OPEN BETA/COMMUNITY PROJECT: OSM World

[Mariopilot 9]

 

 

Ahaaa, thx. I was about to cut all the shorelines with extended river polygons but using a texture is much more effective and straightforward!!

 

I did try similar approaches, but when pewrforming boolean operations (intersect, subtract, ect..) on layers withy a lot of features QGIS takes ages...!! I avoided these as much as I could!

[Luis Hernandez 572]

Mario, I've just remembered about the SAME files you shared me some days ago: for FS9 purposes, where is Panama located? NAME, NAMW or SAME? This because I see your map going up to Nicaragua at least, instead of stopping at the Darién Gap.

[Mariopilot 9]

My map covers the space occupied by the default SAME LWM files. Every country that finds itself in that area is to be included. If the country is halfway, it will be sliced. one part goes in SAME, the other goes in NAMW or NAME depending on location....(to be complated later when needed). EURW area has a few sliced countries, listed in the how-to guide I believe...

FS9 appears not to know political boundaries... and by doing this way we3 make sure that we can safely kill all LWM files in a default FS9 area without causing coverage holes!

For the SAME files, if you have trouble with layer coordinate systems (I had), remove all .qpg  and .prj files. QGIS will n ow default every new layer to WGS84 which is what we want

[AndyPaul 11]

Hey Mario,

 

the airport excludes are included in the file EURW_22_Libobj_excl.bgl, correct?

[AndyPaul 11]

Came accross a couple of errors between Norway and Denmark. Looks like a problem with the LWM's. If I place the default scenery above OSM World in the scenery.cfg, the thin lines dissappear but the thick triangle still exists.

 

[Mariopilot 9]

The excludes are located there, yes. The name is ambiguous as it actually kills everything!

 

if the line disappears it is likely the masking land class! the big triangle may be a LWM problem, will need to check out that!

[AndyPaul 11]

The excludes are located there, yes. The name is ambiguous as it actually kills everything!

 

if the line disappears it is likely the masking land class! the big triangle may be a LWM problem, will need to check out that!

 

I am flying without those excludes (deactivated the file) and haven't encountered any problems. What was your reason for implementing those (Just curious)? If one keeps the default flattens (FL*.bgl) it shouldn't be required or am I wrong here?

 

Edit: Right, flattens are no excludes of course

[Mariopilot 9]

These are supposed to keep road autogen out of the way.... the much denser road network may plant light poles across a runway at times...

[AndyPaul 11]

Ah, that makes sense indeed

[AndyPaul 11]

Gentlemen,

 

I have uploaded a shapefile to the dropbox with a LOD5 grid for the world, including labels. So it is easy to determine into which lod5 cell a specific area falls. I will enhance the shapefile by adding the different regions, but that is something for later.

 

Cheers

[Mariopilot 9]

Thanks a lot

[Luis Hernandez 572]

I haven't been able to finish the work with Brazilian roads, so I uploaded all the roads, rivers and rails I have for all other South American countries (up to the Darién Gap, plus Aruba, Bonaire, Curação and Trinidad & Tobago).

 

There is something you may not see: the files for Venezuela also cover the Guyanas, Suriname, Aruba, Bonaire, Curação, and Trinidad & Tobago.

[Mariopilot 9]

Luis, thanks!

 

Do you plan to resume it later? No rush, it is going to take a while before I am done with the coastlines!!

 

Just for your info: roads are supposed to be split by categories, just like the original EURW package... that is because:

1)scenery area  layering makes big roads run on top of smaller ones, no matter the "VTP Layer"

2) files are smaller, compile faster and are easier to troubleshoot.

3) users can turn off some categories of roads if they wish so

4) if you already have an OSM world package, installing another does not require all the trouble of adding 10 scenery areas again...

 

If you plan to resume your work, could you update the files to follow the original scheme? file names are not critical, but subdivisions are...

 

Why the VTP excludes? they may obliterate unwanted stuff, that is why I stayed away from them...plus the OSM world system solves the issue by moving away the default files....

[Luis Hernandez 572]

I must confess I never installed your EURW package, so I never saw how you split the packages. So, to each of your points:

 

1) Wow, 6 years fiddling with sceneries and never noticed this...

3) Good point.

4) What I uploaded was just for a single scenery area, I have it this way on my laptop, but your point #3 is a big BUT I should not ignore. I stand corrected.

2) Files smaller? Agree. Compile faster? Agree. Troubleshoot faster? I'm not that sure. Well, actually, all the errors I've got were while compiling in SBuilder, that's why I can't see the advantage for troubleshooting. There is something I can see in disadvantage: developing time (the time while you click here, there and there and actually do something other than watching the computer working for you). With more files, more developing time.

 

However, rest assured I'll resume my work, specially because Brazil is far from complete, it's practically 50% of South America. Do you know if there is a way to batch process shapefiles in QGIS, at least to get up to BLNs?

 

And for the excludes, sincerly, I'm more afraid of moving default files than excluding layers. Although I'll give you the reason when I say that my excludes are 75% of the files, judging by file size.

[Mariopilot 9]

Ah I see, VTPX by SBuilder you are using.. but yet again, a VTPX polygon kills all in every LOD13 cell it touches... and it occupies the same space as the original data set as it is just another VTPP...

I know dev time is long, and BORING... once you figure the process out it becomes evident... to me it took almost a year to the first package... although I had to start some things back from scratch as I went figuring this things out... I also think that VTPX risks of killing airport base polygons and similar things... I attempted it instead of the airport rectangular exludes... but went for the latter as I prefer to have roads close by the airports and a bit of missing autogen in the immediate vicinity rather than kill the roads and see them interrupt right where you fly the lowest to the ground...

If you feel like it you can try adapting the roads to the "OSM World" subdivision scheme...