On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:54:06 -0800, you wrote: >Even without automatic texture generation it would cut down airport >scenery creation time significantly. Automatic creation, sizing and >placing of objects is great, and applying a generic texture should not >be too hard. At least it eases the job for locals to adjust "their" >airport to exact matching with reality (And non locals will find it
Even for a small airport like KSBY, this process would cut down the amount of time needed to model it significantly. I had started improvements using the existing tools (and had made some improvements and corrections to the MSFS version some time before getting into FlightGear). It is a tedious process, which would be much more accurate and easier than making guesses and using fuzzy aerial photographs. Airports like Easton or Cambridge used to only have maps that look like they were drawn on the back of a napkin before these PDFs became available. Nothing breaks my suspension of disbelief more than flying in an area I know should be built up and seeing nothing but a flat plane with a patch of tar on it. No trees, no buildings, nothing. I understand what you are saying about the white buildings, if there are generally sufficient objects in the area, but when there is nothing, give me the white buildings. Steve ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
