alexis bory ha scritto:
>
> I did use FGSD some month ago. That was my first try in enhancing an
> airport and also change some particular shapes in the landscape.
Hi Alexis, I used FGSD a lot in the past. I still do sometimes for
positioning objects around. I think I know it good enough. I use
alexis bory schrieb:
>
> I'm working again on an airport, KNID,
> http://croo.murgl.org/fgfs/scenery/index.html and I plan to redraw the
> taxiway and aprons, but I won't touch the overall terrain tile
> definition. My concern is to see that airport included in the standard
> scenery ;)
>
> goo
Roberto Inzerillo a écrit :
> Anyway, which software tools do you suggest me to use in order to get
> a more detailed/realistic terrain geometry? I am not talking about
> big areas, I'm just interested in a few airport areas. I'd like to
> have a clean taxiway/apron geometry. I'd like to correc
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> I'm confident you comprehend my point of view.
I do. We just have different opinons about "the right way" how to
achive the common goal ;-)
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
-
Martin Spott ha scritto:
> Hi Roberto,
>
> Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
>
>> Again, I don't care about the future right now. I'd like to create a
>> nice 3d airport geometry right now. If that can be used as a proof of
>> concept for future large scale development, I'll be happy. If not, I'm
>> ha
Roberto Inzerillo writes:
>
> What does that mean? Digging into the code?
> I have to be clear about that. I don't say I will never read
> FGFS code, that's not the point, but I don't think that's
> very easy to someone like me who doesn't know the code
> already. Is it really so wrong to try a
Tim Moore wrote:
> Is there discussion / work on high-detailed terrain for FlightGear going
> on anywhere?
Well, one part of the effort is represented here:
http://www.custom-scenery.org/Research-Deve.274.0.html
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> Martin Spott ha scritto:
> > Just for the record, two other 'shots' of the EDDK area:
> >
> > http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/EDDK-contour_01.png
> > http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/EDDK-contour_02.png
>
> Btw, I'm very interseted in EDDK area. Those shots
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> Martin Spott ha scritto:
>> Defining fixed boundaries around airfields is a bad idea in the long
>> term. To my understanding FlightGear still focuses on methods that are
>> laid out in a forseighted manner and fixed boundar
Hi Roberto,
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> Again, I don't care about the future right now. I'd like to create a
> nice 3d airport geometry right now. If that can be used as a proof of
> concept for future large scale development, I'll be happy. If not, I'm
> happy to have a high res/quality airpor
>> That's where I'm stuck. I don't know how to deal with that conversion. I
>> already asked in ML about the conversion but got no practical answer. Do
>> you have one?
>
> I don't have time to sink my teeth into this right now, but perhaps the
> easiest thing would be to rig flightgear to write t
Martin Spott ha scritto:
> Just for the record, two other 'shots' of the EDDK area:
>
> http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/EDDK-contour_01.png
> http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/EDDK-contour_02.png
Btw, I'm very interseted in EDDK area. Those shots look very nice. Will
that be translat
Martin Spott ha scritto:
> Defining fixed boundaries around airfields is a bad idea in the long
> term. To my understanding FlightGear still focuses on methods that are
> laid out in a forseighted manner and fixed boundaries is definitely not
> a part of this collection. While claiming this I have
Martin Spott wrote:
> Moggeeen !
Disregard !
Sorry for the noise, this should have been a private EMail,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
-
Moggeeen !
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
> > We're in the progress of offering such service for the Landcover-DB
> > which then allows to edit not only lakes, forest, roads and rivers but
> > we'd offer a repository of elevation contour lines as well. Current
> > status of our geodata
Hi,
Martin Spott wrote:
> Ralf Gerlich wrote:
>
>> Of course, TaxiDraw is not limited to creating apt.dat data as Durk's AI
>> extension shows.
>
> Maybe we can inspire the involved developers to head for a joint effort
> of TaxiDraw- and FGSD-development here ;-)
[SNIP]
> We're in the pr
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> Of course, TaxiDraw is not limited to creating apt.dat data as Durk's AI
> extension shows.
Maybe we can inspire the involved developers to head for a joint effort
of TaxiDraw- and FGSD-development here ;-)
The upcoming 'standard' for editing geographic vector data ap
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> The same goes for lighting, I just want to change the positioning of
> those light points in space because I don't like the way they are
> automatically positioned now (specifically on taxiways).
I think, concerning taxiway lights for example there is room for
improv
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> Since terrain meshes are based on triangles, I see full flexibility in
> that (more than what's used today). I guess rectangle blocks (I refer to
> taxiway/runway/aprons) were choosen in order to get airport layouts
> quick and easy [...]
and certainly for perfo
Just for the record, two other 'shots' of the EDDK area:
http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/EDDK-contour_01.png
http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/EDDK-contour_02.png
The second one shows the valley of the river Rhine in the west as well
as the junction with the Mosel at Koblenz in the SW
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> > I don't know if I was successful, but when discussing the upcoming
> > apt.datformat to include a much more flexible taxiway spec, I also
> > lobbied to have an airport boundary also included. If this
> > boundary was fixed and never changed, then a user could change
On 1/2/07, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
I hope you all had a nice new year start.
Ok, now back to FGFS.
> I don't know if I was successful, but when discussing the upcoming
> apt.datformat to include a much more flexible taxiway spec, I also
> lobbied to have
> an airport boundary also included.
I hope you all had a nice new year start.
Ok, now back to FGFS.
> I don't know if I was successful, but when discussing the upcoming
> apt.datformat to include a much more flexible taxiway spec, I also
> lobbied to have
> an airport boundary also included. If this boundary was fixed and never
>
On 12/29/06, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
That's the point Curt. I don't care about that now. That's not my aim in
any way. Your "algorithmic" approach suits well when thinking globally,
and you have to, because you provide a base to a global scenery
generation process; that has to follow strict, st
> I like to think about things "algorithmically", but I know that others
> prefer to do manual touchups because you can build in so much more detail
> and correctness that way. Some how we need to figure out how to bridge
> this
> divide and make it easy for people to be able to do manual change
On 12/29/06, Roberto Inzerillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Typo:
But that's _my_ interest right now :-) That's because I ask for
suggestions and ideas here.
What ever approach we come up with needs to be done in a way that doesn't
invalidate all your efforts the next time we regenerate the w
Typo:
But that's _my_ interest right now :-) That's because I ask for
suggestions and ideas here.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to shar
> > In
> > case I use this .dat approach, I do have to modify the terrain mesh
> > separately, before merging it with the airport data using TerraGear,
> > right?
>
> Yes, you are right. Do you have a specific example in mind for such a
> modification?
Airport Palermo Puntaraisi runway had
Hi Roberto!
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
>> Description of the new format is here:
>>
>> http://www.x-plane.org/home/robinp/Apt850.htm
>
> Good to know for those who don't know :-)
>
> I have a question here. Such .dat files define lat/lon but not height
> (excluding the base airport height). That
> Description of the new format is here:
>
> http://www.x-plane.org/home/robinp/Apt850.htm
Good to know for those who don't know :-)
I have a question here. Such .dat files define lat/lon but not height
(excluding the base airport height). That means the heights are obtained from
an external t
Hi Roberto!
Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> What I need is more freedom in creating/modifying geometry. That's the
> point. That's at least the first step in every possible working pipeline
> I could imagine.
Maybe you are aware that there is a new version of the apt.dat file
format upcoming that sh
> Last year, a few others and I did experiment with converting FAA airport
> diagrams (vector PDF) into 3D models then importing them into FlightGear...
> if that's what you are looking for.
>
> Ampere
No, that's not the idea. I know about that experiment, I followed the
thread and looked at t
On 12/28/06, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On Thursday 28 December 2006 13:17, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> Hi,
> I am digging into terrain tiles creation in order to get a few
> airports layout more close to reality. I wonder if there's an
> alternative or if there's even space to experiment new w
On Thursday 28 December 2006 13:17, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
> Hi,
> I am digging into terrain tiles creation in order to get a few
> airports layout more close to reality. I wonder if there's an
> alternative or if there's even space to experiment new ways in getting a
> highly customized geomet
Hi,
I am digging into terrain tiles creation in order to get a few
airports layout more close to reality. I wonder if there's an
alternative or if there's even space to experiment new ways in getting a
highly customized geometry (especially for airport terrain meshes).
I am not very satisfied
35 matches
Mail list logo
