Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Mark wrote: > As far as I see it, the manual alteration of the city textures should be > kept as an option. > By default the use of the regional textures makes more sence, since > modifying every town would be just too time consuming. > Using the poligons as a virtual marker for the regions sounds good. > This way the regions can be defined much better as based on coordinates. > The question is, how difficult it would be to detect in which region you > are then. My idea is to provide a set of irregular tiles (polygons) that cover the earth and where every polygon has a certain region type attached to it. We should have no more than a dozend different region types but every region type can have multiple occurrences. This way we probably divide the Earth into two or three dozend tiles. Every region type has a well-defined short-name and we could then divide our the textures into Base Package subdirectories of these names. It should be easy to let FlightGear look up the name of the region type that's currently underneath the aircraft's position as we know the location of the aircraft as well as the corners and the type of the underlying polygon (this is sort of a simple spatial query). If a texture subdirectory that corresponds to the current region type does not exists, default textures are being applied. Additional textures do not necessarily be part of the base package, they could be contained in some add-on package. > So to sum it up - we already have people with textures and willing to > create new ones and populate 'the world' with them. > But so far we lack the ability to use them, since the landcovertypes are > not used by terragear at the moment, the PostGIS-DB isn't used by > terragear for scenery-generation yet and the regions aren't defined yet. Using different textures for different regions does not necessarily depend on the Landcover DB. Although it would make much sense to maintain the regions in the Landcover DB, the main part is putting textures in subdirectories and allow FlightGear to select one based upon external criteria (polygon definition, maybe provided by a shape file :-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
> Until you hear those texture where created by someone from Europe. Hmm, not really. Actually the city textures, like builtup.rgb and resgrid.rgb, are probably taken from satellite images of some US resident area. At least it looks like this :-) As far as I see it, the manual alteration of the city textures should be kept as an option. By default the use of the regional textures makes more sence, since modifying every town would be just too time consuming. Using the poligons as a virtual marker for the regions sounds good. This way the regions can be defined much better as based on coordinates. The question is, how difficult it would be to detect in which region you are then. Ultimately, the according textures might be packaged with the scenery-tiles. This way, if we would have many MBs of regional textures, you only would have to download the textures you need. Well - just an idea, don't know if that would be technically possible. So to sum it up - we already have people with textures and willing to create new ones and populate 'the world' with them. But so far we lack the ability to use them, since the landcovertypes are not used by terragear at the moment, the PostGIS-DB isn't used by terragear for scenery-generation yet and the regions aren't defined yet. Or am I mistaken? Mark Martin Spott wrote: >Jon Stockill wrote: > > > >>We have a more european city texture already - just no way of using it >>on anything but a global scale >> >> > >Obviously there are different ways to employ different city/whatever >textures. One way would be to manually re-adjust all cities over the >world and assign the appropriate textures to them. >We actually _can_ do this with the Landcover DB but this is very time >consuming and I don't think it will lead to the desired result. On the >other hand somebody could define different continents/regions for different >textures (think of: North America, South America, Central Europe, East >Euurope, Middle Asia .) and let FlightGear apply the appropriate >texture based on the current location. > >We could define some polygons that surround a well-defined region and >then prepend some identifier to the texture name that matches the >according region. > >Cheers, > Martin. > > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Jon Stockill wrote: > We have a more european city texture already - just no way of using it > on anything but a global scale Obviously there are different ways to employ different city/whatever textures. One way would be to manually re-adjust all cities over the world and assign the appropriate textures to them. We actually _can_ do this with the Landcover DB but this is very time consuming and I don't think it will lead to the desired result. On the other hand somebody could define different continents/regions for different textures (think of: North America, South America, Central Europe, East Euurope, Middle Asia .) and let FlightGear apply the appropriate texture based on the current location. We could define some polygons that surround a well-defined region and then prepend some identifier to the texture name that matches the according region. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Jon Stockill wrote: > Mark wrote: > >> Since there is already a PostGIS database for custom scenery >> contribution in work, I assume this maybe could be added to that >> database? >> >> I agree that localized textures would be a big improvement. The city >> textures look good for locations in the states, but not realistic for >> Europe. >> But I can't see why we shouldn't use more of the landcover types anyway >> if we would have suitable textures. >> This would add to more diversity. > > > We have a more european city texture already - just no way of using it > on anything but a global scale - allocating some of the spare land use > types to the textures we already have would be a good first step. > > Jon > Yes. Again, myself and others are willing to make the textures provided that someone involved with the scenery builds can assure us that our time will be well spent. In other words, we need to know what the scenery maintainers want. Josh --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Mark wrote: Since there is already a PostGIS database for custom scenery contribution in work, I assume this maybe could be added to that database? I agree that localized textures would be a big improvement. The city textures look good for locations in the states, but not realistic for Europe. But I can't see why we shouldn't use more of the landcover types anyway if we would have suitable textures. This would add to more diversity. We have a more european city texture already - just no way of using it on anything but a global scale - allocating some of the spare land use types to the textures we already have would be a good first step. Jon --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Mark wrote: I agree that localized textures would be a big improvement. The city textures look good for locations in the states, but not realistic for Europe. Until you hear those texture where created by someone from Europe. Erik -- http://www.ehtw.info (Dutch)Future of Enschede Airport Twente http://www.a1.nl/~ehofman/fgfs FlightGear Flight Simulator http://www.cafepress.com/fgfs_flightsim FlightGear Art --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Since there is already a PostGIS database for custom scenery contribution in work, I assume this maybe could be added to that database? I agree that localized textures would be a big improvement. The city textures look good for locations in the states, but not realistic for Europe. But I can't see why we shouldn't use more of the landcover types anyway if we would have suitable textures. This would add to more diversity. Mark Josh Babcock wrote: >Paul Surgeon wrote: > > >>On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:44, flightgear wrote: >> >> >> >>>I noticed this, too , since the landcover data actually has a large >>>amount of landcovertypes that are currently ignored. >>>So my question is: If somebody would brew up some new textures for these >>>types, is there any reason for not using them? >>> >>> >> >>The problem is that the land cover types don't contain enough info to figure >>out exactly what type of textures should be used. >>Yes, we know that we need to display grass, trees, water, etc. but these >>types >>of textures need to be regional and not global like they currently are. >> >>Grass or tree cover in the California doesn't look anything like it does in >>Germany. Crops in the USA look very different from those in the UK. >>European cities look vastly different from cities outside of Europe. >> >>I did start making some textures for FlightGear a couple of years ago but >>since there's no way to keep them local I stopped. >>Adding nice desert textures to Nevada makes Europe look the same and no one >>could come up with a solution. >> >>Paul >> >> >>--- >>This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files >>for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >>searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! >>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 >>___ >>Flightgear-devel mailing list >>Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel >> >> >> > >Well, the hard part of this is setting up a database in the first place >and getting people to populate it with new entries. The database could >have the following in each entry: >1. a shape >2. a landuse type >3. a texture > >I don't think it would be too hard to modify terragear with an extra >step right before the UV mapping happens. It could look in the database >and for each entry do the following: >1. Cut any poly of that land use type along the edges of the shape >listed in the DB. >2. Change the texture of any poly within that shape to the texture >listed in the database entry. > >Josh > > > >--- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files >for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 >___ >Flightgear-devel mailing list >Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Paul Surgeon wrote: > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:44, flightgear wrote: > >>I noticed this, too , since the landcover data actually has a large >>amount of landcovertypes that are currently ignored. >>So my question is: If somebody would brew up some new textures for these >>types, is there any reason for not using them? > > > > The problem is that the land cover types don't contain enough info to figure > out exactly what type of textures should be used. > Yes, we know that we need to display grass, trees, water, etc. but these > types > of textures need to be regional and not global like they currently are. > > Grass or tree cover in the California doesn't look anything like it does in > Germany. Crops in the USA look very different from those in the UK. > European cities look vastly different from cities outside of Europe. > > I did start making some textures for FlightGear a couple of years ago but > since there's no way to keep them local I stopped. > Adding nice desert textures to Nevada makes Europe look the same and no one > could come up with a solution. > > Paul > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > Well, the hard part of this is setting up a database in the first place and getting people to populate it with new entries. The database could have the following in each entry: 1. a shape 2. a landuse type 3. a texture I don't think it would be too hard to modify terragear with an extra step right before the UV mapping happens. It could look in the database and for each entry do the following: 1. Cut any poly of that land use type along the edges of the shape listed in the DB. 2. Change the texture of any poly within that shape to the texture listed in the database entry. Josh --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:44, flightgear wrote: > I noticed this, too , since the landcover data actually has a large > amount of landcovertypes that are currently ignored. > So my question is: If somebody would brew up some new textures for these > types, is there any reason for not using them? The problem is that the land cover types don't contain enough info to figure out exactly what type of textures should be used. Yes, we know that we need to display grass, trees, water, etc. but these types of textures need to be regional and not global like they currently are. Grass or tree cover in the California doesn't look anything like it does in Germany. Crops in the USA look very different from those in the UK. European cities look vastly different from cities outside of Europe. I did start making some textures for FlightGear a couple of years ago but since there's no way to keep them local I stopped. Adding nice desert textures to Nevada makes Europe look the same and no one could come up with a solution. Paul --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
I noticed this, too , since the landcover data actually has a large amount of landcovertypes that are currently ignored. So my question is: If somebody would brew up some new textures for these types, is there any reason for not using them? For example, if you have many textures in a scenery part, they take up alot of memory on the 3d card, wich could lead to worse performance. Concerning the plib - OSG debate: Wouldn't it make sence to open up a page on the wiki for that? This way people could layout their suggestions for a possible transformation and by this the developers could get an estimate on how much work it really would be to change. Also this could be discussed in more detail this way. The wrapper-class discussed some days ago might be a good start? Just my ideas :) Josh Babcock wrote: >>It would be nice if Terragear was able to this automatically, as an >>interim solution, if the landcover types were available in FGSD users >>could customise areas that they want. Is it hard to add landcover types? >>Are there any other issues that I'm not aware of? >> >> > >I don't think so, there are a lot in the raw datasets that are currently >ignored just for lack of textures. The harder part would be to have >terragear assign new ones on it's own based on the slope angle and the >original landcover data in the raw dataset. > > > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Hi Josh From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > 2) ... the current terrain is designed to be seen from above... When >> > viewing terrain from the side other factors come into play...your >> > stratum idea and the one I put forward where urban terrain is presently >> > designed from a "birds eye view" ie roof's, when this is viewed from >> the >> > side it should be walls and windows, the roofs always being on the >> > uphill side. This implies left and right handed scenery amongst other >> > perspective issues. >> > >> >> Personally, I like to fly in mountainous areas, . > > > my landings need too much practice to skive off and enjoy the scenery Yes, takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory. > >> .and I often find myself >> looking sideways at a cliff. Again, I am not talking about flat terrain, >> but vertical terrain. It really ruins the illusion when can look >> sideways at an irrigated field that has been stretched up the >> mountainside. >> >> My point is that perhaps some of the terrain should be designed to be >> viewed from the side, and not above. The trick is teaching terragear to >> determine what that terrain is and assign it a new landcover type: cliff. >> > > .. Agreed; cliff, "right" hilly urban and "left" hilly urban. I'm sure > others will come up with other landcover types. I'm not sure what you mean by right and left. Keep in mind that this is not done at run time, but during scenery generation. Whatever terragear lays down has to look right from every angle. I'm thinking about side viewed Urban landcover type would consist mainly of walls and windows rather than roofs as at present. But if the roofs were put to the right of the walls, this would look rediculous out of the left side cockpit window (the roofs would be on the down hill side of the walls) This is important to me because the 16 approach to my local is between two hills with steeps sides and both with suburban housing on them. "Stretched" looks strange, upside down would look plain rediculous. (On final you're only a hundred or so feet ASL with 200 ft hills either side). I would also include "scree slope", "river rapids" and "waterfall". There may be a way to do terraced farmland, but that seems like it would get complicated. animated water fall? ;-) Cheers Dene _ Shop til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/ --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
dene maxwell wrote: > Hi Josh > > >> From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> dene maxwell wrote: >> > Hi Josh >> > I posted on this subject a couple of weeks ago there was some >> > discussion as to where the "scaling" of the texture was done >> > Terragear/FlightGear. There were two points; >> > >> > 1) ... when viewed from above a 45deg slope will only seem 0.7071 of >> its >> > true length. Hence a "stretching" issue when viewed from the side. >> > >> >> I was thinking more of stuff between 70 and 90 deg, places that are >> steeper than the angle of repose and would never have trees, let alone >> soil on them. This foreshortening is exactly what happens in real life >> when you look down at a cliff, and it would be appropriate to see the >> same in FG. In fact, the current situation that we currently experience >> in steep areas is a very exaggerated version of the problem that you >> describe. >> > True, the steeper the slope, the more exaggerated the problem. Do you > agree there are two issues, the stretching and the appropriateness of > the face material (ie does your comment " irrigated fields stretched up > a hillside" recognise both issues ro do you see them as one in the same > thing?) Oh, I definitely agree that there are two issues here. Having inappropriate textures on steep terrain is probably the easier one to fix. Once that happens, it should be possible to improve how those new textures look by changing the way they are mapped onto the terrain. > >> > 2) ... the current terrain is designed to be seen from above... When >> > viewing terrain from the side other factors come into play...your >> > stratum idea and the one I put forward where urban terrain is presently >> > designed from a "birds eye view" ie roof's, when this is viewed from >> the >> > side it should be walls and windows, the roofs always being on the >> > uphill side. This implies left and right handed scenery amongst other >> > perspective issues. >> > >> >> Personally, I like to fly in mountainous areas, . > > > my landings need too much practice to skive off and enjoy the scenery Yes, takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory. > >> .and I often find myself >> looking sideways at a cliff. Again, I am not talking about flat terrain, >> but vertical terrain. It really ruins the illusion when can look >> sideways at an irrigated field that has been stretched up the >> mountainside. >> >> My point is that perhaps some of the terrain should be designed to be >> viewed from the side, and not above. The trick is teaching terragear to >> determine what that terrain is and assign it a new landcover type: cliff. >> > > .. Agreed; cliff, "right" hilly urban and "left" hilly urban. I'm sure > others will come up with other landcover types. I'm not sure what you mean by right and left. Keep in mind that this is not done at run time, but during scenery generation. Whatever terragear lays down has to look right from every angle. I would also include "scree slope", "river rapids" and "waterfall". There may be a way to do terraced farmland, but that seems like it would get complicated. > > It would be nice if Terragear was able to this automatically, as an > interim solution, if the landcover types were available in FGSD users > could customise areas that they want. Is it hard to add landcover types? > Are there any other issues that I'm not aware of? I don't think so, there are a lot in the raw datasets that are currently ignored just for lack of textures. The harder part would be to have terragear assign new ones on it's own based on the slope angle and the original landcover data in the raw dataset. > >> Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's two thousand: >> http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/one.jpg >> http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/two.jpg > > > I think your pics beautifly summarise all the words written on this > subject. Thank you. > >> >> > Sort of associated with your river issue is the issue of railways and >> > the sections of railways that are through tunnels this particularly >> > effects me as two of the longest rail tunnels in the southern >> hemisphere >> > are in my local area and it looks silly to have them placed on the >> > surface climbing 60deg slopes I have talked to Fred about being >> > able to resolve this in FGSD but no firm answer yet. >> >> The first step would be to find a dataset that shows where the linear >> features are not on the surface. This is the same issue as with bridges. >> If we can find a dataset that represents this like topographic maps do, >> it will be a piece of cake to have automatically generated bridges and >> tunnels. >> > That would be great. > >> Josh >> >> > >> > Cheers >> > Dene >> > >> >> From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >> I. Currently the terrain textures are UV mapped onto the terrain from >> >> directly above. This creates all sorts of problems in steep >> terrain. One >> >>
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Hello Curt, "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: > As we've discussed before, OSG is a worthy option, but it is 'not > trivial' so to speak to switch scene graph libraries out from under such > a complex application as FlightGear, [...] I know that my sole intention was to prevent people from straining themselves by glueing half-baked features into the PLIB/SimGear/FlightGear mesh that probably get obsolete within the next year. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Martin Spott wrote: Christian Mayer wrote: Hm, I thought PLIB (i.e. Steve) did like shaders and was just waiting for OpenGL 2.0. He wanted to do the right solution once it was available (with shaders and thus multitexturing)... Do you really expect the PLIB project to issue major improvements ? In my eyes PLIB is a project that already started fading out Plib is Steve Baker's project, especially the scene graph bits. It will see major improvements, only when he writes them, because he is fairly resistant to letting anyone else do major surgery to that code. So at some point it will get done, but he's a very busy guy like everyone else, so it could be 6 months, it could be 5 years. As we've discussed before, OSG is a worthy option, but it is 'not trivial' so to speak to switch scene graph libraries out from under such a complex application as FlightGear, especially since we use so much raw OpenGL code (scattered throughout the code) to work around the limited features of plib. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Christian Mayer wrote: > Hm, I thought PLIB (i.e. Steve) did like shaders and was just waiting > for OpenGL 2.0. He wanted to do the right solution once it was available > (with shaders and thus multitexturing)... Do you really expect the PLIB project to issue major improvements ? In my eyes PLIB is a project that already started fading out Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Hi Josh From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dene maxwell wrote: > Hi Josh > I posted on this subject a couple of weeks ago there was some > discussion as to where the "scaling" of the texture was done > Terragear/FlightGear. There were two points; > > 1) ... when viewed from above a 45deg slope will only seem 0.7071 of its > true length. Hence a "stretching" issue when viewed from the side. > I was thinking more of stuff between 70 and 90 deg, places that are steeper than the angle of repose and would never have trees, let alone soil on them. This foreshortening is exactly what happens in real life when you look down at a cliff, and it would be appropriate to see the same in FG. In fact, the current situation that we currently experience in steep areas is a very exaggerated version of the problem that you describe. True, the steeper the slope, the more exaggerated the problem. Do you agree there are two issues, the stretching and the appropriateness of the face material (ie does your comment " irrigated fields stretched up a hillside" recognise both issues ro do you see them as one in the same thing?) > 2) ... the current terrain is designed to be seen from above... When > viewing terrain from the side other factors come into play...your > stratum idea and the one I put forward where urban terrain is presently > designed from a "birds eye view" ie roof's, when this is viewed from the > side it should be walls and windows, the roofs always being on the > uphill side. This implies left and right handed scenery amongst other > perspective issues. > Personally, I like to fly in mountainous areas, . my landings need too much practice to skive off and enjoy the scenery .and I often find myself looking sideways at a cliff. Again, I am not talking about flat terrain, but vertical terrain. It really ruins the illusion when can look sideways at an irrigated field that has been stretched up the mountainside. My point is that perhaps some of the terrain should be designed to be viewed from the side, and not above. The trick is teaching terragear to determine what that terrain is and assign it a new landcover type: cliff. .. Agreed; cliff, "right" hilly urban and "left" hilly urban. I'm sure others will come up with other landcover types. It would be nice if Terragear was able to this automatically, as an interim solution, if the landcover types were available in FGSD users could customise areas that they want. Is it hard to add landcover types? Are there any other issues that I'm not aware of? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's two thousand: http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/one.jpg http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/two.jpg I think your pics beautifly summarise all the words written on this subject. > Sort of associated with your river issue is the issue of railways and > the sections of railways that are through tunnels this particularly > effects me as two of the longest rail tunnels in the southern hemisphere > are in my local area and it looks silly to have them placed on the > surface climbing 60deg slopes I have talked to Fred about being > able to resolve this in FGSD but no firm answer yet. The first step would be to find a dataset that shows where the linear features are not on the surface. This is the same issue as with bridges. If we can find a dataset that represents this like topographic maps do, it will be a piece of cake to have automatically generated bridges and tunnels. That would be great. Josh > > Cheers > Dene > >> From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I. Currently the terrain textures are UV mapped onto the terrain from >> directly above. This creates all sorts of problems in steep terrain. One >> of those problems is that cliffs and near cliffs look really bad. >> Perhaps if terrain with a slope greater than a certain threshold were to >> be mapped from the side with a texture bearing strata this particular >> case would start to look right. What would be involved in making >> particular terrain types be mapped differently? >> >> II. Another thing I have been thinking about since the new scenery was >> released is flattening rivers. The new algorithm certainly makes places >> like the Grand Canyon look a lot more like they should, but there are >> still a lot of rivers that travel up and down like roller coasters. >> Perhaps if once the linear database is in sync with the elevation data >> it would be a good idea to tell the algorithm where the rivers are so it >> can increase the number of vertecies along the rivers. On the other >> hand, maybe simply getting the linear feature data in the same place as >> the elevation data will be all that it takes. >> >> A really smart algorithm would also be able to see when it is laying >> down a river on a slope and move it to the bottom of the valley. It >> might even be able to figure out the registration error between the two >> datasets
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
On January 24, 2006 04:54 pm, Josh Babcock wrote: > The trick is teaching terragear to > determine what that terrain is and assign it a new landcover type: cliff. We can teach Terrorgear new tricks? I never knew it has neural net implemented. ;) Ampere --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Christian Mayer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Curtis L. Olson schrieb: X-Plane uses some shader language dithering approach which I don't understand enough to comment on. This sounds like a good solution This isn't easy, especially not within the context of plib which really doesn't like shaders and doesn't even do multitexturing. Hm, I thought PLIB (i.e. Steve) did like shaders and was just waiting for OpenGL 2.0. He wanted to do the right solution once it was available (with shaders and thus multitexturing)... You are quite correct, especially when referring to some future version of plib that doesn't exist yet. But for the plib that is available today ... I'll stand by my words. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Curtis L. Olson schrieb: > > X-Plane uses some shader language dithering approach which I don't > understand enough to comment on. This sounds like a good solution > This isn't easy, especially not within the context of plib which really > doesn't like shaders and doesn't even do multitexturing. Hm, I thought PLIB (i.e. Steve) did like shaders and was just waiting for OpenGL 2.0. He wanted to do the right solution once it was available (with shaders and thus multitexturing)... CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFD1sEvlhWtxOxWNFcRAgwoAKC41KAKq/TVatnUqSk3nvHaKzTIvACeOv1h gLd6igkYPHuSuJWHtDffFPU= =+1a0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Here's a better shot: http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/three.jpg Josh --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Or we could find a nice source of free 1 meter per pixel world imagery > and just drape photoreal textureres over everything. > > Curt. > I'll start saving for that 80Tb disk drive now ... Actually, a really neat hack would be to just download the (0.25 m/px) orthos from maps.google.com or terraserver.com a`la terrasync. That would be cool, and you could even run a local cache so that as long as you stick to your normal flying areas there isn't much net traffic. Wouldn't work too well outside of the areas covered by the "urban areas" dataset, but man what a neat demo. Josh --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Josh Babcock wrote: I. Currently the terrain textures are UV mapped onto the terrain from directly above. This creates all sorts of problems in steep terrain. One of those problems is that cliffs and near cliffs look really bad. Perhaps if terrain with a slope greater than a certain threshold were to be mapped from the side with a texture bearing strata this particular case would start to look right. What would be involved in making particular terrain types be mapped differently? It probably wouldn't be too hard to assigne different textures based on slope. But what we really need first before this will look even halfway decent is some way to blend or dither between two different adjacent textures. X-Plane uses some shader language dithering approach which I don't understand enough to comment on. This isn't easy, especially not within the context of plib which really doesn't like shaders and doesn't even do multitexturing. II. Another thing I have been thinking about since the new scenery was released is flattening rivers. The new algorithm certainly makes places like the Grand Canyon look a lot more like they should, but there are still a lot of rivers that travel up and down like roller coasters. Perhaps if once the linear database is in sync with the elevation data it would be a good idea to tell the algorithm where the rivers are so it can increase the number of vertecies along the rivers. On the other hand, maybe simply getting the linear feature data in the same place as the elevation data will be all that it takes. A really smart algorithm would also be able to see when it is laying down a river on a slope and move it to the bottom of the valley. It might even be able to figure out the registration error between the two datasets this way and automatically adjust for that. We have the ability to flatten rivers as much or as little as we want. However, I minimzed this because when a river is off, it's better just to have it run up and down the sides of the slope versus cutting a new huge canyon where one shouldn't be. It would be possible to manually align rivers (with some great amount of effort.) It might be possible to automatically nudge river nodes side to side to until a minimum elevation is found ... within some constraints and perhaps also constrained by the direciton and amount you needed to slide the previous point so you don't run into a problem where a river runs along the top of a ridge and consequetive nodes pick opposite sides of the ridge. I see a lot of places where this might help, but certainly places where we'd probably break things horribly and make the situation even worse. Another option would be to do some sort of flow analysis on the raw terrain. But there are a lot of difficulties and issues with that, especially when you get near lakes and in spots that are pretty flat due to the noise in the data. And you don't know if an area is flat because it is flat or flat becuase there should be a lake there. You might be able to cross reference other data sets, but you would be cutting out a huge task for yourself (if you wanted good results in the end.) Or we could find a nice source of free 1 meter per pixel world imagery and just drape photoreal textureres over everything. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
dene maxwell wrote: > Hi Josh > I posted on this subject a couple of weeks ago there was some > discussion as to where the "scaling" of the texture was done > Terragear/FlightGear. There were two points; > > 1) ... when viewed from above a 45deg slope will only seem 0.7071 of its > true length. Hence a "stretching" issue when viewed from the side. > I was thinking more of stuff between 70 and 90 deg, places that are steeper than the angle of repose and would never have trees, let alone soil on them. This foreshortening is exactly what happens in real life when you look down at a cliff, and it would be appropriate to see the same in FG. In fact, the current situation that we currently experience in steep areas is a very exaggerated version of the problem that you describe. > 2) ... the current terrain is designed to be seen from above... When > viewing terrain from the side other factors come into play...your > stratum idea and the one I put forward where urban terrain is presently > designed from a "birds eye view" ie roof's, when this is viewed from the > side it should be walls and windows, the roofs always being on the > uphill side. This implies left and right handed scenery amongst other > perspective issues. > Personally, I like to fly in mountainous areas, and I often find myself looking sideways at a cliff. Again, I am not talking about flat terrain, but vertical terrain. It really ruins the illusion when can look sideways at an irrigated field that has been stretched up the mountainside. My point is that perhaps some of the terrain should be designed to be viewed from the side, and not above. The trick is teaching terragear to determine what that terrain is and assign it a new landcover type: cliff. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's two thousand: http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/one.jpg http://jrbabcock.home.comcast.net/flightgear/two.jpg > Sort of associated with your river issue is the issue of railways and > the sections of railways that are through tunnels this particularly > effects me as two of the longest rail tunnels in the southern hemisphere > are in my local area and it looks silly to have them placed on the > surface climbing 60deg slopes I have talked to Fred about being > able to resolve this in FGSD but no firm answer yet. The first step would be to find a dataset that shows where the linear features are not on the surface. This is the same issue as with bridges. If we can find a dataset that represents this like topographic maps do, it will be a piece of cake to have automatically generated bridges and tunnels. Josh > > Cheers > Dene > >> From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I. Currently the terrain textures are UV mapped onto the terrain from >> directly above. This creates all sorts of problems in steep terrain. One >> of those problems is that cliffs and near cliffs look really bad. >> Perhaps if terrain with a slope greater than a certain threshold were to >> be mapped from the side with a texture bearing strata this particular >> case would start to look right. What would be involved in making >> particular terrain types be mapped differently? >> >> II. Another thing I have been thinking about since the new scenery was >> released is flattening rivers. The new algorithm certainly makes places >> like the Grand Canyon look a lot more like they should, but there are >> still a lot of rivers that travel up and down like roller coasters. >> Perhaps if once the linear database is in sync with the elevation data >> it would be a good idea to tell the algorithm where the rivers are so it >> can increase the number of vertecies along the rivers. On the other >> hand, maybe simply getting the linear feature data in the same place as >> the elevation data will be all that it takes. >> >> A really smart algorithm would also be able to see when it is laying >> down a river on a slope and move it to the bottom of the valley. It >> might even be able to figure out the registration error between the two >> datasets this way and automatically adjust for that. >> >> Josh > > > _ > Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ > http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Hi Martin, Exactly my point...the tools are coming... I don't expect Fred to do anything ...I appreciate what he does do... We all do what we can, and ask for help for what we can't... While some of us might get frustrated at times (I can't claim immunity on that point)... I certainly don't " bite the hand that feeds me " intentionally... Fred has always provided positive feedback and assistance... I value his assistance very much and certainly don't presumme he will personaly "fix" all the issues I post. Cheers Dene From: Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:53:12 + (UTC) "dene maxwell" wrote: > Sort of associated with your river issue is the issue of railways and the > sections of railways that are through tunnels this particularly effects > me as two of the longest rail tunnels in the southern hemisphere are in my > local area and it looks silly to have them placed on the surface climbing > 60deg slopes I have talked to Fred about being able to resolve this in > FGSD but no firm answer yet. Please tell us what you expect Frederic to do for you ? Do you really think he will personally tweak the landcover data for every one of us as long as we expect him to do this ? No, he won't. Frederic is working on tools that hopefully enable us to tweak the data but it would be ridiculous to expect him to do the user's work as well, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel _ Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
"dene maxwell" wrote: > Sort of associated with your river issue is the issue of railways and the > sections of railways that are through tunnels this particularly effects > me as two of the longest rail tunnels in the southern hemisphere are in my > local area and it looks silly to have them placed on the surface climbing > 60deg slopes I have talked to Fred about being able to resolve this in > FGSD but no firm answer yet. Please tell us what you expect Frederic to do for you ? Do you really think he will personally tweak the landcover data for every one of us as long as we expect him to do this ? No, he won't. Frederic is working on tools that hopefully enable us to tweak the data but it would be ridiculous to expect him to do the user's work as well, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
Hi Josh I posted on this subject a couple of weeks ago there was some discussion as to where the "scaling" of the texture was done Terragear/FlightGear. There were two points; 1) ... when viewed from above a 45deg slope will only seem 0.7071 of its true length. Hence a "stretching" issue when viewed from the side. 2) ... the current terrain is designed to be seen from above... When viewing terrain from the side other factors come into play...your stratum idea and the one I put forward where urban terrain is presently designed from a "birds eye view" ie roof's, when this is viewed from the side it should be walls and windows, the roofs always being on the uphill side. This implies left and right handed scenery amongst other perspective issues. Sort of associated with your river issue is the issue of railways and the sections of railways that are through tunnels this particularly effects me as two of the longest rail tunnels in the southern hemisphere are in my local area and it looks silly to have them placed on the surface climbing 60deg slopes I have talked to Fred about being able to resolve this in FGSD but no firm answer yet. Cheers Dene From: Josh Babcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I. Currently the terrain textures are UV mapped onto the terrain from directly above. This creates all sorts of problems in steep terrain. One of those problems is that cliffs and near cliffs look really bad. Perhaps if terrain with a slope greater than a certain threshold were to be mapped from the side with a texture bearing strata this particular case would start to look right. What would be involved in making particular terrain types be mapped differently? II. Another thing I have been thinking about since the new scenery was released is flattening rivers. The new algorithm certainly makes places like the Grand Canyon look a lot more like they should, but there are still a lot of rivers that travel up and down like roller coasters. Perhaps if once the linear database is in sync with the elevation data it would be a good idea to tell the algorithm where the rivers are so it can increase the number of vertecies along the rivers. On the other hand, maybe simply getting the linear feature data in the same place as the elevation data will be all that it takes. A really smart algorithm would also be able to see when it is laying down a river on a slope and move it to the bottom of the valley. It might even be able to figure out the registration error between the two datasets this way and automatically adjust for that. Josh _ Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] two scenery ideas
I. Currently the terrain textures are UV mapped onto the terrain from directly above. This creates all sorts of problems in steep terrain. One of those problems is that cliffs and near cliffs look really bad. Perhaps if terrain with a slope greater than a certain threshold were to be mapped from the side with a texture bearing strata this particular case would start to look right. What would be involved in making particular terrain types be mapped differently? II. Another thing I have been thinking about since the new scenery was released is flattening rivers. The new algorithm certainly makes places like the Grand Canyon look a lot more like they should, but there are still a lot of rivers that travel up and down like roller coasters. Perhaps if once the linear database is in sync with the elevation data it would be a good idea to tell the algorithm where the rivers are so it can increase the number of vertecies along the rivers. On the other hand, maybe simply getting the linear feature data in the same place as the elevation data will be all that it takes. A really smart algorithm would also be able to see when it is laying down a river on a slope and move it to the bottom of the valley. It might even be able to figure out the registration error between the two datasets this way and automatically adjust for that. Josh --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
