From: Gijs de R. <gij...@ho...> - 2012-02-24 14:04:46
|
Hi all, and especially Martin, first of all let me say that I completely respect your decision. I'm sure, knowing you're way of decision making, that you've been thinking it over for a while. Without trying to change your opinion, I do like to give you my view on the scenery issue. You know that I support a centralized scenery database, but through the extensive contact with "the community" (if I may say so) I did gain some respect for their reasoning. More on that below. Now that automated scenery downloading (via TerraSync) is integrated into the sim there are more scenery-database users than ever. So it's importance is definitely not decreasing, even the contrary! Talking to many (new) users and (scenery) developers over the past years I've found that there are reasons (you can argue whether they are valid reasons, but they are reasons) for releasing scenery independant from the scenery database: Landclassing: submitting landclassing data to the scenery database is rather easy. I did some parts myself (West Frisian islands, Dubai, Manhattan). Two years after I submitted Dubai, it's still not included in the scenery. If I'm not mistaken, the last scenery build dates back to 2008... I don't blame Martin for this (absolutely not), it's just an observation. Airport layouts: following up on the previous point, updates for airport layouts can be submitted. Another thing I've done for quite some airports. But, since the terrain isn't rebuilt after such changes, airport layouts that were updated years ago are still nothing more than a few lines in a .dat file.Object placement: various airports are/were so incorrect in the scenery (there's an airport in Belgium that's 300m shifted IIRC) that it's impossible (and a waste of time) to place objects in such a way that they don't interfer with the (bad) layout.Annoying the scenery maintainers: when you add a lot of objects, and are still updating them frequently, you don't want to annoy the scenery maintainers with dozens of requests/updates. Oliver is tackling this part with the automation. Licensing: we don't have much scenery that's non-gpl, but there are a few areas. This is obviously a good reason that we cannot do much about. To give one recent example that applies to most of these reasons: LOWI. It has an updated airport layout, custom landclassing and is under heavy development. The author told me that he'll put all of it in the database once it is finished. Altough I don't know his exact reasoning, I imagine the above mentioned reasons are certainly part of it. In order to tackle these reasons, we need to have more frequent scenery builds. If I'm not mistaken that is/was on Martin's todo-list. After submitting an airport layout or shapefile update, scenery should get rebuilt automatically. I am aware of the challenges with that (eg. gaps between tiles). I'd like to learn how I can help. Yves, I'll try to come on IRC the next week for sure, excellent idea! I'll stop writing now, already typed to many words for the current University project this morning. Getting dizzy from all the words that passed my screen the last 6 hours or so... Last but not least: Martin, thanks for all you've done! I'm sure there will be one day that the majority will be thankfull for everything you did! In fact all TerraSync users already are (without knowing I assume). Cheers, Gijs |