Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Jon Stockill wrote: > Erik Hofman wrote: >> I think the problem is that your models are not listed in the database >> then? If they where they would probably overwrite the default ones >> (provided they are located at _exactly_ the same location). > > They don't need to be *exact* as they're linked by ID, not position. I > believe Martin Spott has this on his todo list. Correct, I wanted to acommodate with the obstruction file before messing with other people's contributions ;-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Jon Stockill wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: BTW. Just for the sake of completeness, the models created by "Unknown" are all created by me: Thanks - this is now updated. Thanks. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Erik Hofman wrote: BTW. Just for the sake of completeness, the models created by "Unknown" are all created by me: http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/author.php?id=1 Thanks - this is now updated. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Erik Hofman wrote: Frederic Bouvier wrote: Quoting Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Are these generic buildings now officilally part of the database? I don't know if it is official, but they are in the database I downloaded recently. Cool, that would make the scenery much more realistic IMHO. I think the problem is that your models are not listed in the database then? If they where they would probably overwrite the default ones (provided they are located at _exactly_ the same location). They don't need to be *exact* as they're linked by ID, not position. I believe Martin Spott has this on his todo list. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 09:37, Frederic Bouvier wrote: > I think this is nearly impossible to have the position that match. It should > be > better to have areas of exclusion, either rectangular ( 2 points ), or > circular > ( center + radius ). > > -Fred Could you not have something like RPM's "Obsoletes: " mechanism? Then it would mean that your improved Eiffel Tower (say) could replace the default one which was mistakenly placed 3km northeast of the true location. If your improved Eiffel Tower claimed to replace everything in a 3km radius, it would make a big hole in the centre of Paris :-) Steve. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
BTW. Just for the sake of completeness, the models created by "Unknown" are all created by me: http://fgfsdb.stockill.org/author.php?id=1 Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Frederic Bouvier wrote: I think this is nearly impossible to have the position that match. It should be better to have areas of exclusion, either rectangular ( 2 points ), or circular ( center + radius ). Unless the database allows one to replace the model you are right. I think a 100 meter radius would be a good guess. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Quoting Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Frederic Bouvier wrote: > > Quoting Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>Are these generic buildings now officilally part of the database? > > > > I don't know if it is official, but they are in the database I downloaded > > recently. > > Cool, that would make the scenery much more realistic IMHO. > > I think the problem is that your models are not listed in the database > then? If they where they would probably overwrite the default ones > (provided they are located at _exactly_ the same location). I think this is nearly impossible to have the position that match. It should be better to have areas of exclusion, either rectangular ( 2 points ), or circular ( center + radius ). -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Quoting Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Are these generic buildings now officilally part of the database? I don't know if it is official, but they are in the database I downloaded recently. Cool, that would make the scenery much more realistic IMHO. I think the problem is that your models are not listed in the database then? If they where they would probably overwrite the default ones (provided they are located at _exactly_ the same location). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Quoting Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Frederic Bouvier wrote: > > Jon Stockill a écrit : > > >> Assuming there's a unique ID in the DOF (I've not seen the file yet) > >> I'll maintain an exclusions list, so that when an updated DOF is > >> imported such buildings can be ignored because we have a better > >> version available. > >> > > http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs-sfo-generic-buildings.jpg > > Are these generic buildings now officilally part of the database? I don't know if it is official, but they are in the database I downloaded recently. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Jon Stockill a écrit : Assuming there's a unique ID in the DOF (I've not seen the file yet) I'll maintain an exclusions list, so that when an updated DOF is imported such buildings can be ignored because we have a better version available. http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs-sfo-generic-buildings.jpg Are these generic buildings now officilally part of the database? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Jon Stockill a écrit : Frederic Bouvier wrote: That's really nice ! But if all these models are placed automagically, what would happen to model that represent the real buildings ? I mean : if I create the Empire State Building and put it in fgfsdb, would there be a hole around it or would it be in collision with its generic clone ? It already happens at SFO with the radio towers and they need to be removed manually. Assuming there's a unique ID in the DOF (I've not seen the file yet) I'll maintain an exclusions list, so that when an updated DOF is imported such buildings can be ignored because we have a better version available. http://frbouvi.free.fr/flightsim/fgfs-sfo-generic-buildings.jpg -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
On 31/01/2005 at 17:19 Chris Metzler wrote: >With building positions and heights from the FAA Digital Obstruction >File, and a few new buriable (thus, height-adjustable) models, here's >an approach into La Guardia Rwy 04, starting over Staten Island. > >http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_001.jpg > >thru > >http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_023.jpg > >Some highlights: > >lower manhattan and downtown brooklyn start to come into view -- >http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_003.jpg > That looks really, really good! I think that having realistic default buildings for US downtown areas will make a huge difference to how newcomers percieve FlightGear - they're pretty major landmarks. I'm looking forward to seeing them propogate into the default scenery, hopefully before v1.0 gets released. Cheers - Dave This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Chris Metzler wrote: Chris, Is there code we can grab to test and look at other areas? Even what you have is okay for a lot of stuff. I like the screenshots. Thanks. Dale With building positions and heights from the FAA Digital Obstruction File, and a few new buriable (thus, height-adjustable) models, here's an approach into La Guardia Rwy 04, starting over Staten Island. http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_001.jpg --clip-- Re: frame rates. You can see the frame rates I was getting in the lower-right-hand corner. This is with a Gf4 Ti4600, but at 1600x1200. I did this approach again without the buildings in the scene, and got framerates that were 1-4 fps larger. And Manhattan is a worst-case scenario. So I don't think framerates are going to be much of a problem. -c ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Frederic Bouvier wrote: That's really nice ! But if all these models are placed automagically, what would happen to model that represent the real buildings ? I mean : if I create the Empire State Building and put it in fgfsdb, would there be a hole around it or would it be in collision with its generic clone ? It already happens at SFO with the radio towers and they need to be removed manually. Assuming there's a unique ID in the DOF (I've not seen the file yet) I'll maintain an exclusions list, so that when an updated DOF is imported such buildings can be ignored because we have a better version available. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:37:49 +0100 Frederic Bouvier wrote: > > That's really nice ! > But if all these models are placed automagically, what would happen to > model that represent the real buildings ? I mean : if I create the > Empire State Building and put it in fgfsdb, would there be a hole around > > it or would it be in collision with its generic clone ? It already > happens at SFO with the radio towers and they need to be removed > manually. Yeah, the plan is that when a "correct" model for a bldg gets added to the DB, the entry in the DB for the generic building would get removed at that time. That should be straightforward to do, and not very demanding since the rate at which stuff gets added isn't huge. Since the DB is browseable, someone adding specific structures could make life easier by noting "delete the generic bldg at _" when adding their specific one. Radio towers are another matter. One of the original goals of this exercise with the DOF was in identifying which towers in the scenery are most likely buildings with antennae on the top, so that those towers aren't placed in the scenery to begin with (so removing them manually, like you've done with SF, wouldn't be necessary -- they wouldn't be placed there to begin with). That's what I was referring to when I said there's still stuff to work out about the radio towers. I have code that compares the FCC and FAA databases and tries to identify likely counterparts within stated positional uncertainties, but I'm still tweaking it. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpn5Td3SXg4t.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fun with the FAA DOF.
Chris Metzler a écrit : With building positions and heights from the FAA Digital Obstruction File, and a few new buriable (thus, height-adjustable) models, here's an approach into La Guardia Rwy 04, starting over Staten Island. http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_001.jpg thru http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_023.jpg Some highlights: lower manhattan and downtown brooklyn start to come into view -- http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_003.jpg lower manhattan and downtown brooklyn start to come into view -- http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_003.jpg over downtown brooklyn, show detail on some of the models -- http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_010.jpg view of midtown manhattan -- http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_011.jpg adjusting to final with manhattan in background -- http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_015.jpg over the tarmac, manhattan in the distance -- http://www.speakeasy.org/~cmetzler/KLGA_04_approach_021.jpg The plan is for the models to go into Jon Stockill's model database, and for the DOF data to go in there too, once some stuff about radio towers gets worked out. Then the downloadable scenery adds will include tall buildings, smokestacks, and other things. Other than the radio tower stuff, my main holdup is getting the models to look nicer. The way I'm proceding for the generic tall building models: I have a set of Blender models, all meters tall, with cross-sections of 50m square, 60m square, 60m quare with a 5m/side right triangle taken out of the corners, 30m x 60m, 25m radius circle, etc. I am in the process of making small (typically 32x32, sometimes 64x64, rarely 128x128) textures of building sides, typically tiny sections cropped from photos and then processed in the Gimp. My plan is to mix and match these to create a very wide variety of buildings that can be drawn from randomly when the .stg files are created. I'm not yet happy with the way most of them look. Some of them have alignment issues with horizontal/vertical features on the texture tiles that I thought I'd fixed, but haven't really. Some look very good close up, but from a distance look like odd solid color blocks. Most need roofs. None have hazard lights. And there will be more of them. So this isn't ready yet. But the pics should give an idea of how this can go. Re: frame rates. You can see the frame rates I was getting in the lower-right-hand corner. This is with a Gf4 Ti4600, but at 1600x1200. I did this approach again without the buildings in the scene, and got framerates that were 1-4 fps larger. And Manhattan is a worst-case scenario. So I don't think framerates are going to be much of a problem. That's really nice ! But if all these models are placed automagically, what would happen to model that represent the real buildings ? I mean : if I create the Empire State Building and put it in fgfsdb, would there be a hole around it or would it be in collision with its generic clone ? It already happens at SFO with the radio towers and they need to be removed manually. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
