On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:01, Martin Spott wrote:
> These reports of higher fidelity in the way how landcover is being
> displayed makes me wonder as the dataset which the landcover display is
> being based on is the same as for the last Scenery. Do the better
> results stem from Curt's work o
Steve Knoblock wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:14:06 -0800, you wrote:
>>Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery 0.9.10 First Impressions
>
> I noticed the waterways through Kent Island, MD were rendered as I
> remember them. The fidelity seems much higher than FS2004 or previous
> versions stock sce
> KDCA is sitting up on a strange ledge.
Hmmm. I'd heard that was fixed.
> And there appear to be two
> Washington Monuments.
In Jon's database, there was a generic obelisk that was used to mark
landmarks. That probably didn't get removed.
-c
-
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:14:06 -0800, you wrote:
>Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery 0.9.10 First Impressions
I noticed the waterways through Kent Island, MD were rendered as I
remember them. The fidelity seems much higher than FS2004 or previous
versions stock scenery. There were still a few thin
On Friday 20 January 2006 00:13, Robicd wrote:
> Well, I make use of Google Earth and atlanteitaliano.it for getting
> aerial pictures and populate the town around LICP, both sources give
> same coordinates so I assume the offset is real.
>
> Do you think I can take sources like GoogleEarth as corr
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Robicd wrote:
My first impression is good. I see more details around my local area
now. Thank you for the improvement.
LICJ has no slopes on the runway anymore :-)
LICP is still wrong positioned though, it's still 500m southern then
the real position and that disturbes
Durk Talsma wrote: > Hi All,
> Following Curt's Announcement I decided to download the new
FlightGear 0.9.10 > Scenery tiles. Yesterday, I decided to take a
little tour over my home area,
Same here :-)
I have the impression that stopways still are being handled
incorrectly. This counts for LCHM
Robicd wrote:
My first impression is good. I see more details around my local area
now. Thank you for the improvement.
LICJ has no slopes on the runway anymore :-)
LICP is still wrong positioned though, it's still 500m southern then
the real position and that disturbes a lot the buildings' po
My first impression is good. I see more details around my local area
now. Thank you for the improvement.
LICJ has no slopes on the runway anymore :-)
LICP is still wrong positioned though, it's still 500m southern then the
real position and that disturbes a lot the buildings' positioning in the
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>>This is nice to hear. Curt, could you specify which coastline and lake
>>data you actually took for this build - did you take the recent 1.3
>>GSHHS release ?
> I only used the vmap0 data for this build, pending manual resolution of
> some of the
Martin Spott wrote:
This is nice to hear. Curt, could you specify which coastline and lake
data you actually took for this build - did you take the recent 1.3
GSHHS release ?
I only used the vmap0 data for this build, pending manual resolution of
some of the data conflicts between gshhs an
Martin Spott wrote:
> Durk Talsma wrote:
>
>
>>- The lake, river, and canal areas around the city of amsterdam are much
>>improved: The North Sea canal, which connects amsterdam to the north sea is
>>now accurately represented, as well as some artificial lakes surrounding the
>>new flevoland a
Durk Talsma wrote:
> - The lake, river, and canal areas around the city of amsterdam are much
> improved: The North Sea canal, which connects amsterdam to the north sea is
> now accurately represented, as well as some artificial lakes surrounding the
> new flevoland area are now accurately repr
13 matches
Mail list logo
