vanosten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:58 pm:[*] Is it highly probable that the airport boundary actually is defined for the majority of airports?
[*] Is it highly probable that there no stuff is placed by Project3000 outside of the airport boundary - e.g. because the data in the x-plane gateway actually keep inside the boundaries?
[*] Would it work for you to have a the airport boundary as defined in the apt.dat file for a given airport as the simple conflict exclusion "contract"? (actually there might be differences between the apt.dat data downloaded from x-plane scenery gateway and the apt.dat data used in FG - but that must be good enough I guess)
osm2city does not place anything inside the boundary
pommesschranke wrote in Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:25 am:vanosten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:58 pm:osm2city does not place anything inside the boundary
why ? If the X-plane scenery contains no building polygons and FG/terrasync has no objects then OSM would be a nice fallback souce for terminal buildings.
pommesschranke wrote in Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:25 am:vanosten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:58 pm:why ? If the X-plane scenery contains no building polygons and FG/terrasync has no objects then OSM would be a nice fallback souce for terminal buildings.
pommesschranke wrote in Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:25 am:you will need the "lib" folder in your Models folder. Get it from here:
https://github.com/mherweg/d-laser-fgtools
PATH_TO_SCENERY_OPT = "/media/sf_fg_customscenery/project3000"
OVERLAP_CHECK_CONVEX_HULL = True
OVERLAP_CHECK_CH_BUFFER_STATIC = 0.0
OVERLAP_CHECK_CH_BUFFER_SHARED = 0.0
OVERLAP_CHECK = False
OVERLAP_CHECK_CONSIDER_SHARED = True
vanosten wrote in Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:55 pm:I have made an update in osm2city, which allows to use a new parameter
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests