Jim Wilson writes: > "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Actually this takes away the AGL component until you are >30m AGL, but > > there is also a distance component that this doesn't account for. > > Yes, but the AGL is what makes the lights appear to rise up higher (than > the 0.5m). I'm not sure what you mean by distance component...
If you look at the code in tileentry.cxx starting about line #881: We calculate an agl value, then we calculate a dist value. The "lift" vector is calcuated from both these numbers. > > > As long as the aircraft position isn't greater than 30m higher than > > > wherever the lights are centered, then they'll stay at 0.5 meters. > > > That's good for almost all airports. > > > > Actually the distance used is current height above the ground, not > > height above the center of the tile. > > Right, but the "AGL translation" based on the aircraft altitude, so that > if aircraft is at a high spot on the airport the lights rise > uniformly. Isn't that correct? We are using the AGL altitude, i.e. the distance above the ground, so if you taxi from a low spot to a high spot, your AGL hasn't changed. Most likely you are seeing a change in "dist". > That is what "got corrected" by the patch. No matter what runway > you are on, the lights are always the same distance off the ground > with the patch. We may want to think the patch ... Probably the right thing to do if we can spare the cpu cycles is raise the lights based on distance from the center of the airport or distance from the center of the light group. That would require a little reshuffling of the runway light section of the scene graph ... 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
