Martin Spott wrote:
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
O
/
/
O---------O--------------
/
/
O
I vote for everything point and lines ;-)
Well, points and lines and taxiway width is what we have now and people
claim that the result looks terribly :-)
Finally with points and lines you won't be able to describe the _shape_
of a junction - as I understood exactly this is what people like to
improve.
We don't have points and lines, we have quads. My line is the center
line, my point is an intersection etc.
You won't be able to reverse-engineer the shape of such a junction
because in real live they don't follow geometric perfection. Sometimes
you have an offset between the upper and the lower junction, one is
more situated to the right whilts the other to the left, one taxiway
gets a bit wider on one side .... and so on.
I am not sure I follow you here, taxiway design have strict rules that
you can find on the FAA site.
I want that all is generated with a few properties for each piece of
taxiway or intersection, I don't
want to place by hand what can be done automatically because placing
things by hand is what
we do today. I want to give the width, the kind of matkings etc, I don't
want to draw them.
We should take this into
account once we get serious about a new taxiway format. We're digging a
big hole here and we should avoid spending all this effort for a
solution that doesn't satisfy.
Regards,
Martin.
That's why my input datas are not opengl vertex but some high level
definition of a taxiways.
Harald.
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
