Martin Spott wrote:
"Roberto Inzerillo" wrote:
So I guess, using more photoreal scenery into FGFS would give a more
realistic result with less human effort then using default terrain textures,
vector roads/lakes/rivers/railroads...
I believe the most promising effort of this sort is
Martin Spott writes:
>
> "Roberto Inzerillo" wrote:
>
> > So I guess, using more photoreal scenery into FGFS would give a more
> > realistic result with less human effort then using default terrain textures,
> > vector roads/lakes/rivers/railroads...
>
> I believe the most promising effort of th
"Norman Vine" wrote:
> Because it has only recently been released see
> http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/06/os_gis_conferen.html
Yep, I talked to Jan-Oliver Wagner who attended your presentation and
was deeply impressed ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> He's mentioned it here and there ... but there's way too many good ideas
> and not nearly enough time. And as good as osgPlanet is, that
> particular approach has some of it's own limitations,
I suspect it might fall behind when crusing at high speed, an argument
tha
Martin Spott writes:
>
> "Norman Vine" wrote:
>
> > Because it has only recently been released see
> > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/06/os_gis_conferen.html
>
> Yep, I talked to Jan-Oliver Wagner who attended your presentation and
> was deeply impressed ;-)
It is a neat 'toy' (1) and
Martin Spott ha scritto:
"Roberto Inzerillo" wrote:
So I guess, using more photoreal scenery into FGFS would give a more
realistic result with less human effort then using default terrain textures,
vector roads/lakes/rivers/railroads...
I believe the most promising effort of this sort is 'o
Robicd wrote:
> Martin Spott ha scritto:
>> I believe the most promising effort of this sort is 'osgPlanet' where
>> you apparently can plug almost every sort of geodata. I wonder why
>> Norman Vine didn't tell us about it ;-)
> I'll give a deep look inside today. Do you (Martin) really think
>
Robicd wrote:
I am sad because I see Jon Stockill's repository almost stopped getting
new contributes. I guess it's because of some obstacles (not in John's
repository itself) which common people don't like to cope with.
I do have some more contributions to add - but things have been rathet
h
Jon Stockill ha scritto:
Robicd wrote:
I am sad because I see Jon Stockill's repository almost stopped getting
new contributes. I guess it's because of some obstacles (not in John's
repository itself) which common people don't like to cope with.
I do have some more contributions to add - but
Martin Spott wrote:
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would be *very* cool would be to constrain the roads to stay on dry
land and off airport property, but that would be significantly more work.
Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads go below the
runway. Amsterdam Schi
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Martin Spott wrote:
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What would be *very* cool would be to constrain the roads to stay on dry
> > land and off airport property, but that would be significantly more work.
>
> Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>> Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads go below the
>> runway. Amsterdam Schiphol is a popular example,
> True, although I believe it's a taxiway and not a runway.
Once I've been riding below this way while a B747 cargo
Martin Spott wrote:
What would be *very* cool would be to constrain the roads to stay on dry
land and off airport property, but that would be significantly more work.
Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads go below the
runway. Amsterdam Schiphol is a popular example,
Long Beach is an
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, David Megginson wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>
> >>What would be *very* cool would be to constrain the roads to stay on dry
> >>land and off airport property, but that would be significantly more work.
> >
> > Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads go below the
>
Hi Guys
Martin Spott writes
David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be *very* cool would be to constrain the roads to stay on dry
> land and off airport property, but that would be significantly more
work.
Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads go below the
runway
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
Hmmm, I'm shure there are several cases where roads go below the
runway. Amsterdam Schiphol is a popular example,
True, although I believe it's a taxiway and not a runway.
Once I've been riding
Martin Spott writes:
> Hamish wrote:
>
> > You might try re-projecting your data with PROJ.4's cs2cs program from
> > www.remotesensing.org (although that site seems to be down right now),
> > GDAL, &/or a GIS like GRASS.
>
> ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/GIS/PostGIS/proj-4.4.8.tar.gz
proj is wh
Martin Spott wrote:
Does this mean to get the best out of the available sources you need
SRTM data for the elevation and land cover, VMAP0 for inland water
(lakes and rivers) and GSHHS for the ocean shoreline ? Anything else ?
Merging these sources sounds like a 'funny' game
Funny in the sarca
Martin Spott writes:
> David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Further to Curt's last post about flattening rivers, how would
> > everyone feel about flattening airports?
>
> When you look at large airports, say with runways over 3 km, you'll find
> quite a few where the runways follow the
Don't recall the specific change in height of the two runway ends, but KMRY
has quite a downslope change toward the West as one real world example.
jj
> For what it's worth, when I was looking into this, I found some
> examples of runways with their ends literally at least 100' different
> in
Some good examples of un-flat runways:
KATL ( especially 8R, concave )
San Jose, Costa Rica ( steep slope, strong visual illusion )
Guatemala City, Guatemala ( very concave runway )
On a related note, here are some airports that the FAA considers "special", as
of 1990, and why:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> For what it's worth, when I was looking into this, I found some
> examples of runways with their ends literally at least 100' different
> in elevation. Most aren't nearly that far off, but there are a
> few.
For a 10,000 ft runway, that would require less than a 1%
Martin Spott writes:
> > Further to Curt's last post about flattening rivers, how would
> > everyone feel about flattening airports?
>
> When you look at large airports, say with runways over 3 km, you'll find
> quite a few where the runways follow the terrain at least over a difference
> i
David Megginson writes:
>
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > For what it's worth, when I was looking into this, I found some
> > examples of runways with their ends literally at least 100' different
> > in elevation. Most aren't nearly that far off, but there are a
> > few.
>
> For a 10,000 ft
Norman Vine writes:
> Have you tried preinserting some of the the higher res srtm1 data
> to terra innide of and on the edges of the airport polygons ?
>
> This shoud be quite accurate.
Maybe *too* accurate -- at the resolution, a 747 parked on the field
will start to show up in the elevati
David Megginson writes:
>
> Norman Vine writes:
>
> > Have you tried preinserting some of the the higher res srtm1 data
> > to terra innide of and on the edges of the airport polygons ?
> >
> > This shoud be quite accurate.
>
> Maybe *too* accurate -- at the resolution, a 747 parked on the
Norman Vine writes:
> David Megginson writes:
> >
> > Norman Vine writes:
> >
> > > Have you tried preinserting some of the the higher res srtm1 data
> > > to terra innide of and on the edges of the airport polygons ?
> > >
> > > This shoud be quite accurate.
> >
> > Maybe *too* accurate -
Curtis L. Olson writes:
> Norman Vine writes:
> > David Megginson writes:
> > >
> > > Norman Vine writes:
> > >
> > > > Have you tried preinserting some of the the higher res srtm1 data
> > > > to terra innide of and on the edges of the airport polygons ?
> > > >
> > > > This shoud be quite
David Megginson writes:
> Curtis L. Olson writes:
>
> > For what it's worth, when I was looking into this, I found some
> > examples of runways with their ends literally at least 100' different
> > in elevation. Most aren't nearly that far off, but there are a
> > few.
>
> For a 10,000 ft ru
David Culp schrieb:
On a related note, here are some airports that the FAA considers "special", as
of 1990, and why:
> [...]
EUROPEAN REGION
AIRPORT COMMENTS
Berlin, Germany Political sensitivity of
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:34:05 +0200,
Christian Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> David Culp schrieb:
> >
> > On a related note, here are some airports that the FAA considers
> > "special", as of 1990, and why:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > EUROPEAN REGION
> >
>
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
I was wondering, since we have a global developers base, how difficult
would it be to measure the error of the VMap0 data globally [...]
You mean to take kown places for reference and determine the error of
their placement in VMap0 data ? We'll have only a
Erik Hofman writes:
> Martin Spott wrote:
> > Erik Hofman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I was wondering, since we have a global developers base, how difficult
> >>would it be to measure the error of the VMap0 data globally [...]
> >
> > You mean to take kown places for reference and determine the error of
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no shortcut to be found here, spend your energies looking for
> higher res data sets to splice in to the vmap0 locally !
Oh, we _do_ have the ability to produce higer res data by hand. The
missing bit is a mechanism to modify the automatic scen
Martin Spott wrote:
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no shortcut to be found here, spend your energies looking for
higher res data sets to splice in to the vmap0 locally !
Oh, we _do_ have the ability to produce higer res data by hand. The
missing bit is a mechanism to modify
Martin Spott writes:
>
> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is no shortcut to be found here, spend your energies looking for
> > higher res data sets to splice in to the vmap0 locally !
>
> Oh, we _do_ have the ability to produce higer res data by hand. The
> missing bit is a
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:
>> Oh, we _do_ have the ability to produce higer res data by hand. The
>> missing bit is a mechanism to modify the automatic scenery build so
>> that we can specify an order of different data sources to query.
>> This way we could hav
Martin Spott writes:
> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This can be turned into a Polygon Algebra abstraction,
>
> Every piece of manually
> refined land cover or terrain elevation could be tagged with a
> surrounding polygon.
Sure sounds like "polygon algebra" to me :-)
see
htt
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:
>> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > This can be turned into a Polygon Algebra abstraction,
>>
>> Every piece of manually
>> refined land cover or terrain elevation could be tagged with a
>> surrounding polygon.
> S
Martin Spott writes:
> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin Spott writes:
> >> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This can be turned into a Polygon Algebra abstraction,
> >>
> >> Every piece of manually
> >> refined land cover or terrain elevation could be tagge
Martin Spott writes:
>
> I wonder how long it takes until someone imports the world's SRTM data
> into GRASS (with a networked database backend like PostGIS).
AFAIK lots of people are doing this
> I assume
> quite a few people not related to FlightGear already have data that
> could be merged. T
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:
>>
>> I wonder how long it takes until someone imports the world's SRTM data
>> into GRASS (with a networked database backend like PostGIS).
>
> AFAIK lots of people are doing this
Do you suggest we should do so too ? Why don't peop
Martin Spott writes:
> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin Spott writes:
> >>
> >> I wonder how long it takes until someone imports the world's SRTM data
> >> into GRASS (with a networked database backend like PostGIS).
> >
> > AFAIK lots of people are doing this
>
> Do you sugg
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:
>> We would need a database where everyone around the world could be
>> granted write access to a dataset that is kept at one central point
>> (later we might talk about replication or a distributed database),
> I think we want to s
Martin Spott writes:
>
> "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin Spott writes:
>
> >> We would need a database where everyone around the world could be
> >> granted write access to a dataset that is kept at one central point
> >> (later we might talk about replication or a distribute
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I am worried about security issues when we have thousands of
> users all wanting to update their little piece of the earth :-)
I didn't mean that _everyone_ should be able to write to the "scenery
database" (or however we'd call it _if_ it really sho
Martin Spott writes:
> I would not use highly detailed scenery as a default. I'm thinking of a
> scenery database as a repository which serves as a data source for the
> usual terrain build process (not to serve as the run-time scenery
> itself!). So if people are really interested in using highres
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Going a slightly different direction with this, the latest scenery
> build consumes almost 7Gb (up from the previous 4.5Gb) which means it
> takes me about 11 cd's to fully contain it.
Is the new rebuild already complete ? I'm wondering:
bash-2.03$
Pigeon wrote:
> On the bright side, it seems that Curt's scenery build is more
> accurate to the real world. I've checked some positions for buildings on
> multimap.com and it does turn out correct on the flightgear.org scenery
> build, while with my build, the building apparently sits in the
Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/images/LFPX-photo-scenery.png
For more complex airports more polygons are being created to map the
threshold, runway numbers (two quads at every side), runway markings, etc.
I think some confusion arises from the fact, that
Martin Spott wrote:
"Dale E. Edmons" wrote:
This might also help others who are having problems with frame rate.
Airports are currently very dense in terms of polygon count, and
somewhat flat. Reducing the polygon and texture count would bound to
improve FGFS's framerate too.
To my exp
Hello,
Martin Spott schrieb:
> [SNIP]
Actually, I _do_ agree that having preprocessed scenery
_is_ an advantage. But it does have disadvantages as well:
1.) At the current state it appears (to me) nearly impossible to inject
user-contributed additions into the scenery,
2.) I don't manage to
Ralf Gerlich writes:
>
> Hello,
>
> Martin Spott schrieb:
> > [SNIP]
> > Actually, I _do_ agree that having preprocessed scenery
> > _is_ an advantage. But it does have disadvantages as well:
> > 1.) At the current state it appears (to me) nearly impossible to inject
> > user-contributed add
> > SRTM 90 meters dems for Europe and Asia are now available at
> > http://edcftp.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/Eurasia/
>
> Fantastic. I guess that the Aussies, Kiwis, and S. Americans will
> still be stuck in flatlands, though -- serves 'em right for spinning
> the water down their drains backwar
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:32:01PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>
> Fantastic. I guess that the Aussies, Kiwis, and S. Americans will
> still be stuck in flatlands, though -- serves 'em right for spinning
> the water down their drains backwards.
>
Since there are probably a few folks here who d
James A. Treacy writes:
> Since there are probably a few folks here who don't know that David is
> joking (I hope he is :), check out the following:
> http://www.urbanlegends.com/science/coriolis/coriolis_force_sci_physics_faq.html
It's actually a (probably too-subtle) Simpsons reference:
h
David Megginson writes
>Fantastic. I guess that the Aussies, Kiwis, and S. Americans will
still be stuck in flatlands, though -- serves 'em right for spinning
the water down their drains backwards.
Seems to work OK on the sports field.LOL
All the best,
David
Cheers
Innis
The Mad Aussi
57 matches
Mail list logo
