David Megginson wrote:
> [...] Next, we were able to separate land (always forest) from water.
reminds me of the history of Creation :-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
-
Very nice work! I remember when all land cover in FlightGear (other
than runways) was desert -- not sure why Curt picked a desert texture
(I think it had something to do with Prescott, AZ). Next, we were
able to separate land (always forest) from water. It's come a long
way since then.
All the
David Megginson wrote:
> Quite a few years ago we had a debate, because we had to choose
> between two sets of shoreline data:
Nowadays we're in the fortunate position of being able to merge land
cover data from various sources.
The foundation is still VMap0 which I've loaded into a PostGIS
data
Quite a few years ago we had a debate, because we had to choose
between two sets of shoreline data:
1. GSHSS was very nicely detailed (every little cove and point), but
about 1 mile off for the Great Lakes, leaving shoreline airports
either far inland or floating in the middle of a lake.
2. Vmap0
On Sunday 2010-03-28 David Megginson wrote:
> Now, quite a few years later, the Great Lakes are still
> broken in our default scenery, and as a result, FlightGear
> looks ridiculous to any new user who comes and tries flying
> in near cities such as Toronto, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland,
> Detroit
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> In the meantime we've made a polygon set to seamlessly fill The Great
> Lakes Void - which is likely going to address the issue you've
> mentioned. But there are still a few other places which are presumably
> affected by the same cause (Casp
David Megginson wrote:
> [...] I think someone
> originally had a grandiose plan to build a water network, and wanted
> eventually to model locks, rapids, waterfalls, etc. to account for
> changes in water surface elevation, but that never happened, and to be
> honest, we should never have let the
7 matches
Mail list logo
