You can subscribe to this list here.
2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(18) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(3) |
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(14) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2013 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(4) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2014 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(3) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2019 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2020 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
(3) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2022 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
From: Keith P. <kei...@gm...> - 2022-12-26 10:07:37
|
Hi, follow this guide. https://wiki.flightgear.org/AI_Traffic#Creating_the_base_network For testing purposes it's advisable to create an additional scenery directory. When you are happy with the result you can submit it to https://groundweb.azurewebsites.net/ it will then hopefully be reviewed. Kind regards [PortreeKid] Keith |
From: Johan De B. <joh...@gm...> - 2022-12-25 12:15:16
|
Hi, my name is Johan. I recently started working on some of my local airports because there were some things wrong in terms with the groundnet.xml and runwayuse.xml. I am working on the airports: EBBR and EBCI and I got the xml for EBBR ready, but the only problem is when I paste the new groundnet in the flightgear terrasync folder (in my case: C:\Users\User\FlightGear\Downloads\TerraSync\Airports\E\B\B) it resets itself to the original folder after starting flightgear up for a few times. How can I make the xml document permanent? I would also like to know what the requirements to release this small addon in case I would like to release it? Thank you in advance regards, Johan De Bondt |
From: merspieler <mer...@ai...> - 2022-10-12 17:30:58
|
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 08:32:28PM +0200, Keith Paterson wrote: > Am 07.10.2022 um 17:07 schrieb mer...@ai...: > > I don't plan on doing a rebuild any time soon as it involves > > much time and also cost (paying for the electricity it takes to run > > that stuff > > on a server). > > Due to that I don't have any incentive right now to rebuild it. > > > Understandable. Do you have an indication how long it runs for and how > much electricity (kw/h) we are talking about? 1-2 months and my server draws about 260W under full load. Here, one kWh costs about 55 cents right now so that's over 100 bucks a month |
From: Keith P. <kei...@gm...> - 2022-10-11 18:32:43
|
Am 07.10.2022 um 17:07 schrieb mer...@ai...: > I don't plan on doing a rebuild any time soon as it involves > much time and also cost (paying for the electricity it takes to run > that stuff > on a server). > Due to that I don't have any incentive right now to rebuild it. > Understandable. Do you have an indication how long it runs for and how much electricity (kw/h) we are talking about? Keith |
From: <mer...@ai...> - 2022-10-07 15:08:12
|
On 2022-10-07 09:37, jdt37b wrote: > Apparently, it is a rebuild of the OpenStreetMap database that can > prevent "Static" objects from being hidden by the "Buildings" located > in the same place. That's correct > For information, is a rebuild of this database planned soon ? I don't plan on doing a rebuild any time soon as it involves much time and also cost (paying for the electricity it takes to run that stuff on a server). Due to that I don't have any incentive right now to rebuild it. |
From: jdt37b <jd...@gm...> - 2022-10-07 07:38:01
|
Hello, Apparently, it is a rebuild of the OpenStreetMap database that can prevent "Static" objects from being hidden by the "Buildings" located in the same place. For information, is a rebuild of this database planned soon ? Thank you for your answer. |
From: Michel C. <mic...@gm...> - 2020-10-10 11:33:46
|
Hello, I noticed a problem with Moorea airport, and with this Pacific island in general: part of the island is under water (in the scenery). Water covers part of the island and even part of the track. I am using FlightGear 2020.1.1 with Terra Sync. Is there anything I can do to help fixing this ? |
From: Richard H. <rj...@za...> - 2020-04-13 22:09:14
|
On 13/04/2020 10:42, Dušan Kazik wrote: > If i want to see Golden Gate Bridge in FlightGear, should i install/add > its model or it should be integrated in FG data/scenery? > > > Using FG 2019.1.1 This is related to a known fault in 2019.1; it should be fixed in the next release - it also should be fixed in a nightly build. |
From: Dušan K. <pre...@gm...> - 2020-04-13 12:19:45
|
Hi folks! Please can somebody help me with generating buildings/scenery from Openstreetmap? I have found wiki about osm2city tool, but i dont know, how to use it in "real" life. Using FG 2019.1.1 with Linux. Thanks for help! Cheers Dusan |
From: Dušan K. <pre...@gm...> - 2020-04-13 08:42:13
|
Hi folks! If i want to see Golden Gate Bridge in FlightGear, should i install/add its model or it should be integrated in FG data/scenery? Because i cant see it while flying near place, where it should be visible. Using FG 2019.1.1 Thanks for your help. Cheers Dusan |
From: SD1983 <SD...@pr...> - 2020-02-09 08:45:15
|
Hello, I have created a much more detailed New Zealand scenery for FlightGear which is much more detailed than the current region available in TerraSync . I am requesting this region to replaces New Zealand in the TerraSync Server . Link to scenery information, https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36892 . Regards Stephen . |
From: Daweed Le F. <daw...@gm...> - 2019-08-23 21:23:51
|
Hello, thanks for the reply, but as it's is own words in the forum thread https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27476&start=75#p352037 "If you think the restrictions could be expanded or lifted, make it known on the Dev List. If you've the knowledge to improve fps whilst relaxing the restrictions, convince the developers." This sentence implies that it follows the instructions from the "core developper" I need some help to clearly find a way to keep nice texturing material. If you take the time to read the forum thread you will see that we are talking about a texture with 1024x1024 with a 511 Ko weight ... that no so heavy... I follow his advise looking as he request to look after some other model [ https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27476&start=75#p352039 ] .. all example he gave to me lead to model that does not have texture, or have texture 1024x1024 as i have stated on my answer [ https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27476&start=75#p352058 ] >From that moment, he just decide that he had not to justify the reject reason ... What i don't understand is that i have following all the rules : Model size is under 2 Mo [ it's static models ] and there is no clear rules for texture size [ nothing on the scenery website ] >From the moment I took it to fault, and if you take the trouble and time to read the thread of the forum in question I think you will agree, he began to be a spring. For I do not know what reasons he decided that he would not validate my models, while the examples they ask me to follow are in the same case [texture with resolution 1024x1024] For raising this point I follow insulted to be uncompromising while the one who refused the compromise and hear that it would destroy the consistency of buildings is Vic I do not see how I can keep a coherence and a nice rendering with 256x256 textures I think I provided on the forum enough of the work that he was wrong but he did not want to hear any pretext that he was just following the recommendations of the "core developper" I want to be wrong, as I said take a lesson, but not with bad example as he did. Finally it still does not answer the question why is it necessary to see so small so that FG could be so big cordially daweed Le ven. 23 août 2019 à 04:59, Scott <sc...@gm...> a écrit : > I'm aware of no such order coming from the core developers. Vic, being > the scenery moderator, has discretion to challenge any texture he feels is > excessively large or which is in need of further optimization. > On 8/22/19 1:14 PM, Daweed Le Fermier wrote: > > ello, > > I am encountering some problem with my scenery model. > > For a long time, there were no problem to submit texture with 1024x1024 > resolution [ content day/night ] > > To have a good quality on airport model [ i am designing the LFLL scenery > ] i need to keep this resolution. Recently 3 static model submitted have > been rejected and VicMar ask me to go down to 256x256 ... To have a good > quality it's clearly impossible to go to theese resolution > > So > > 1°) I would like to know why now texture resolution should be so low [ > 256x256 cannot be a used for enough details on hudge airport terminal / > building ] > > 2°) Why, as VicMar said that order come from the devel team, you want to > put so ugly texturing thing in Flightgear. FG > > > Flightgear deserved better than a world at the minecraft style it seems to > me. > > While waiting for your return, thank you in advance > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery > |
From: Scott <sc...@gm...> - 2019-08-23 02:58:48
|
I'm aware of no such order coming from the core developers. Vic, being the scenery moderator, has discretion to challenge any texture he feels is excessively large or which is in need of further optimization. On 8/22/19 1:14 PM, Daweed Le Fermier wrote: > > ello, > > I am encountering some problem with my scenery model. > > For a long time, there were no problem to submit texture with > 1024x1024 resolution [ content day/night ] > > To have a good quality on airport model [ i am designing the LFLL > scenery ] i need to keep this resolution. Recently 3 static model > submitted have been rejected and VicMar ask me to go down to 256x256 > ... To have a good quality it's clearly impossible to go to theese > resolution > > So > > 1°) I would like to know why now texture resolution should be so low [ > 256x256 cannot be a used for enough details on hudge airport terminal > / building ] > > 2°) Why, as VicMar said that order come from the devel team, you want > to put so ugly texturing thing in Flightgear. FG > > > Flightgear deserved better than a world at the minecraft style it > seems to me. > > While waiting for your return, thank you in advance > > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery |
From: Daweed Le F. <daw...@gm...> - 2019-08-22 18:14:51
|
ello, I am encountering some problem with my scenery model. For a long time, there were no problem to submit texture with 1024x1024 resolution [ content day/night ] To have a good quality on airport model [ i am designing the LFLL scenery ] i need to keep this resolution. Recently 3 static model submitted have been rejected and VicMar ask me to go down to 256x256 ... To have a good quality it's clearly impossible to go to theese resolution So 1°) I would like to know why now texture resolution should be so low [ 256x256 cannot be a used for enough details on hudge airport terminal / building ] 2°) Why, as VicMar said that order come from the devel team, you want to put so ugly texturing thing in Flightgear. FG Flightgear deserved better than a world at the minecraft style it seems to me. While waiting for your return, thank you in advance |
From: Scott <sc...@gm...> - 2019-06-20 17:20:26
|
What's the process for becoming an Author for the Scenery website? I have several new models I'm expecting to have ready for submission next week. Author: Scott Giese E-mail: sc...@gm... |
From: Grzegorz W. <wie...@gm...> - 2019-04-19 08:26:55
|
Hello, thank you, it looks better now. Just a general question, can this repo be somehow... merged with the official scenery? What is the procedure? Thanks again, Best, On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:10 AM m.h...@gm... <m.h...@gm...> wrote: > > try this Custom Scenery: > https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-SCENERY/Poland-fg-CustomScenery > > |
From: <m.h...@gm...> - 2019-04-18 00:10:09
|
try this Custom Scenery: https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-SCENERY/Poland-fg-CustomScenery |
From: Grzegorz W. <wie...@gm...> - 2019-04-17 23:49:58
|
Hello, I have a question regarding the airport in Warsaw, PL. Is it possible to view the airport in flightgear? I can only see the ground (runways, taxiways, signs), but nothing like on the FG wiki page ( http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:EPWA.png) - no buildings. I noticed, that the links to the Polish custom scenery (http://wiki.flightgear.org/Poland) are dead... I tried the scenery downloaded with terramaster as well as the built-in terrasync. I run FG 2018.3.2, but nothing has changed since several releases. I would be grateful for any hint! Best regards, Grzegorz |
From: Scott <sc...@gm...> - 2019-04-12 18:43:18
|
Hi Tim, Always happy to hear from someone interested in scenery creation. Unfortunately, the owner of that shapefile service has taken it down permanently. You have a few options: - Generate new shapefiles - https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35618 - Reproduce the original shapefiles via FGBlenderTools - https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34736 Good luck with your project Tim. Scott On 4/12/19 12:16 PM, Tim Dicus wrote: > Greetings! I am interested in accessing the shapefile server for > TerraGear so I can rebuild some Caribbean islands, specifically Saba > (TNCS). They appear to be down (non-responsive). > > > I have WorldEditor, TerraGear and terragearGUI. All seems to work ok > until I get to the shapefile server data. Unable to connect to the > server. > > > Thanks for your time. > > > Tim Dicus > > C/S Pirate or N2ST > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery |
From: Tim D. <ti...@pr...> - 2019-04-12 17:29:29
|
Greetings! I am interested in accessing the shapefile server for TerraGear so I can rebuild some Caribbean islands, specifically Saba (TNCS). They appear to be down (non-responsive). I have WorldEditor, TerraGear and terragearGUI. All seems to work ok until I get to the shapefile server data. Unable to connect to the server. Thanks for your time. Tim Dicus C/S Pirate or N2ST |
From: Wayne B. <kil...@co...> - 2018-09-19 18:21:21
|
I was working on an unrelated issue and got distracted by yet another issue and switched course mid stream. That uncovered a potential problem with the tutorials for the c172p and the weather system. It appears if I have Advanced weather - METAR selected in the QT-Launcher and load at a random airport, then run the Amphibious takeoff tutorial (maybe others as well), the tutorial is written to change the METAR mode to Fair Weather using the following initialization <set> <property>/environment/weather-scenario</property> <value>Fair weather</value> </set> What appears to be happening is it is changing the property and thus the field in the GUI but I don't think it is changing the actual mode. Worse, depending on where your original starting airport is it can also create some really bad visuals with the clouds, but not always. I am not the original author of most of the code and used existing examples to create these tutorials. This issue could potentially be in every tutorial in the c172p and any other tutorial throughout the aircraft base where the developer used these tutorials as reference. From USCC METAR mode to the tutorial at PHNL I get cloud formations like this http://i.imgur.com/2aCWKDy.png http://i.imgur.com/UC2EUo0.png From KEQA METAR mode to the tutorial at PHNL I get this http://i.imgur.com/pY2phJK.png Is there a proper way in the tutorial code to change the weather mode in Advanced weather or would it be best not to attempt to change the weather mode at all in the tutorial? Thanks, Wayne |
From: Paterson, K. <kei...@gm...> - 2018-09-19 11:29:47
|
I was also thinking about similar things. What has always put me off is roads that aren't "flat" in mountainous terrain. Railways could get cuttings and tunnels. If the mesh was post-processed with OSM features, that might be possible. |
From: James H. <jam...@gm...> - 2018-09-17 13:38:36
|
(I know this is not a very active list ... this is a bit of a test to see if it can come alive...) Hi all, At the moment few real cliffs appear in the terrain as the drop in elevation is spread over the spacing of the elevation grid. For the SRTM-1 30 metre spacing, this would reduce in the worst case 30m vertical cliffs to about a 45 degree slope, and for SRTM-3, well, just go and have a look at the White Cliffs around Dover in the UK. Now, OSM have cliffs (lines labelled with 'natural=cliff') which could be incorporated into the terrain. My first idea was to use ogr-decode to include the cliffs as just another line string that is turned into narrow polygons (like streams), and then using a new 'cliff' classification in terragear these polygons could have elevations assigned to their nodes based on the closest elevation grid point at top or bottom of the cliff, effectively turning them from almost flat polygons to almost side-on polygons. Now there are a few little things to solve there, like generating polygons that consistently have first and second points at bottom and top respectively, and working out where the closest elevation grid point might be. What is quite exciting is that once that is done the now almost-vertical cliff polygons could be automatically assigned the 'rock' material, and then you could use the procedural rock textures in no doubt spectacular ways. And where a stream goes over a cliff, you could have a waterfall, which could be a whole new effect. However, what this relatively simple plan neglects is that any non-cliff feature nodes between the cliff edge and the grid elevation point would have elevations assigned by the original elevation interpolation routines, and would thus stick out above the landscape at the base of the cliff, or else be sunken below the top of the cliff. The only way I can see to fix this is for the cliff lines to be added into the Array class, so that they can be taken into account for elevation calculations. There may also be issues around the edges of tiles that I don't have much of a handle on, so may or may not be significant. Does anybody reading this have any feedback as to how realistic this plan is? Am I missing anything here? James. |
From: Geoff M. <ub...@ge...> - 2016-11-03 19:36:38
|
Thanks for the links... The first is a great list of VMAP0 (I think) shape files, world coverage... Can you remind me what terragear tools should be used to chop this shp data into buckets? TG used to have VPF tools to directly extract, and chop the raw VMAP0 data files... I have the eur, noa, sas, and soa libraries... and could bring back these VPF tools... And WOW, the OSM link seems to show **lots** of options... ;=)) Will explore this... do you have a specific suggestion within these to get land use, road, rivers, rail stuff, by say bounding box, or...? Thanks, Geoff. On 03/11/16 08:55, m.h...@gm... wrote: > Am 03.11.2016 um 01:36 schrieb Geoff McLane: >> Where to get the land usage information, and the >> roads, rivers, railways, ... data... to reconstruct, in >> this case, an island tile... > ftp://ftp.ihg.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/TGShapes/ > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shapefiles#Obtaining_shapefiles_from_OSM_data > > |
From: Fernando H. <fer...@gm...> - 2016-11-03 13:10:42
|
Hello Geoff, I've improved landmarks of Buenos Aires (roads, trains, trees, etc) by accessing our national geographic institute (that data is free and open) and I've noticed that, that kind of information is usually present in the municipality web sites of your area of interest, I may be a good idea to start explore that possibility and eventually try to find a contact in the area of interest that may give you the files. Cheers, Fer./ On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Geoff McLane <ub...@ge...> wrote: > Hi all, > > It has been quite a while since I built the > terragear suite of tools, and used them to > generate scenery tiles... > > Have successfully used 'gdalchop' to divide up, > say DEM 3 S18W150.hgt, and used 'terrafit' to > create the equivalent 'fit' files, in the 'SRTM-3' > dir... > > And successfully re-generated NTTM.btg.gz... looks > good, and seems equivalent to current terrasync, but ... > need some help... > > Where to get the land usage information, and the > roads, rivers, railways, ... data... to reconstruct, in > this case, an island tile... > > Any help appreciated... > > Regards, > Geoff > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------ > Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors > Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. > With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. > Training and support from Colfax. > Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-scenery mailing list > Fli...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery > -- Fernando P. Hauscarriaga |