Hi Fred, Geoff and Radi
Ooh good. Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
You did also the 3D relief? Cool I'm looking forward to try this.
Well if so we should encourage people to use the new apt format. Rounded
taxiways with
centerlines look so much better. As WED is openS
> Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
This code is in 2.0.0. But as far as I know, the scenery tools are not ready,
and can't generate airports from that format
-Fred
--
Frédéric Bouvier
http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery - album photo
http://www.youtube.com/
Michael Sgier wrote:
> Ooh good. Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
> You did also the 3D relief? Cool I'm looking forward to try this.
So far it's just a parser. As far as I can tell there's no plan how the
Scenery is supposed to be set up, for example, in order to draw
On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:52, Martin Spott wrote:
>> Ooh good. Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
>> You did also the 3D relief? Cool I'm looking forward to try this.
>
> So far it's just a parser. As far as I can tell there's no plan how the
> Scenery is supposed to be set
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>> Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
>
> This code is in 2.0.0. But as far as I know, the scenery tools are not
> ready, and can't generate airports from that format
WED (World Editor) from X-Plane can. :)
g.
--
Proud owner
Gene Buckle wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>>> Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
>>
>> This code is in 2.0.0. But as far as I know, the scenery tools are not
>> ready, and can't generate airports from that format
>
> WED (World Editor) from X-Plane
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> Gene Buckle wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
>>>
>>> This code is in 2.0.0. But as far as I know, the scenery tools are not
>>> ready, and can't generate airports from
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>
> > Gene Buckle wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> >
> Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
> >>>
> >>> This code is in 2.0.0. But as far as I know, t
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Tim Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Gene Buckle wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>>
>>> Gene Buckle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>>>
>> Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
>
> Th
Tim Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Gene Buckle
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> > Gene Buckle wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> >
> Fred is that only in the CVS or also in 2.0. All working?
> >>>
> >>> This
Gene Buckle wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the airports that you create with WED are written
> out using the current apt.dat file format.
at least to the current file format as being used at X-Plane,
that's true. The primary issue here is that having airfields written
into an 'apt.dat' fil
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Well maybe, just maybe it can be modified to output to ac3d or something
> similar (or even btg format itself).
I think I forgot about the missing elevation data. So it would still
need post-processing.
Erik
---
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Tim Moore wrote:
>> I think the point is that the tools that build BTG files don't use the
>> new format.
>
> Well maybe, just maybe it can be modified to output to ac3d or something
> similar (or even btg format itself).
Problem is that casting curved shapes into triangle
James Turner wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:52, Martin Spott wrote:
>> The other reason is the lack of developer manpower,
> [...], I'm afraid - too many things on my plate which I consider
> more important/interesting.
I didn't mean to blame you or anyone else, I'm just trying to make
intereste
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
> I think I forgot about the missing elevation data. So it would still
> need post-processing.
One of the cool things (I think) that the current airport generator tool
does is lay the airport surface over the DEM terrain in a nicely behaved
way
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Tim Moore wrote:
>
> >> I think the point is that the tools that build BTG files don't use the
> >> new format.
> >
> > Well maybe, just maybe it can be modified to output to ac3d or something
> > similar (or even btg fo
> Problem is that casting curved shapes into triangles, the way our
> Scenery is currently set up, results in a pretty high triangle count.
If your really using curves as input, you can sample as many...or as
few points on that curve as you wish...hence as many or as few
triangles you wish. There i
artin Spott wrote:
From: Martin Spott
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat format
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 4:19 PM
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Tim Moore wrote:
>> I think the point is that the tools that build BTG files don't use
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Tim Moore wrote:
> While on this subject, do you scenery guys have any thoughts about
> different levels-of-detail in scenery tiles?
>
Yes, in the initial scenery design phase we had a very extended discussion
about level of detail. There are many ways to do thi
Curtis Olson wrote:
[... airport elevation ...]
> Judging by the total lack of end user comments in this area, I think we
> ended up with a pretty good balance of naturally fitting a nice surface to
> the terrain data and blending it into the surrounding terrain.
Agreed.
> The system is automate
Tim Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
>> A couple of months ago I've done a few tests: Compiling X-Plane's
>> current layout of KSFO (being a prominent example), including all the
>> yellow taxi lines, into a triangluated surface leads to approx. 50k
>> triangles
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> We do. The current idea is 'simply' to render a certain range of
> sceneries at differently detailed levels (by doing polygon
> simplification at database level) and to connect these sceneries into
> some XML structure which takes care of the
Hi Curt,
Curtis Olson wrote:
> What you describe covers the aspect of managing and selecting different LOD
> versions of the same tile, however I believe the much more difficult issue
> is selecting and implementing a scheme to address the seams/cracks between
> two tiles of differing LOD's.
The
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> The topic you're talking about is highly familiar to me (even without
> thinking about LOD), it's teasing me almost every second week, so you
> can be assured that we're seriously going to take care about it :-)
>
> The basic idea for coping
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Yes ... the less paying work I do, the more my wife complains; and the less
> FlightGear work I do, the more all of you complain. :-) One way or another
> there's always someone beating me up on any given day. :-)
>
You could remind her that not only do
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Tim Moore wrote:
>
>> While on this subject, do you scenery guys have any thoughts about
>> different levels-of-detail in scenery tiles?
>>
>
> Yes, in the initial scenery design phase we had a very extended
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Tim Moore wrote:
> I think skirts at a slightly less-than-vertical angle are the way to go. It
> doesn't matter if skirts of adjacent tiles intersect.
>
If I had to pick a way to handle the seams between different LOD tiles, I
think I'd lean towards skirts too ..
- "Curtis Olson" a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Tim Moore < timoor...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
I think skirts at a slightly less-than-vertical angle are the way to go. It
doesn't matter if skirts of adjacent tiles intersect.
>
> If I had to pick a way to handle the seams
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
> - "Curtis Olson" a écrit :
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Tim Moore wrote:
> >
>>
>> >
>> I think skirts at a slightly less-than-vertical angle are the way to go.
>> It doesn't matter if skirts of adjacent tiles intersect.
>
- "Tim Moore" a écrit :
> What about ROAM2 that combine big chunk and seamless joins without skirt.
> This
> is what I did in this (already posted) video :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYH27KyUBk
>
> It's pretty cool. It's not clear to me how much work on the CPU is happenin
, 3/24/10, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
From: Frederic Bouvier
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat format
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 11:30 PM
#yiv241533927 p {margin:0;}
- "Tim Moore" a écrit :
> What about ROAM2 tha
As a service to those who'd like to dedicate their time for comparing
v8.10 and v8.50 layouts (I don't know if anyone's interested at all), I
have now added both to the web map. This is a v8.10 sample:
http://mapserver.flightgear.org/map/?lon=-122.37563&lat=37.61927&zoom=15&layers=B00TF
Spott
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat format
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Monday, March 29, 2010, 10:05 PM
As a service to those who'd like to dedicate their time for comparing
v8.10 and v8.50 layouts (I don't know if anyone's interested at all), I
have n
Michael Sgier schrieb:
> I'm really looking forward to see new airports in FG, maybe on top of a new
> scenery, Fred?
>
Hello Michael
Thanks for your offer to help for a better scenery. Can you start to
publish your airports/data/objects now under GPL? So others can also
contribute and start
from "radi" to convert x-plane sceneries.
Cheers Michael
On Tue, 3/30/10, HB-GRAL wrote:
From: HB-GRAL
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] apt.dat format
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 10:14 AM
Michael Sgier schrieb:
> I'm reall
Michael Sgier wrote:
> it does not matter if I release my apt.dats ( Sion, Bern etc. ) under
> GPL or not. [nonsense removed]
Your interest in FlightGear, as far as I have learned from various
sources, boils down to nothing but serving as a vehicle for you to
build a payware add-on business ontop
36 matches
Mail list logo
