flightgear-scenery Mailing List for FlightGear - Flight Simulator

Hello everyone,

I hope to address the right people!

Apparently since the summer of 2024 and still today, new or updated 
models and objects that can be seen in the list "Scenery Model 
Directory" no longer "go up" (or late) in TerraSync local directories.
With FG and active scene download, as with Terramaster, the .ac, .png 
files and .stg objects are not downloaded, only the date of the 
.dirindex and/or .dirhash files seems to be updated.
Example on my PC: only the model LIML_terminal3.ac in Milan and dated 
2025-02-08 could be downloaded since 16/12/2024.
(nb: it seems Ok for other objects "Roads", "Buildings", ...)

Are you aware of the causes of these delays or absences for TerraSync 
updates ?  (I am not the only one to see them)
What to do, is the problem technical or related to a lack of 
availability of "validators"?
Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,
jdt37b (sorry for my English!)

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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

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 .

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...://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery
>
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-scenery mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-scenery
>

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

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

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...

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
>
>

try this Custom Scenery:
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-SCENERY/Poland-fg-CustomScenery

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

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

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

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

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.

(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.

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
>
>