Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
* LeeE -- Monday 11 February 2008: It'll be interesting if you can come up with rules or a formulae from your analysis of a large set of METAR data. Formulae is an overstatement. :-) What I have ATM is very simple: http://members.aon.at/mfranz/humid_vis.png [14.0 kB] Whereby the maximum (and with it the slope of the line) should be configurable and default to 80 or something. This would only be used if a data set contains farther than x km. The values are just too unprecise for anything more sophisticated. The (simple) humidity calculation has gaps (A, B) because the temperatures are stated as integers, and many/most of the visibility ranges are probably estimated by the weather guy/gal, and very often just say 10km. This can be anything, as the estimation isn't possible everywhere, or people only use a few reference points (as in radio tower clearly visible = more than 10km). The horizontal bands are at 10 km, 5 miles, 10 miles 15 miles, etc. (C, D). The problem is also that very dry places are likely more dusty, and that airports are often near bigger cities so that visibility values are influenced a lot by smog. That's why the red line looks a bit (and *is* a bit) arbitrary, and why I will *again* use a conservative default setting. :-) One effect that could also be considered is wind speed. ~7 m/s seems to give best visibility. (Less allows smog accumulation, more causes more dust.) I found the effect mentioned in some google hits, albeit without number. m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
* Melchior FRANZ -- Wednesday 20 February 2008: One effect that could also be considered is wind speed. Hmm ... and temperature. Very hot should probably reduce the visibility as well, even if it's dry. Have to play a bit more with temp/visibility, wind/visibility etc. tables. m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Curtis Olson wrote: | On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM, LeeE wrote: ... | | I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a ground level | value) as well, not only because that's a lot of atmosphere to see | through but also because of curvature. | | I tried a quick Google to see if I could find any rules/formulae for | visibility due to atmospheric conditions but didn't hit anything. | It'll be interesting if you can come up with rules or a formulae | from your analysis of a large set of METAR data. | | | There appears to be some strangeness (bug?) in how the OSG version | handles the far clipping plane. It seems to set the clip plane | somewhere beyond the maximum visibility (weather-wise) but it seems to | also clip the sky in some situations when it shouldn't. Last time I | poked around, it looked like we were setup to use OSG's automatic | near/far clip plane mechanism with no way to override it ourselves. I | haven't dug into OSG far enough yet to learn how to fix this. In OSG, the far plane is fixed at 120km; the sky is drawn at a radius of 80km from the viewer. That sky radius may be the cause of many of the artifacts described here; turning off depth buffer writes when drawing the sky would be a simple fix. The scenery is paged in out to the visibility distance from the viewer's position at sea level, using /environment/visibility-m. The OSG clip-plane calculation is disabled. I haven't had a chance to look at this in detail, but I have seen some of the wacky high-altitude effects. One possibility for the white sky is a problem calculating the sky color / fog color. I'll try turning off depth buffer writes as I described above. Does anyone have a simple way to provoke the wackiness that doesn't involve METAR? Thanks, Tim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHuAEXeDhWHdXrDRURAgZ+AJ4lO6A5oBYS5AqOcFJ4QbnbAcqPJACdFX8e 1xwq1IXrtA/N5brhAp25hQk= =4dF/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
On Sunday 17 February 2008 09:40, Tim Moore wrote: Curtis Olson wrote: | On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM, LeeE wrote: ... | I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a | ground level value) as well, not only because that's a lot of | atmosphere to see through but also because of curvature. | | I tried a quick Google to see if I could find any | rules/formulae for visibility due to atmospheric conditions but | didn't hit anything. It'll be interesting if you can come up | with rules or a formulae from your analysis of a large set of | METAR data. | | | There appears to be some strangeness (bug?) in how the OSG | version handles the far clipping plane. It seems to set the | clip plane somewhere beyond the maximum visibility | (weather-wise) but it seems to also clip the sky in some | situations when it shouldn't. Last time I poked around, it | looked like we were setup to use OSG's automatic near/far clip | plane mechanism with no way to override it ourselves. I | haven't dug into OSG far enough yet to learn how to fix this. In OSG, the far plane is fixed at 120km; the sky is drawn at a radius of 80km from the viewer. That sky radius may be the cause of many of the artifacts described here; turning off depth buffer writes when drawing the sky would be a simple fix. The scenery is paged in out to the visibility distance from the viewer's position at sea level, using /environment/visibility-m. The OSG clip-plane calculation is disabled. I haven't had a chance to look at this in detail, but I have seen some of the wacky high-altitude effects. One possibility for the white sky is a problem calculating the sky color / fog color. I'll try turning off depth buffer writes as I described above. Does anyone have a simple way to provoke the wackiness that doesn't involve METAR? Thanks, Tim I've increased the default visibility settings in my .fgfsrc with the following entries and values: --prop:environment/config/boundary/entry/visibility-m=6000 --prop:environment/config/boundary/entry[1]/visibility-m=1 --prop:environment/config/aloft/entry/visibility-m=2 --prop:environment/config/aloft/entry[1]/visibility-m=3 --prop:environment/config/aloft/entry[2]/visibility-m=4 and the island problem is clearly visible at 3000ft, corresponding to 2m visibility. With the same visibility settings, the sky white-out starts occurring at ~8000ft, corresponding to a visibility of between 3m-4m. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
* Torsten Dreyer -- Monday 11 February 2008: You might also take weather phenomena into account. When there is something like FG (fog) [...] There might be something like blown sand [...] True, but I'm mostly interested in reconstructing visibilities 10km, so I want to try to estimate values based on known visibilities in that range. Values below are only interesting for curve fitting, and there the few sand storms will only be noise. * LeeE -- Monday 11 February 2008: I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a ground level value) as well, not only because that's a lot of atmosphere to see through but also because of curvature. According to google searches the 110 are realistic for the East coast (as a maximum), while visibilities in the West coast of the USA are much lower. But that should already be contained in the humidity. (Kind of, as we should really look at size and concentration of any particles. But humidity is all we have.) I tried a quick Google to see if I could find any rules/formulae for visibility due to atmospheric conditions but didn't hit anything. There are several hits that confirm the correlation of rel. humidity and visibility. There's even a paper for the airport in Tokyo that explores the relation and makes predictions based on that. But only for up to 4000 m, which can probably not be extrapolated. It'll be interesting if you can come up with rules or a formulae from your analysis of a large set of METAR data. The data set is ~100.000 entries, but while the method should be appropriate, my first graph didn't look promising. The rel. humidity calculation is relative simple in fgfs (and my test), and I might have to re-think that. That's why it took longer than my promised later today. :-) (Also I've had other stuff on my list. But I'll revisit that topic.) m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
According to google searches the 110 are realistic for the East coast (as a maximum), while visibilities in the West coast of the USA are much lower. But that should already be contained in the humidity. Well- at the westcoast it is not only humidity- it is moresmog ( look at pics of L.A.!) - In San Francisko it is more real fog. HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
LeeE wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 13:59, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: At least I think conservative is the right term. Oh, I didn't think that it was wrongly used. It's just that the decision was meant to be reasonable for the case based on logical considerations, and not the least on whether it would be (seen as) conservative. And I found the fact that a clear rendering bug is blamed on METAR or a conservative decision there annoying. But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with specified (i.e. non- or M*) visibility to see which elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) m. 9000km - lol:) I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a ground level value) as well, not only because that's a lot of atmosphere to see through but also because of curvature. I work at the Longmont CO Seagate Technology development center which is located adjacent to the Longmont, CO Vance Brand field (KLMO). It is a typical clear Colorado day that I can clearly see Pikes Peak 80 nautical miles (148 km) to the south from high spots on the road or as I lift off from KLMO in the pa24. By typical, mean about half of the time in the winter and less in the summer due to haze or afternoon showers. This is high desert country and the humidity is usually very low (10 to 20 %). I can never get fgfs visibility that models what I usually experience when I fly here. -Dave - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM, LeeE wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 13:59, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: At least I think conservative is the right term. Oh, I didn't think that it was wrongly used. It's just that the decision was meant to be reasonable for the case based on logical considerations, and not the least on whether it would be (seen as) conservative. And I found the fact that a clear rendering bug is blamed on METAR or a conservative decision there annoying. But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with specified (i.e. non- or M*) visibility to see which elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) m. 9000km - lol:) I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a ground level value) as well, not only because that's a lot of atmosphere to see through but also because of curvature. I tried a quick Google to see if I could find any rules/formulae for visibility due to atmospheric conditions but didn't hit anything. It'll be interesting if you can come up with rules or a formulae from your analysis of a large set of METAR data. There appears to be some strangeness (bug?) in how the OSG version handles the far clipping plane. It seems to set the clip plane somewhere beyond the maximum visibility (weather-wise) but it seems to also clip the sky in some situations when it shouldn't. Last time I poked around, it looked like we were setup to use OSG's automatic near/far clip plane mechanism with no way to override it ourselves. I haven't dug into OSG far enough yet to learn how to fix this. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
On Monday 11 February 2008 13:59, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: At least I think conservative is the right term. Oh, I didn't think that it was wrongly used. It's just that the decision was meant to be reasonable for the case based on logical considerations, and not the least on whether it would be (seen as) conservative. And I found the fact that a clear rendering bug is blamed on METAR or a conservative decision there annoying. But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with specified (i.e. non- or M*) visibility to see which elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) m. 9000km - lol:) I think I'd suspect the 110 miles figure (if that's a ground level value) as well, not only because that's a lot of atmosphere to see through but also because of curvature. I tried a quick Google to see if I could find any rules/formulae for visibility due to atmospheric conditions but didn't hit anything. It'll be interesting if you can come up with rules or a formulae from your analysis of a large set of METAR data. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
Heiko Schulz wrote: Another thing is, when I increase the visibility manually I noticed with the last OSG-version that there is a white surface in the sky - the blue sky disapears, no stars. I noticed this when trying to get new screenshots in osg, I could no longer get a clear-day picture with the mountains in the background. When the fog factor was reduced so the mountains became visible, the sky turned white. Whereas in plib I could get a perfect picture without problem. Stewart - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with specified (i.e. non- or M*) visibility to see which elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) You might also take weather phenomena into account. When there is something like FG (fog) it is most likely that the poor visibility is limited to only the lower few hundret feet or so. There might be something like blown sand in some areas of the world that creates a poor visibility in a METAR in a perfect dry atmosphere without any clouds and perfect VMC (except for landing). Greetings, Torsten - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
* Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: At least I think conservative is the right term. Oh, I didn't think that it was wrongly used. It's just that the decision was meant to be reasonable for the case based on logical considerations, and not the least on whether it would be (seen as) conservative. And I found the fact that a clear rendering bug is blamed on METAR or a conservative decision there annoying. But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with specified (i.e. non- or M*) visibility to see which elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
Am Montag 11 Februar 2008 schrieb Melchior FRANZ: ... Think someone did a conservative choice here. Conservative? http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=427767idForum=3lp=endelang=de Sorry for the long url. Its in German too... At least I think conservative is the right term. Thomas - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
--- Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: * Heiko Schulz -- Monday 11 February 2008: Even with a visibility more than 30m I can't see much impact. Well, 30m isn't much. No impact here, either. :-} * Stuart Buchanan -- Monday 11 February 2008: I'm sure you alreay know the answer : Make it a property value in preferences.xml, defaulting to 10km :) That's a possibility. But I'd rather try to make a guess based on relative humidity and maybe other components of a given METAR message. Then we have more variability for the case, and MP machines still have the same weather (as long as they are using METAR weather and don't manually change visibility via z/Z). This could, of course, be coupled with a visibility-max-m property. Of course, the 12nm island may be due to an assumption that the maximum visibility will be 10km, so it may not just be case of replacing the constant... The islang bug has nothing to do with METAR. Not directly, anyway. We didn't change METAR in the fg/plib - fg/osg transition. m. - Ha ha- Melchior tries to be funny - you know what I meant- 30 miles! But to compute the visibility from METAR sounds like a realistic way to simulate. HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Jetzt Mails schnell in einem Vorschaufenster überfliegen. Dies und viel mehr bietet das neue Yahoo! Mail - www.yahoo.de/mail - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
* Heiko Schulz -- Monday 11 February 2008: Even with a visibility more than 30m I can't see much impact. Well, 30m isn't much. No impact here, either. :-} * Stuart Buchanan -- Monday 11 February 2008: I'm sure you alreay know the answer : Make it a property value in preferences.xml, defaulting to 10km :) That's a possibility. But I'd rather try to make a guess based on relative humidity and maybe other components of a given METAR message. Then we have more variability for the case, and MP machines still have the same weather (as long as they are using METAR weather and don't manually change visibility via z/Z). This could, of course, be coupled with a visibility-max-m property. Of course, the 12nm island may be due to an assumption that the maximum visibility will be 10km, so it may not just be case of replacing the constant... The islang bug has nothing to do with METAR. Not directly, anyway. We didn't change METAR in the fg/plib - fg/osg transition. m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
Am Sonntag 10 Februar 2008 schrieb Heiko Schulz: ... It seems to mee, that METAR is not used correctly. METAR ssems alright to me, if in RL the visibility is under 11nm, ti is in FGFS too. But above 11nm - FGFS can't show this Note that METAR itself only codes visibility up to m. Everything above comes out of the report as too. In reality it is sometimes much higher (witnessed 50-60NM myself on a cold springday), sometimes not. Think someone did a conservative choice here. Thomas - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
* Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: Note that METAR itself only codes visibility up to m. Only if it uses the 4-digit visibility code. But it can also be something like KEDW 110755Z 24006KT 45SM SCT250 04/M01 A3014 where the visibility is 45SM ... 45 (statute) miles. Everything above comes out of the report as too. [...] Yes, *iff* a four digit code is used, then means more than 10 km. Think someone did a conservative choice here. Conservative? If we have to make something up because there is no information, should we then take something that makes fgfs crawl and look ugly, or rather something faster and prettier? We chose the latter. What would you have done? m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
--- Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: * Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: Note that METAR itself only codes visibility up to m. Only if it uses the 4-digit visibility code. But it can also be something like KEDW 110755Z 24006KT 45SM SCT250 04/M01 A3014 where the visibility is 45SM ... 45 (statute) miles. Everything above comes out of the report as too. [...] Yes, *iff* a four digit code is used, then means more than 10 km. Think someone did a conservative choice here. Conservative? If we have to make something up because there is no information, should we then take something that makes fgfs crawl and look ugly, or rather something faster and prettier? We chose the latter. What would you have done? m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ Hi, after using my old pc, because my old one is crashed(can't boot)I noticed that the perfoamnce wit data paging is much better! Even with a visibility more than 30m I can't see much impact. Before data paging I never could use this range! I think we could change this - FGFS would looking a little bit more realistic and the perfomance issue is small now. With OSG Perfomance get better and better - why should we stay back from our possibilities? Regards HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails jetzt einfach von unterwegs. www.yahoo.de/go - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: Note that METAR itself only codes visibility up to m. Only if it uses the 4-digit visibility code. But it can also be something like KEDW 110755Z 24006KT 45SM SCT250 04/M01 A3014 where the visibility is 45SM ... 45 (statute) miles. Everything above comes out of the report as too. [...] Yes, *iff* a four digit code is used, then means more than 10 km. Think someone did a conservative choice here. Conservative? If we have to make something up because there is no information, should we then take something that makes fgfs crawl and look ugly, or rather something faster and prettier? We chose the latter. What would you have done? I'm sure you alreay know the answer : Make it a property value in preferences.xml, defaulting to 10km :) Of course, the 12nm island may be due to an assumption that the maximum visibility will be 10km, so it may not just be case of replacing the constant... -Stuart ___ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
Hi all, Finally remembered to raise this:) I don't know exactly when it started happening but for a couple of months now I've noticed that, regardless of where I'm flying, I always seem to be flying over an island of about 12nm radius and surrounded by sea/ocean. I don't think the problem is anything to do with tile loading but with clipping in the renderer. As I fly forwards (yes, in some tests against very high winds I occasionally fly backwards) I can see the terrain smoothly appearing at the ~12nm boundary - this is especially noticeable in hilly or mountainous regions. I had a look for suitable parameters in the property tree but didn't find anything so I'm guessing that there's a hard-coded limit somewhere. Anyone else seeing this problem? If there is a hard-coded limit for this then it's much too low. Twenty+ mile visibility at ground level isn't uncommon - people are often able to see across the English Channel (22 miles) and higher Mountains and peaks are often visible at much greater distances. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
--- LeeE [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi all, Finally remembered to raise this:) I don't know exactly when it started happening but for a couple of months now I've noticed that, regardless of where I'm flying, I always seem to be flying over an island of about 12nm radius and surrounded by sea/ocean. I don't think the problem is anything to do with tile loading but with clipping in the renderer. As I fly forwards (yes, in some tests against very high winds I occasionally fly backwards) I can see the terrain smoothly appearing at the ~12nm boundary - this is especially noticeable in hilly or mountainous regions. I had a look for suitable parameters in the property tree but didn't find anything so I'm guessing that there's a hard-coded limit somewhere. Anyone else seeing this problem? If there is a hard-coded limit for this then it's much too low. Twenty+ mile visibility at ground level isn't uncommon - people are often able to see across the English Channel (22 miles) and higher Mountains and peaks are often visible at much greater distances. LeeE Hi, Not your specific problem, but I noticed the problem with the visibility- I fly with real weather, but the visibility doesen't match to the weather outside my appartement. Seems to be there a hard coded limit of 11- 12 miles with real weather. Another thing is, when I increase the visibility manually I noticed with the last OSG-version that there is a white surface in the sky - the blue sky disapears, no stars. HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy. www.yahoo.de/go - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
On Sunday 10 February 2008 18:19, Heiko Schulz wrote: --- LeeE [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Sunday 10 February 2008 17:45, Heiko Schulz wrote: --- LeeE [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi all, Finally remembered to raise this:) I don't know exactly when it started happening but for a couple of months now I've noticed that, regardless of where I'm flying, I always seem to be flying over an island of about 12nm radius and surrounded by sea/ocean. I don't think the problem is anything to do with tile loading but with clipping in the renderer. As I fly forwards (yes, in some tests against very high winds I occasionally fly backwards) I can see the terrain smoothly appearing at the ~12nm boundary - this is especially noticeable in hilly or mountainous regions. I had a look for suitable parameters in the property tree but didn't find anything so I'm guessing that there's a hard-coded limit somewhere. Anyone else seeing this problem? If there is a hard-coded limit for this then it's much too low. Twenty+ mile visibility at ground level isn't uncommon - people are often able to see across the English Channel (22 miles) and higher Mountains and peaks are often visible at much greater distances. LeeE Hi, Not your specific problem, but I noticed the problem with the visibility- I fly with real weather, but the visibility doesen't match to the weather outside my appartement. Seems to be there a hard coded limit of 11- 12 miles with real weather. Another thing is, when I increase the visibility manually I noticed with the last OSG-version that there is a white surface in the sky - the blue sky disapears, no stars. HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy. www.yahoo.de/go Is your problem due to the fetched METAR visibility being incorrect or is the fetched METAR data correct but not being used correctly? When you increase the visibility manually do you see any terrain that is further away than ~12nm? I see the white sky problem too. I've noticed that once I get above ~8000ft asl the sky, starting at the corners of the screen become white. As I continue climbing it looks as though the sky has been reduced to a single polygon and if I bank and turn the poly appears to rotate. Actually, I think the poly doesn't change it's alignment - the apparent rotation being due to the change in heading. I thought it might be possible that the white sky problem is related to the terrain clipping problem, so I was going to see the outcome of that before I raised the white sky issue:) LeeE It seems to mee, that METAR is not used correctly. METAR ssems alright to me, if in RL the visibility is under 11nm, ti is in FGFS too. But above 11nm - FGFS can't show this still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html __ Ihre erste Baustelle? Wissenswertes für Bastler und Hobby Handwerker. www.yahoo.de/clever Sound like the same problem. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
--- LeeE [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Sunday 10 February 2008 17:45, Heiko Schulz wrote: --- LeeE [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi all, Finally remembered to raise this:) I don't know exactly when it started happening but for a couple of months now I've noticed that, regardless of where I'm flying, I always seem to be flying over an island of about 12nm radius and surrounded by sea/ocean. I don't think the problem is anything to do with tile loading but with clipping in the renderer. As I fly forwards (yes, in some tests against very high winds I occasionally fly backwards) I can see the terrain smoothly appearing at the ~12nm boundary - this is especially noticeable in hilly or mountainous regions. I had a look for suitable parameters in the property tree but didn't find anything so I'm guessing that there's a hard-coded limit somewhere. Anyone else seeing this problem? If there is a hard-coded limit for this then it's much too low. Twenty+ mile visibility at ground level isn't uncommon - people are often able to see across the English Channel (22 miles) and higher Mountains and peaks are often visible at much greater distances. LeeE Hi, Not your specific problem, but I noticed the problem with the visibility- I fly with real weather, but the visibility doesen't match to the weather outside my appartement. Seems to be there a hard coded limit of 11- 12 miles with real weather. Another thing is, when I increase the visibility manually I noticed with the last OSG-version that there is a white surface in the sky - the blue sky disapears, no stars. HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy. www.yahoo.de/go Is your problem due to the fetched METAR visibility being incorrect or is the fetched METAR data correct but not being used correctly? When you increase the visibility manually do you see any terrain that is further away than ~12nm? I see the white sky problem too. I've noticed that once I get above ~8000ft asl the sky, starting at the corners of the screen become white. As I continue climbing it looks as though the sky has been reduced to a single polygon and if I bank and turn the poly appears to rotate. Actually, I think the poly doesn't change it's alignment - the apparent rotation being due to the change in heading. I thought it might be possible that the white sky problem is related to the terrain clipping problem, so I was going to see the outcome of that before I raised the white sky issue:) LeeE It seems to mee, that METAR is not used correctly. METAR ssems alright to me, if in RL the visibility is under 11nm, ti is in FGFS too. But above 11nm - FGFS can't show this still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html __ Ihre erste Baustelle? Wissenswertes für Bastler und Hobby Handwerker. www.yahoo.de/clever - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flying over an island
On Sunday 10 February 2008 17:45, Heiko Schulz wrote: --- LeeE [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi all, Finally remembered to raise this:) I don't know exactly when it started happening but for a couple of months now I've noticed that, regardless of where I'm flying, I always seem to be flying over an island of about 12nm radius and surrounded by sea/ocean. I don't think the problem is anything to do with tile loading but with clipping in the renderer. As I fly forwards (yes, in some tests against very high winds I occasionally fly backwards) I can see the terrain smoothly appearing at the ~12nm boundary - this is especially noticeable in hilly or mountainous regions. I had a look for suitable parameters in the property tree but didn't find anything so I'm guessing that there's a hard-coded limit somewhere. Anyone else seeing this problem? If there is a hard-coded limit for this then it's much too low. Twenty+ mile visibility at ground level isn't uncommon - people are often able to see across the English Channel (22 miles) and higher Mountains and peaks are often visible at much greater distances. LeeE Hi, Not your specific problem, but I noticed the problem with the visibility- I fly with real weather, but the visibility doesen't match to the weather outside my appartement. Seems to be there a hard coded limit of 11- 12 miles with real weather. Another thing is, when I increase the visibility manually I noticed with the last OSG-version that there is a white surface in the sky - the blue sky disapears, no stars. HHS still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy. www.yahoo.de/go Is your problem due to the fetched METAR visibility being incorrect or is the fetched METAR data correct but not being used correctly? When you increase the visibility manually do you see any terrain that is further away than ~12nm? I see the white sky problem too. I've noticed that once I get above ~8000ft asl the sky, starting at the corners of the screen become white. As I continue climbing it looks as though the sky has been reduced to a single polygon and if I bank and turn the poly appears to rotate. Actually, I think the poly doesn't change it's alignment - the apparent rotation being due to the change in heading. I thought it might be possible that the white sky problem is related to the terrain clipping problem, so I was going to see the outcome of that before I raised the white sky issue:) LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
