Elevated airports?

[Guest]

We're not discussing the US, where good accurate data is available.The original post was discussing Europe.Where is your 10m DEM of Europe?Other than UK and Ireland and Parts of Portugal There's very little mesh that exists that's based on data readily available on the web.Outside of Norfolk (UK) I wouldn't say England is Flat. It has gently rolling pastures which are best depicted using the Mesh from Visual Flight. Anything else is based on 1 Km point data readily found on the web.We all welcome everyone's contribution to this hobby.Again I must say that different map projections yield different results. There's no right or wrong to it. Suffice it to say the earth isn't flat and it isn't a sphere either! Since it spins, the top & bottom are somewhat flattened making reference points difficult to define.So we are left with 'How does it look?'To make a more detailed mesh requires data from sources other than the web. You might think that buying maps and reading the contours and gleaning information from them would be a solution. Well, no! Map publishers jealously guard their copyrighted maps and will go after anyone who tries to use their products to produce accurate DEM's, Including meshes for FS.I think a lot of work has gone into the UK Mesh from Visual Flight.The developers live in the country whose mesh they produce.My recent trip to the UK verified the high level of accuracy this mesh contains. Using airport elevations as extra data points makes sense and improves the mesh. Sure, I would love a 10m mesh but the best we can hope for is 30m in the not too distant future. I should look up my friends at JPL and ask for a copy today.

[Guest]

Exactly Ihor;Sorry - we do not have 10 m dem for Europe just yet! Maybe in the year 2100 can be available! I refer to the picture above - where I can not see any elevations but just few cows standing up - and therefore editing can be a much more simple task - rather than areas where elevation are far higher - - My motto is - IF A COW CAN STAND UP - AN AIRPORT WILL FIT WELL!! Howewer the best you can hope for Europe is 90 m - and is not in the near future.Ray

[Guest]

>Europe is 90 m - and is not in the near futureIf the timeline is respected we could have it as soon as...http://edc.usgs.gov/srtm/Data/cbandtimeline.html

[Justin Toposim 16]

Unfortunately, that timeline was published before 9/11.Since then, there are now numerous hoops to jump through before the data can be obtained. NIMA, the US Military Mapping Agency, now controls (tightly) the access to the data.JustinFSGhttp://www.fsgenesis.com

[Guest]

If the US is already available I don't see why EU shouldn't be (security wise)ftp://edcsgs9.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/srtm/GDPS/United_States/

[Guest GerrishGray]

Sorry Ray, you really ought to get your facts straight before implying any criticism of the excellent work by John. The UK is by no means flat! I tried your mesh but found so many errors (not your fault, I know, you can only work with the data available) that I had to give up on it. The MS default was actually better in some places. You did manage to make Scotland and Wales a bit more rugged, but by no means craggy enough for us locals. Then Visual Flight came along and I didn't mind paying the price for something so excellent. John is a topographical survey specialist and knows exactly what he is about. His advantages are (a) local knowledge, (:( specialist professional skills, and © access to additional data sources that he has managed to include in his mesh. So please don't put him down just because he is a 'commercial' rival. IMHO, Visual Flight is the ONLY properly flyable mesh for the UK, error-free and with a pretty good representation of features like our sea cliffs, rugged coastlines etc. that just cannot be matched by any mesh based on the general DEM sources.That doesn't mean that we don't appreciate your own work, Ray - of course we do. But maybe there is a good idea in this thread that would improve the flyability of most meshes. How about a series that uses an algorithm that allows the published MS elevation of each airfield to override the local DEM data and provides a graduated transition over a reasonable radius, using weighted averages, to blend back into the DEM data without a sharp mesa or pit. Needs a fair bit of number-crunching on the data, I know, but not a problem with modern computing power. As John has said, one of the things you would probably find from such an algorithm would be a general increase in the accuracy of the mesh anyway, because the airport elevation data may often be more accurate than the available DEM data (and not vice versa). I would subscribe to such a series very happily if you could do it. The other feature that would be attractive would be to add some cragginess back into the tops of elevated mountain peaks rather than the smooth rounded summits we tend to get. Again, that would probably be susceptible to a suitable number-crunching algorithm.Keep up the good workGerrish

[Guest]

In Response to Gerrish;Dear Gerry - I can see your point - and of course I respect anybody opinion in full!Howewer - my point on the above post above - is that the simmers who post the picture - chooce a pretty flat area - where basically mesh is not visible - or have very little effect. that is all and it was not my intention to direct any attack to John.Another point - John is not a commercial rival - I design scenery just for fun - and care very little about the economical aspect of simming - which howewer most of the income which come from fsfreeware.com - goes back into it - and I've a full time job - outside to earn my living. I simply have fun with it!! and that is the way I like to keep it!I test both scenery - of course - only John sample and not the full Uk - and to be honest - all this honey which is described is simply not there - and resolution between Gaia mesh and John Uk mesh is of very little of difference - also remember - his scenery cost double price than mine!We all have different opinions - and be sure - some simmers switch from Gaia to John - and other switches from John uk mesh to Gaia - it all depends from personal point of view - - and it will be always wrong to thinks - of being fixed on anything - everything have somenthing different to offer - and simply bring different qualities - - and difects - - .Gerrish Wrote: Then Visual Flight came along and The latest Gaia Uk from Ray - did come out at the same time with John mesh - - I suspect Gerrish is reffering to the previous version of Uk mesh designed by Fsfreeware in the year 2001.Ray:-wave

[Guest GerrishGray]

Hi RayYou're quite right Ray, I haven't purchased the Gaia UK mesh so perhaps I'm talking out of my *!?* and doing you an injustice. The previous version had put me off.I just didn't want you to give the wrong impression to anyone about John's product - it really is good! I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is a good enough model of the real world to be acceptable for decent FS flying without the type of errors that make one say 'oh no' and turn the mesh off again. You probably haven't looked in the right places. I'll also agree that I'm exagerating a bit about John's work if I say NO errors - I spotted some unfortunate islands at the bottom of pits in Loch Lomond, for example, but I suspect that's because the lake is at the wrong altitude, rather than a problem with the mesh. As there are no airfields on them, they can be ignored by looking away! It's when the approach to, and immediate surroundings of, an airfield are hopelessly wrong that we tend to get upset ...What about my suggestion of adding an airfield altitude blending algorithm to your methods for producing your new mesh - then none of us would have anything to complain about :-)CheersGerry

[Guest]

No Problem Gerrish - Always take comments onboard - and understand what actualy can be done to improve!Of course - we are all working toward a better simulator - for all - no matter who does what - - and after all I believe the sim community can produce amazing software - - as you have done some very good work also!!Till the next - keep well -!!Ray:-beerchug

[Guest jsvw2001]

GerrishGray wrote:"How about a series that uses an algorithm that allows the published MS elevation of each airfield to override the local DEM data and provides a graduated transition over a reasonable radius, using weighted averages, to blend back into the DEM data without a sharp mesa or pit."I have used FSTerrain by Martin Wright. This program will produce a 16 bit data image with the red & green bytes constituting the elevation. With care and without difficulty you can edit this image in a paint program and 'smooth' the mesa or pit out. I used Excel to convert the Lat/Lon to pixel x/y values on the image. Johan

[Guest]

Anyone here used Worldmaker in X-Plane?What a clever way to edit elevations don't you think?I would love to see a "front end" program that the user could change or 'improve' elevation points.The program would load the Default MS or other terrain and it would appear under lets say a 10m grid. There would be rivers and roads.Then you would edit any 10m point to your hearts content!The advantage with my system is that you can improve your local area and fix those interpolated points.I can picture the interface, the buttons, everything.I know the outline as well. In the end, everything is a byte of data. One of the unknown features of the original Norton Editor was that you could manipulate anybyte on your drive. So it stands to reason the same can be said for bgl files. Any byte can be manipulated. Finding out which byte should be our focus.I'm getting really tired of " oh just get the gif and use excel and edit in photoshop and red and green " and so on and so on.This in no way is meant to disrespect any of the hard work done by so many in this field, it's just that unless you do it the way I suggest we will be forever an ever be doing these things the longest and most difficult way.To any one who hasn't, get the demo of X-Plane and mess with WorldMaker. I think you will then get to see my frustration with FS2002's way of doing things.So, who knows assembly language?