Anyone having 30m mesh for the pacific northwest post .

[Guest]

Could someone having this mesh be willing to post a picture of boeing field at an altitue high enough to capture the whole field but close enough to see the terrain in detail surrounding the field and also the details of the mesh scenery. I would really appreciate.I have another post concerning the mesh that I have used. It was free and I no longer know the source. I still have it but wanted to see if other offerings rendered the same elevations.TksBobG

[Guest Heather 636]

Here you go Bob. I hope it's what you're looking for.Let me know if i can be of any additional help.Cheers!Heather

[Guest]

I was hoping for about 1500 - 2000 agl. Also is this using a 30m mesh?Thanks Heather I should have been a little more detailed. Im trying to see if the airport looks like it's in a canyon. The mesh I had used does not even come close to what the airport looks like in reality in respect to the elevations which surround it. Thanks Heather for your responseRegardsBobG

[Guest]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware there was a 30 meter mesh for the northwest area. I am currently using all of Orlando Sotomayor's 30m meshes on top of Eddie Denney's 60(?)m worldwide mesh. Because of this I am lead to believe that the mesh in my screenshot is probably Eddie Denney's scenery, although it seems to provide sufficient detail for the area. Boeing Field is sitting in an indentation, although I cannot attest to how accurate it is to reality. -Derek D.

[Guest Heather 636]

Okay, try these with the plane just shy of 2000 feet.I have installed a lot of meshes. I am 95% certain that this is 30m.Regards,Heather

[Guest Heather 636]

To be honest, I do not know what mesh it is in regards to size. It's title is: Pacific Northwest Landclass UpdateFilename: pnwlandclass.zip Author: Neil Hill Size: 170kb Here's the read-me from the one I used:Pacific Northwest Landclass Version B.April, 2002For Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002By: Neil Hill (based on Data Source provided by Matt Fox)nshill@msn.comNOTE: Due to a process problem the version A files did not accurately show Matt Fox's data and should be replaced with these B Versions. Summary:These files will update the land classes from Oregon to above Vancover, BC based on digital data obtained from various U.S. Government sources and compiled by Matt Fox (see below). Installation:The easiest way is to install the BGL files is in the "Scenery" folder that is found under your FS 2002 installation folder (NOT the scenedb folder). The program will automatically use them next time you start. The load time for scenery will increase due to loading the additional textures.Alternatively, you can install the BGL files in their own scenery folders in ADDON SCENERY (or your favorite location) as any other scenery file and "ADD" them via the FS 2002 Scenery Library. One advantage of this is that you can turn off the particular scenery from the Scenery Library menu at any time. If you put them in a separate folder such as "PNW LC", then put them in a separate scenery folder inside it but DON'T CREATE A TEXTURE FOLDER. Make sure you move the files at least down under Portland and Seattle or you will lose the photorealistic textures from PDX and SEA. I put them just above "Additional Facility Data". The BMP's are source information/data and should not go into the ADDON SCENERY folder. Data Sources and Software info by Matt Fox:In case you're wondering I used various datasets from www.nationalatlas.gov including the Land Use, Forest Type and Night Lights of North America data sets. The basic Land Use data was used as the base and then I overlaid the Forest type data and finally used the Night Lights of North America data to generate various densities of urban areas. I experimented with a couple of other sources of land use data before deciding on these data sets since I think they have a better look to them then the other land use data available. For example the other land class dataset has a lot of blotchy areas and the one I used doesn't. Finally, I spent many hours manually fine tuning the land classes to get them as close as possible to reality using aerial photographs and comments from people that are familiar with the various areas.Using the dataset mentioned above: (based on note from Matt as I started the PNW LC project)You need to run FS Land Class (see Burkhard's program at http://fssharecentercom/fslandclass) and open the section you want to upgrade/revise. Then "Export" that image (Note: requires running FSLC at 1 pixel Square size, see preferences under the Help menu). Then you can load that BMP into an image editing program such as MSPaint (the simple one on your computer) or Photoshop, etc and line up Matts BMP (or the Matt's Landclass GIF image dataset converted to BMP in AT LEAST 24 BIT color) onto it.Note from Neil: the BMP image is not pixel for pixel aligned with that FSLC BMP. You may have to use the image stretch/skew functions of horizontal % and vertical % to get the two images to align, maybe even cut and paste. The object is to line up the cities in Matt's BMP to the corresponding cities in FSLC's BMP. In version B I have renamed the BMP files to that used by FSLC so they can be "imported" directly for touchup activity, if you want. When you export the BMP from FSLC there is a series of colors along the right hand side. If you want to change land classes just figure out which land class you want to insert somewhere and then use the color picker to figure out which color it is. For example, the 50th pixel from the top would be land class #50, etc.Then just import it back into FS Land Class. It takes a little while to figure out, but not that hard. Use the FSLC Write-Resample function under the File menu to convert the BMP into the BGL that is used by FS 2002.Legal:Feel free to do whatever you want with the enclosed files so long as you don't profit from their use. You may upload to other sites and make modifications. You don't need to ask my permission. All I ask is that you give Matt credit if you use them as part of something else. Hope this helps.Heather

[Guest sgreenwood]

Hi Bob,Here is an aerial photo of Boeing Fieldhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d23002e1706e78a.jpgA top-down image of the field in FS2002 using my 30m meshhttp://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d23004e1747a9c7.jpgA closeup, also with my 30m mesh (same landclass data) - quite different from the image posted by Derek. http://ftp.avsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3d23007817d1b24e.jpgI have posted full size versions of these images and several others here (large page, please be patient).I don't know what mesh you are using, but the mesh Derek is using does not seem to be very accurate, despite the amount of detail. Interesting. Does my version look more accurate?FYI, my mesh was constructed from USGS NED source data (30m converted to 38m for the sim). I expect to have comparable mesh for the entire continental US available in a few days. Check my website for status.Hope this helps,Stevewww.fs-traveler.comPS: I have also constructed mesh comparable to Mr. Denney's (probably the same source he used); I'll see how that looks.

[Justin Toposim 16]

HI Bob,Here's what it looks like with The West Coast 38m Enhanced Terrain CD:http://www.fsgenesis.com/images/boeingfield38m.jpgJustinhttp://www.fsgenesis.com

[Guest sgreenwood]

Bob,With lower resolution mesh (90m -> 38m), my airport also "looks like it's in a canyon."I believe this is because there is so little source data to work with. The sim is forced to create an average slope from the hills on one side down to river level on the other. It then displays the field at the original elevation, which is lower than the artificial average created by the less accurate mesh. This seems to be a case where higher resolution mesh actually works better with the default scenery.I hope this is not more than you really wanted to know about terrain mesh!Stevewww.fs-traveler.com

[Justin Toposim 16]

HI Steve,Also, the 90m 1-degree dataset has significant problems in the seattle area to begin with. Even resampled at 76m resolution, you'll see the same canyon, albeit at lower resolution.The 90m source for that area is simply "error-prone." :-)Justinhttp://www.fsgenesis.com

[Guest sgreenwood]

Hi Justin,I agree. I have both resolutions, and did check both, just to be sure.Speaking of quality ...The 1-degree dataset presents some interesting issues for developers, and so for folks who may use the mesh they create. While somewhat flawed, the data is easy to work with because each source file covers such a large area, but this can also lead to cutting corners in production for the same reason.Some time ago, a problem with the same dataset in the San Francisco area led me to look at other mesh available for the region. (Not yours; perhaps the mesh in question here.) In the area I examined, I could identify bands of default mesh at 2-degree intervals, presumably because the developer had not overlapped the boundries to compensate for the area trimmed by the resample process. As if problems with the source data were not enough to contend with! (My own mesh for the same area did not have those gaps, so the USGS is blameless in that situation.) Working with the NED data makes the overlapping process so much easier. I hope the USGS provides the same great service with the 30m SRTM data for the rest of the world someday. That will provide enough material to keep us all busy, developing and flying, for quite a while!Stevewww.fs-traveler.com

[Justin Toposim 16]

HI Steve,Overlapping is not necessary if you simply set the boundaries in your (destination) header to match the nearest LOD quadrant boundry corresponding to your INF's LOD.Given the "Terror War", I doubt if NIMA will consent to unclassified international 30m DEMs. I'll bet the best we can expect internationally is the 90m set. Of course, the 30m will probably be available at a premium price from other sources.Not exactly sure why 30m data would need to be classified, though. But international DTED Level 1 and 2 has always been classified for some reason.Hope I'm wrong, but September 11 seems to have given an already sphincter-centric, secret-ridden agency (NIMA) an excuse to be even more constipated with their terrain data. Well, maybe they know something I don't know. :-)Too bad, too. We could make good, harmless, productive use of it if we could get hold of it.Justinhttp://www.fsgenesis.com

[Guest]

Heather thanks. I dont think Im seeing 30m mesh. Are you sure you installed? If so whos is it? I cant believe all who chimed in on this thank you soooo muchBobG