From: David M. <da...@me...> - 2001-06-21 11:41:41
|
Mally writes: > Can I beg to be unimpressed? Until we start getting the visual > appearance to the level currently being achieved by Terragen (see > http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/images.shtml or > http://home.iprimus.com.au/degsy/) We won't. Since TerraGen is Java-based, it already runs under non-MS platforms, and it would not be too difficult for us to use the textures in FlightGear right now, the way that Curt used the San Jose aerial photo for the SJC scenery (though TerraGen's license would not allow us to redistribute that scenery). Here are the problems: 1. TerraGen really looks good only with US-specific data from the USGS; this problem could be fixed with new datasets and some filters, but since FlightGear is an international project rather than consumer software aimed mainly at the US market, we have to try to be even-handed. 2. TerraGen scenery takes *forever* to generate -- i.e. over an hour for a 10nm x 10nm square on a fairly fast machine. Generating scenery even for the US could take months or years. 3. Since TerraGen uses textures rather than polygons, the generated scenery is enormous. Even the largest available consumer hard drives could hold only a tiny fraction of the world, while with polygons, we can give you the world in a few gigs. Textures also suck when you get close to the ground, while polygons keep their definition (try landing on a texture runway in the SJC scenery, and you'll see what I mean). And boy, is it jarring when you fly into or out of a TerraGen or satellite photo area in FLY! I think that it will be nice to have the option to include satellite photos or TerraGen textures in FlightGear, but I don't think it should ever be the default. > AND we can see the clouds being blown by the winds AND we can see > them changing shape (as they do), then it still takes a mental act > of faith to convince yourself that these are 'real' clouds, and > we're just discussing the degree to which the rendition approaches > a static photographic image of a cloud. Agreed. We do, however, need the ability to fly down through holes in the clouds; right now, when you pass through a cloud layer, you get zero-visibility no matter what. All the best, David -- David Megginson da...@me... |