[Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread Martin Spott
 I believe something has to be fixed before:

http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Building_01.png


Do you know how you get there ? This happens when you try taxiing below the
airport building  :-))
I suppose this should be changed before you start offering bridges to the
people - the tempation to fly below the Golden Gate is too big and how
you tell the people why their plane crashes every time   ;-)

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



Re: [Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread Norman Vine
Martin Spott writes:

  I believe something has to be fixed before:
 
 http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Building_01.png
 
 
 Do you know how you get there ? This happens when you try taxiing below the
 airport building  :-))
 I suppose this should be changed before you start offering bridges to the
 people - the tempation to fly below the Golden Gate is too big and how
 you tell the people why their plane crashes every time   ;-)

1)  Don't know why there is a large unrendered area 

2) The ground intersector was changed to report maximum elevation at a point
 of any object under the Terrain Root Node so as to support landing on aircraft 
 carriers. Things like Bridges, Hangers and other objects that don't want to 
exhibit 
 this behavior will need to have a separate SSG Root or be a 'special' ssgNode type
 so that their surfaces will be skipped when doing HOT calculations.

3) What is really needed for flying under bridges is a general purpose 3D collision 
detection support which the scenery hitlist routine is not.  It is only designed 
to 
report the height of the highest point at the location of the intersection with 
the terrrain 
scenegraph in the direction specified by the 'look from point' and the 'look in 
direction'
vector. Obviously this builds invisible walls between surfaces if there is more 
then one 
surface at a point, such as under a bridge.  I think that this behavior can be 
reverted
so as to again only report the distance to 'front side' faces under the 'looked 
from point'
but this will break being able to land on an aircraft carrier and will allow one 
to fly thru
solid objects.

Cheers

Norman
 
  
  



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



re: [Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread David Megginson
Martin Spott writes:
   I believe something has to be fixed before:
  
  http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Building_01.png
  
  
  Do you know how you get there ? This happens when you try taxiing below the
  airport building  :-))

Yes, I've noticed the same thing.  I thought that we had things set up
now so that you could taxi under objects -- I know that I can taxi
inside a hangar building under the roof -- so I don't know why I
cannot taxi under the KSFO International Terminal (other than the fact
that it's full of cars in real life).


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



Re: [Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Norman Vine writes:
 3) What is really needed for flying under bridges is a general
 purpose 3D collision detection support which the scenery hitlist
 routine is not.  It is only designed to report the height of the
 highest point at the location of the intersection with the terrrain
 scenegraph in the direction specified by the 'look from point' and
 the 'look in direction' vector. Obviously this builds invisible
 walls between surfaces if there is more then one surface at a point,
 such as under a bridge.  I think that this behavior can be reverted
 so as to again only report the distance to 'front side' faces under
 the 'looked from point' but this will break being able to land on an
 aircraft carrier and will allow one to fly thru solid objects.

In many of the higher end commercial sims they build invisible walls
underneath bridges to discourage illegal or unwise behavior ... :-)

Curt.
-- 
Curtis Olson   IVLab / HumanFIRST Program   FlightGear Project
Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minnesota  http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt   http://www.flightgear.org

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



Re: [Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread Norman Vine
Martin Spott writes:
 
   I believe something has to be fixed before:
  
  http://document.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/bitmap/FGFS/Building_01.png
 [...]
  1)  Don't know why there is a large unrendered area 
 
 What you're calling 'unrendered area' is supposed to be the untextured roof
 of the new terminal building at KSFO.

Ah ...

FWIW
Then assuming the 'reference point' is at the 'geometrical center' of this 
model, it appears as if you crashed when the 'ref pt'  got into the 'building'

This is the expected behaviour of the terrain intersector since at this
point the terrain intersector says that the model is underground :-)

Cheers

Norman

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



Re: [Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread Arnt Karlsen
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:00:40 -0600, 
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 In many of the higher end commercial sims they build invisible walls
 underneath bridges to discourage illegal or unwise behavior ... :-)
 
 Curt.

...which would warrant both runtime and compile time options like
--build-invisible-walls-under-bridges, and --tip-fbi...  ;-)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



Re: [Flightgear-devel] When talking about bridges ....

2003-01-27 Thread David Megginson
Arnt Karlsen writes:

  ...which would warrant both runtime and compile time options like
  --build-invisible-walls-under-bridges, and --tip-fbi...  ;-)

I'd prefer --tip-interpol: after all, this is an international
project.

Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to fly under something -- not
that often, but sometimes: for example, a helicopter doing a low-level
hydrographic survey might pass under a very high bridge, as might a
helicopter on approach to a shoreline helipad.  There is no reason at
all that a seaplane shouldn't water-taxi under a bridge.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel