Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Erik Hofman wrote: > > > http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_natural.jpg > > http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs/gallery/test/san_francisco_fgfs.jpg > > > > I have to note two things though: > > > > 1. I had to changes ambient lighting quite a lot to show at least some > > shade in mountainous areas > > > > 2. The sand like areas are defined to be "Default" in the vmap0 data and > > hence is not covered by any type of coverage. We used to use define it > > like EvergreenBroadCover but that's as much as a wild guess as is sand. > > It is really difficult to make that look good I think. > > > Actually, replacing Default by tidal coverage and Sand by sand coverage > (instead of tidal ... duh!) it looks better 9 out of 10 times. >
It is strange, that strip that cuts inland is "tidal" on the sample pic. I wonder how it'd look with a darker than the sand color, a grey or tan. The reason being is that even at high tide the area wouldn't be completely blue. In a lot of cases, anything less than high tide will show the sand or rocks underneath. Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
