* Thomas Förster -- Thursday 21 February 2008: > My main idea is not to develop a complicated model. I rather > try to find some complicated filtering in the hope, that the > remaining data gives a simple model that's better than the > conservative setting.
Ahh, excellent. That sounds even better. You could also try a test run with only data sets that contain AUTO. If the set is really done fully automated, then the visibility value could be based on light extinction measurement equipment, and would possibly be more reliable. (BTW: the attached program already throws out everything that only says "visbility greater than n".) > On the other hand maybe aiming for 'geotypical' is better than > 'georealistic' (in a more general sense -> scenery, random > objects.... ) Yes, would be nice. m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
