Alex Perry writes:
You're thinking of the US. In most of Canada (outside of the big
urban areas), they're the only big buildings around, and, once you get
out of the southern agricultural areas, the only large clearing in the
woods.
Really ?! I've been wanting to spend a few
VS Renganathan writes:
You can see the carrier in FlightGear by giving the lat,lon,alt in
~scenery.objects.txt.
Or use the 3dexplorer (windows only) shareware viewer. If you
are interested
I could send you the wavefront .obj file format specs. The
carrier model is
a simple low polygon one
I could put that on my web page, no problem.
Jeff
I also have built some 3ds models. It
would be nice if the web page had a 3D model repository with a little
screenshoot for each.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David wrote:
Aside from eye candy, we need buildings at airports for two practical
reasons:
1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
2. they give the user a visual cue for distance and altitude during an
approach.
Hm, You know I was kinda thinking planes
Curtis wrote:
2. Don't forget this is a 'real time' sim. We are on a polygon
budget, and hey, it would be great to see your 15,000 polygon
beautifully detailed model in all it's full glory, but something like
that will ***kill*** frame rates ... especially if you want to
duplicate
David wrote:
Aside from eye candy, we need buildings at airports for two practical
reasons:
1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
2. they give the user a visual cue for distance and altitude during an
approach.
Hm, You know I was kinda
1. they make the airports easier to spot from a distance, and
Yeah, but unless we put buildings everywhere, the airports will be too
easy to find. It is already easier to spot airports on the simulator
than they are in real life; let's not make it too trivial.
2. they give the user a
On Thursday 06 December 2001 8:47 pm, you wrote:
Jeff wrote:
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
planes?
For me? Neither:
Aircraft carrier!
Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
Adding a tail hook and catapult mechanism would be
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:58, you wrote:
That said, I'm sure other people have much more practical priorities.
I'd guess that buildings and other ground stuff would probably top the
list. In particular, bridges and radio towers are important landmarks
(obstacles) for VFR (IFR) navigation.
John Check wrote:
Andy Ross wrote:
For me? Neither:
Aircraft carrier!
Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
You're kidding, really? OK, I feel dumb.
I've never touched the geometry side of fgfs, so any pointers would be
appreciated. What can I use to look at this
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings
or planes?
I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D looks so nice
I think I
could come up with something.
Buildings. I can't see how any sane person could say Planes (I could be
wrong, though ;-) I like to be PIC
A man after my own heart. How about creating a small airport and jack it up
30 meters from the surrounding terrain? You'll get the same effect without
getting seasick.. :-)
Charlie H.
Andy Ross wrote:
Jeff wrote:
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or
Jeff writes:
Well, I am finally ready to start to make some 3D models for FlightGear. Went
all out and purchased AC3D, I like it and it's a good fit for me!
So my question is: What is more important to FlightGear buildings or planes?
I never made a 3D model of a plane before but AC3D
Both of them. It is ugly too see an empty airport. An airport filled not
only with buildings but also with planes on ground would bring an airport
to life.
Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any aircraft.
Next time you fly around look out the window. What do you see more of by
far? In fact, for great distances you may not see any aircraft.
You see aircraft three ways ...
Yes, of course. You are kind of biased, though - given what you want to do
with the sim. The scene - no matter which
Martin Olveyra writes:
It
would be nice if the web page had a 3D model repository with a little
screenshoot for each.
see
http://home.t-online.de/home/Wolfram.Kuss/
Cheers
Norman
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You see aircraft three ways ...
Yes, of course. You are kind of biased, though
Yeah, but think of it this way ... do you really think many people want
to dogfight with C172s ? I mean, it's one thing to do a highres dogfight
model of a fighter, or an aerobatic biplane ...
When did we get bullets, or collision detection? First things first.
Collision detection (with bullets) is relatively easy. And anyway,
I thought someone was implementing secondary aero bodies 8-)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
Hi everyone,
I have been following this thread.
Pretty sure Objects/Geometry/saratoga.obj is a carrier
Yes, this would be cool.Definitely.
Jon
Jon, as pointed out by John, we already have an aircraft carrier. It is one
with a ski-jump and 3 arrestor wires. We use it in our design work.
19 matches
Mail list logo