of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for
aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to
follow
an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear
Terrain.
Hehe, I'm glad that I managed to catch at least one reader by putting
Martin Spott wrote:
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
This sort
of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for
aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow
an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear
Terrain.
Hehe, I'm
Thorsten wrote:
I also find it rather interesting to read something about the 'invisible'
work behind the scenery - thank you for letting us know. It's sometimes
difficult to appreciate the work that is not directly seen, and it helps a
lot if you tell us.
Thanks for the hard work.
Martin:
This is a rather incomplete and therefore, at least to my opinion,
pretty unfortunate and unsuitable representation of a certain status
quo.
It wasn't meant to be a representation of any status quo - it is what you
(among others) have been communicating (at least to me, given private
Sticking my 2 cents in here , i cant take anything on the forum too
seriously , probably just from bad forum experiences overall. The
mailing list was always the place I looked for development news , but
like Vivian mentioned , that doesn't seem to happen much since the
move to Git . Would be nice
[...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal
of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a
new World Scenery package [...]
I think the key word here is directly. No, they may not, even
cannot, directly contribute land cover to the data
I appreciate the ephithet being hurled in my direction, especially because all
we are pointing out is that CORINE data should eventually be part of the land
cover database anyways, which may deprecate some (but not necessarily all) of
the third-party scenery projects currently being produced,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM, J. Holden stattosoftw...@yahoo.com wrote:
I appreciate the ephithet being hurled in my direction, especially because
all we are pointing out is that CORINE data should eventually be part of the
land cover database anyways, which may deprecate some (but not
Adrian Musceac wrote:
I have only the highest expectations from your project, however in order
to get many people involved and avoiding the same lone wolf approach,
You're having a valid point here. Anyhow, the lone wolf is in no way
an aproach but instead much better charaterized as sort of
Martin Spott wrote:
There are many things you could think of wrt. supporting collaborative
Scenery development
like on-the-fly map-rendering of landcover-submissions (so people
can check how their submission is going to be recived), working towards
more different textures to serve
Hi Thorsten,
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
This sort
of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for
aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow
an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear
Terrain.
Hehe, I'm glad that
Hi,
First all, for some reason, i have been, only recently involved in the
Flightgear life, though being an old user of flight simulators.
I don't understand, that talk mailinglist versus forum.
Each one can find easier to use one , or the other according to his
feeling, or according to his
To help put things in perspective, the people who are generating the beautiful
scenery on the forum are using the same CORINE data set we are attempting to
get into the scenery, and are using OSM roads, the license about which I am
unsure.
The advantage of this is we get to fly over higher
Hi Thorsten,
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Let me now speak more to the audience at large, rather than to Martin
personally... In both statements I read the following ideas (I don't know
if you literally meant that - but that's what came across)
* while the mailinglist is for real work,
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
Let me take a virtual needle and deflate the claims a bit. Until recently,
Flightgear's idea of a weather change was that pressure, wind and
visibility instantly jump from one value to another. Hardly what I would
call accuracy. Doing it
J. Holden wrote:
[...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal
of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a
new World Scenery package [...]
Well said !
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are
J. Holden wrote:
[...] Still, none of the third party sceneries
directly help the goal
of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear
to push out a
new World Scenery package [...]
Well said !
Martin.
But increases the attractiveness of a whole project called
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote:
Being honest: I don't care. If people think that following a cooking
And to be honest I don't understand why you started this discussion
with such obvious trolling behavior and comments such as these?
recipe is their
Hi Heiko,
Heiko Schulz wrote:
J. Holden wrote:
[...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal
of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a
new World Scenery package [...]
Well said !
But increases the attractiveness of a whole project
Replying to Heiko:
But increases the attractiveness of a whole project called FlightGear, as it
shows that it is not difficult to make an attractive qualitity scenery for
free, and enlarges the freedom of use to any users.
I am not arguing that point - as I said the CORINE data is available
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 23:16 +, Martin Spott wrote:
Depends on your very individual point of view. In contrast, I was
confirmed that providing a seamless Terrain sounds quite appealing.
I agree completely with you on this issue.
Instead, having to assemble Scenery from a lot of
21 matches
Mail list logo
