Well I was hoping to create some scenery based on the 25m DEM files for
the UK. I have access to the data but at the moment I'm struggling in
compiling flightgear and terragear. Once I get that out of the way I
hope to post some samples here. I'm also working on a Harrier model
(probably GR7
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.megascenery.com/images/ba3n.JPG
http://www.megascenery.com/images/ba3w.JPG
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/VanNuysCA.jpg
Speaking from personal experience,
* I find that omitting horizon haze makes the two MSFS look quite silly.
* The
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is just a small comparison between MSFS2004, MSFS2004/MegaScenery
(http://www.megascenery.com/) and FlightGear/VMap0 data. I don't think
any conclusions can be drawn from it, but it can be usefully and it is fun:
Default MS FlightSim 2004:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:26:47 -,
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* They all show the reservoir, but FGFS doesn't apply a texture
around the edge to imply the white zone without vegetation due to
changing levels.
Alex Perry wrote:
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.megascenery.com/images/ba3n.JPG
http://www.megascenery.com/images/ba3w.JPG
http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/VanNuysCA.jpg
Speaking from personal experience,
Excellent.
* I find that omitting horizon haze makes the two
On Wednesday 13 August 2003 22:18, Erik Hofman wrote:
[snip...]
* Both the main airports in the field of view are far too easy to see in
FGFS, and you can even see Hawthorne and Long Beach's (?) locations too.
That is definitely wrong; even LAX should be almost invisible from here.
* In
Jim Wilson wrote:
The FlightGear view shows a lot more green, than is probably realistic. Is
this the data or the way it is interpreted?
I guess that's urban growth after the VMap0 data was created.
As you can see the green areas are mostly around airports. In the MSFS
scenery that's all
