Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-24 Thread Martin Fenelon
On Sunday 20 July 2008 12:56, Curtis Olson wrote: Sandtoft is a minor aerodrome and as such only has basic markings. Non-precision has the 'piano keys' which aren't required in this case. There is a splash screen as flightgear fires up featuring a Cub. The runway markings in that image,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-24 Thread Martin Spott
Martin Fenelon wrote: Finally got an old terragear install running again, visual markings are exactly what I'm after. Talking of terragear, has the main site been moved? I can't get any of the documentation or older CVS snapshots. You're going to find the most recent development of

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-20 Thread Martin Fenelon
On Thursday 17 July 2008 21:27, Curtis Olson wrote: Looking at Martin's question, based on what his runway includes, I would have said use non-precision markings. But then later he says that non-precision marking are not appropriate? Perhaps he could elaborate on that last point a bit?

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-20 Thread Curtis Olson
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Martin Fenelon wrote: Hello Curtis, Quite a program you have on your hands :-) Sandtoft is a minor aerodrome and as such only has basic markings. Non-precision has the 'piano keys' which aren't required in this case. There is a splash screen as flightgear

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-17 Thread Curtis Olson
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Ralf Gerlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, the question is not really about taxidraw, but about genapts. It seems like genapts adds threshold markings (e.g. pa_threshold.rgb) to runways, which according apt.dat should have only visual markings. According to FAA

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-17 Thread Curtis Olson
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ralf Gerlich wrote: Hi Curt! Curtis Olson wrote: OK, maybe I misread the code. Wouldn't lines 216-236 in rwy_visual.cxx generate a small threshold marking? Would that be 14ft in length (from 14/length)? That is only the thick painted line marking the

[Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-16 Thread Martin Fenelon
Hello again, Almost ready to submit my first set of taxiways to FG/XPlane but first a few more questions. 1. Which version of TaxiDraw should I be using? I've been working with a CVS version from last week. 2. Should I submit apt.dat format 810? 3. Runway markings: The runway in question has

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-16 Thread Ralf Gerlich
Hi Martin! Martin Fenelon wrote: 1. Which version of TaxiDraw should I be using? I've been working with a CVS version from last week. The CVS version should be pretty stable and generates v810. 2. Should I submit apt.dat format 810? AFAIK, TerraGear can handle 810. 3. Runway markings:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Yet more aerodrome taxiways/aprons questions

2008-07-16 Thread Curtis Olson
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Ralf Gerlich wrote: Hi Martin! Martin Fenelon wrote: 1. Which version of TaxiDraw should I be using? I've been working with a CVS version from last week. The CVS version should be pretty stable and generates v810. 2. Should I submit apt.dat format