David Megginson writes: > Curtis L. Olson writes: > > > For what it's worth, when I was looking into this, I found some > > examples of runways with their ends literally at least 100' different > > in elevation. Most aren't nearly that far off, but there are a > > few. > > For a 10,000 ft runway, that would require less than a 1% continuous > grade, so it's not all that surprising. > > It will be a very good thing when we can take threshold elevations > from FAA and DAFIF data. The SRTM/DEM data, however, is just too > coarse -- that's why I'm suggesting flattening for now.
David, one thing I could point out is that there is code in the apt_surface.cxx to limit the amount of total elevation change over the surface of the airport. If nothing else you play around with the clamping bounds and see if you can find a value that works better for you. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities curt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org 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
