a very good idea! --Ivo ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
Julian Foad writes: Norman Vine wrote: Also for water area delineation the Hydrographic database in the message I forwarded to the terragear list should be quite good as it has had *lots* of corrections applied The fact that something has had lots of corrections applied does not necessarily mean it is quite good ... it could also mean it is quite bad. :-) yup, I guess we all should just use Ptolemy's map. Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
Ivo writes: But tonight I tried one anyway and I am surprised about how it looks. Not too bad at all for a texture that's only 150 pixels high. I have put some sample images here: http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/fgfs_rembrandt1.jpg http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/fgfs_rembrandt2.jpg 32 pixels is usually fine for a generic building, and 64 pixels for a customized one -- maybe 128 for something really prominent and detailed. Consider how few pixels the building actually takes up on the screen unless you're flying within a few dozen meters of it. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] forwarded message from Christian Kocmick
Can we use anything like this? If so, where would the best place be to put it? ---BeginMessage--- Mr. Curtis Olson, Enclosed is a desktop icon for Flight Gear, using an image off of your own website. attachment: SeaHawkthumb.xpm---End Message--- Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
David Megginson wrote: Jim Wilson writes: Would elevation be helpful in splitting into different default types? Ocean shoreline vs. everything else? It won't help you with lakes, and it might turn the whole of the Netherlands into shoreline. Neh, just some islands. On the other hand, there is now sand/forest where there should be watter. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] By god, we're good!
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jim Wilson wrote: Erik Hofman said: Erik Hofman wrote: I experimented with the values ac3d uses for all it's default colors and in the end I'm happier with them and would like to commit it to CVS. Are you talking about changing light properties or material properties? This will change the ambient, specular and diffuse colors as defined in the materials.xml file *and* involves changes to Lighting/ambient and Lighting/specular. I'm not familiar with how the material properties for the scenery are handled. There's indication in the materials.xml file that material colors are not used unless the textures are turned off. In any case the diffuse color I would think ought to be full white for anything textured. The ambient value is the percentage of ambient light that is reflected by a material (added on to diffuse). You can try _decreasing_ the ambient value in the material properties which should increase the shading contrast in the scenery without changing the ambient light value. If everything is working correctly in the rendering code, using a material ambience of 0.500 and a light ambience of 0.080 should give you the same result as a light ambience of 0.200 and material ambience of 0.200 (both multiply out to 0.04). In any case the default material property values in ac3d are not the same as the light properties. I'm not sure what he's using for the lights. AFAIK they can't be adjusted. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] EAA Sport Aviation - article
I'd like to have a copy, if you don't mind. Thanks, On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 08:49, Alex Perry wrote: From: Alex Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've just been reading the April 2003 issue of EAA's Sport Aviation magazine and pages 50 through 58 are a nice article titled Virtual Building about Flight simulation for the homebuilder by Chuck Bodeen. It includes a discussion comparing the benefits of FlightGear, X-plane-0.66 and MSFS2002. From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] A comparison between FlightGear *and* MSFS *and* X-plane. This and David's post give me the feeling we're on the right track! Erik asked: Any conclusion on FlightGear? Alex asked: [...] I am writing to request permission to scan pages 2 and 50-58 and distribute the images to the engineers that develop the FlightGear product. Editorial at EAA replied: As long as it's an internal distribution, that would be fine. Thanks for asking. I'll send a set of scanned images to Erik (off list). Any other developers who're interested, just send me a note. Our license to the images (as above) allows you to forward them to other developers but not other non FGFS people. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
On Monday 08 Sep 2003 16:15, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Alex Perry writes: From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg Someone was complaining about the lake in the middle of the city. I suspect it is the age of the vmap dataset that is to be blamed. There is the long straight dip going towards downtown and also the small lake on the San Andreas fault. In real life, both are fairly deep dips and were, I suspect, tidal and flooded respectively. I suspect that, since the vmap data was collected, the dips were drained and thereby turned into the parkland that you see in the photo. A similar effect is visible in San Diego for the Mission Bay area; any long term local who sees our scenery immediately knows when the vmap0 data was recorded; only recent arrivals refer to it as 'wrong'. Therefore, I suggest we leave the lake as-is (unless someone who has lived in the area for a couple of decades has better historical data). I don't think we can have a simple rule to determine which lakes and swamps will have been drained or paved over during the last 20-50 years. After all the scenery crunching is finished, this area comes out as type default. In other words, the vmap0 data has no opinion about what the coverage is there, but some place it is recorded as land so it is left as default. The real issue here is what texture should we choose for default areas for which vmap0 has no coverage opinion? I would argue that water or sand is not the best choice. It may work well for a few specific instances, but then you are going to get lake or water in a ***lot*** of places where it shouldn't be. Instead we need to use an existing ground cover texture or come up with something that is slightly more generic and nondescript ... i.e. it could be grassy, or maybe it's trees, we can't quite tell; and it's not too green, but not too dry, not too rocky, not too grassy, not too urban, etc. etc. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org Could you not replace all 'default' coverage with one of the coverages bounding the area of default cover? LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] San Francisco city lake
Could you not replace all 'default' coverage with one of the coverages bounding the area of default cover? I thought about that too, but I think it will destroy some detail. There's a small lake in the west of Amsterdam that turns up as default coverage. I use it when I fly around the place, just to see where I am. Though it's not blue (but looks more like a park) I know what it is and thus is helpful. If it was replaced by the coverages of the bounding area, it would turn out to be urban and the whole lake would be lost. I can imagine similar situations occur in other places. --Ivo ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
On Monday 08 September 2003 22:47, David Megginson wrote: Ivo writes: Not too bad at all for a texture that's only 150 pixels high. I have 32 pixels is usually fine for a generic building, and 64 pixels for a customized one -- maybe 128 for something really prominent and detailed. Consider how few pixels the building actually takes up on the screen unless you're flying within a few dozen meters of it. I never really looked at it that way. Maybe that's why I discarded skyscraperpage.com at first, to be a worthy source of textures. But it turned out to be quite nice. This night I created a new building along the Amstel River. Not with a skyscraperpage image though, but with a texture from the freeware nl2000 MSFS scenery. Screenshots: http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/amstelhotel1.jpg http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/amstelhotel2.jpg http://ivop.free.fr/fgfs/amstelhotel3.jpg (at dusk) Ok, the Amstel is not the Seine, but there are a few nice buildings I think. The theatre is in the right place now (sort of). If anybody is interested, I can make the models available for download too. BTW Maybe a separate mailinglist for scenery design should be created? This isn't really development related, but doesn't seem appropriate for any of the other mailinglists either. --Ivo ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Dutch Scenery
Erik Hofman wrote: Ivo participating? I don't know if you've seen this page already, but we are allowed to use their work as textures since we credit them in out documentation: http://skyscraperpage.com It covers quite some buildings from The Netherlands. I don't know if I can help with creating buildings also (although I'd like to) but I also want to update the Dutch airfields where needed. BTW. Did anyone think about creating a directory tree to store static scenery for world coverage? I think it is highly needed. Erik I have a question about creating new textures of buildings with a camera. Does the view angle (the place where i am and look at the building) when taking the picture play a large role for the qualitiy of the resulting texture when taking photos of buildings? I mean, let's suppose i am on the ground in front of a 50-100 m high building to take a picture of it. In this position i would get a picture where the top of the builing front-side is smaller than the ground of the building front-side, in other words it looks like a trapeze. Is this trapeze looking picture a problem for creating textures of such photos? Are their ways available (image manipulation) to convert it into a recangle texture without a big loss in texture/image quality or do i need to be exactly in the middle (correct high and width) of the building when taking the photo? Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] 60 seconds of flightgear
Ok, this is for those that would rather see a screen shot than the real thing. :-) Here's a 60 second, 12Mb movie to watch: http://www.flightgear.org/tmp/fgfs-movie1.avi Director's notes: - The scene is the YF-23 flying between 64S and KSEA. - The movie is .avi format and plays very nicely with xine on linux. I imagine windows people should not have any trouble either. - The movie is taken with a Canon A70 digital camera, hand held, pointed at my monitor ... pretty low tech ... no fancy coding or image capture tonight. - This instance of FlightGear is running live on a 900Mhz Athlon, 256Mb system RAM, nVidia Ti4200 graphics card. - The movie quality is so-so, but not bad for a web movie. (My main complaint is that the lighting turned out a bit dark in the foreground ...) This movie shows the new SRTM based terrain and if you look closely you can see the vmap rivers and roads. And if you look really closely you might be able to see a YF23 carefully hidden somewhere in the picture. :-) The thing to watch closely for is the very high detail of the terrain and that there isn't any LOD popping. The terrain is fully polygonal and not faked with any tricks so it looks correct as you move and fly past it ... but of course you all know that. :-) I can probably make more of these if there is interest, but for now it is way past my bed time. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
