Josh Babcock wrote:
I could think of a couple reasons, but they may not apply to you ...
- one day we might want a low res/light weight scenery set
While 2 and 3 sound like very good points, does it make more sense for 1 to use the high res data but process it so that the end result is small? That way you could still exceed the lower resolution for really bumpy parts of the world, and still have great big polys for the majority of the world, which is basically flat. In other words, you can always reduce a data set, but usually you can't increase it. Also, though I haven't worked with TerraGear, I suspect that for a given size of desired output it would produce higher quality scenery as the size of the input data set grows. Is this the case? I ask this not as a criticism, but because I'm curious.
You make a good point. I think in the end the answer of which data sets to use (or which data sets could potentially be used) depends on the priorities of the scenery builder and their target application.
Regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
