Could this be the a new goal of FGFS ?

[abassign]

This image was obtained with X-Plane 10:50 ... In your opinion is possible to get the same thing with FGFS ?

Could this be the a new goal of FGFS ?

And if so, what is the way to go?

[jaxsin]

What, no animated jetways? FGFS is already ahead in that department, no?

Not sure exactly what you are trying to ask for here. Other then the 10 different liveries and a few baggage carts, what is FGFS missing?

[elgaton]

@jaxsin: I think he's asking for AI planes - they are already in there (albeit with a few bugs)

The feature you're describing is part of the "AI" subsystem. In order for custom planes to appear:

• the airport you're at needs to have a ground network;
• the AI subsystem must be enabled (AI -> Traffic and Scenery Configuration -> Enable AI traffic).

Try spawning at KSFO and enabling AI to see this in action.

In the last version (2016.1), however, there is a bug - planes taxi to the runway holding point, but do not take off. This is currently being investigated. Another proposed enhancement is reading the data that is now stored in ground networks from apt.dat, in order to:

• allow airport designers to use WED instead of TaxiDraw (which is not maintained anymore);
• leverage the data that was already added by X-Plane airport designers.

I think ground vehicles can be added as well via the AI subsystem, but that's a wild guess.

[Johan G]

Regarding graphics we are getting closer by the year.*

I am speculating a bit here, but I think that to really get there, more work on LOD levels and instantiation of models are probably needed. In essence a software architectural thing. As of now having textures that detailed and that many tiny models would probably cripple many users computers.

Also "this" and a screenshot is "a bit" ambiguous.

* Just compare screenshots in What/Where did you fly today? with more recent ones in What/Where did you fly today? - Part 2, but take into consideration that not all uses the highest settings.

[Thorsten]

No image visible, so I guess no - that doesn't seem like a good goal, we should aim at actually rendering something visible

Seriously though - please don't use tinypic as image hoster, it doesn't allow direct links to the hosted pics and the indirect links aren't looked up by all browsers.

Use something that works - imgur, dropbox,...

[jaxsin]

allow airport designers to use WED instead of TaxiDraw (which is not maintained anymore);

Considering we use a shared airport gateway (community driven, the best kind) one can only hope this comes to fruition.

[abassign]

This is the example of Barcelona with activated function of "animation" and runway etc. I do not see (2016.2.0 installer), the aircraft motion effects etc ... The quality is good, but lacks life, lacking both the shadows of parked planes of objects, yellow stripes painted on the runway are very jagged, the color of the track is too conformed, it would take a light "dirt effect" similar to the one done for the land (I think that is easy to get). It would take a bit 'of luggage carts and trucks, buses, they move into their assigned routes ... At this point we will not be so far away. I think it requires a touch of the artist ...

[Johan G]

Ah, so you say it basically is too clean and lacking shadows?

[Thorsten]

Seriously though - please don't use tinypic as image hoster, it doesn't allow direct links to the hosted pics and the indirect links aren't looked up by all browsers.

Specifically if you're after almost any shader effect which you imagine should be added - since I'm the most likely person to code them: make sure I can see the screenshots.

[jaxsin]

You do not see planes taxiing and taking off?

[ludomotico]

The quality is good, but lacks life, lacking both the shadows of parked planes of objects, yellow stripes painted on the runway are very jagged, the color of the track is too conformed, it would take a light "dirt effect" similar to the one done for the land (I think that is easy to get). It would take a bit 'of luggage carts and trucks, buses, they move into their assigned routes ... At this point we will not be so far away. I think it requires a touch of the artist ...

To fix the "liveness" of an airport with more objects, any user can set static objects with the ufo. There are many static objects any user can set:

- Emergency: http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/app.p ... ew&id=3238
- Follow me: http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/app.p ... ew&id=4002
- Busses: http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/app.p ... ew&id=3245
- weather buildings: http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/app.p ... ew&id=2730
- petrol store: http://scenemodels.flightgear.org/app.p ... ew&id=3059
- and many others.

There are hundreds of already available objects we can use at any airport and we only lack a user dedicated to set them! I'm doing my best in small GA airports because these are the ones I love, but anyone can help to improve the "liveness" of an airport with shared objects. Actually, setting static objects in X-Plane is much easier than in FlightGear, which lacks an easy-to-use tool to set objects. Anyway, keep in mind setting too many objects will have a hit in the performance of the airport. I think in this specific aspect, X-Plane beats FlightGear: X-Plane implements a LOD algorithm to not render objects when they are far away. FlightGear has not an implementation of an efficient LOD algorithm for objects, afaik.

Regarding the textures on ground, there are a couple of alternatives in this forum. Michat, particularly, has done several improvements on the concrete texture that never ended in fgdata. You can find them in the forum. Additionally, I guess some of the already existing shaders could be used on the concrete surfaces to add some dirt.

Regarding shadows... That's an old discussion. It is a complex issue. For example, in the snapshot you provided of X-Plane during a sunny day, the aircraft have TWO shadows. This is one shadow more than enough

Also, notice the snapshot seems post-processed to add local-contrast (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... cement.htm). I believe this is the only effect FlighGear does not currently provide. In any case, local-contrast is a not realistic effect, it is just an eye-candy effect we are now used to after years of seeing it in "artistic" photographs and many videogames.

[Hooray]

what the heck happened to the ufo, I wasn't even aware it could look that cool

[Johan G]

It is probably another project, perhaps "classified work" on Project 1794?

[abassign]

The mystery of the UFO is immediately revealed ...
It is the result of my test to use FreeCAD to develop a comptibile aircraft with FGFs. FreeCAD is convenient to use ... and exports Colada format that can be read with Blender and then export to .ac format.
Honestly it would be interesting to develop a direct export of FreeCAD to .ac (FreeCAD is written in Python), but my job now does not allow me to have time to develop it.
FreeCAD Unfortunately, like many other 3D CAD, it has difficulties to create double-curved surfaces. Is there a tool to do it, but its use is quite complex and only suitable for ship hulls. Maybe in the future someone will write other more suitable instruments.
FreeCAD for your information lends itself very well to design tools, engines, propellers, and many other details, including buildings. It lacks only the ability to export to .ac format without losing the generated object name.

The shape of UFOs have derived from books by Renato Vesco, as shown in that show covers below:



Renato Vesco was a ufologist Italian who lives in Genoa, graduated in an aviation school during World War II, he is immediately interested in ufology, and picked up a huge amount of material. In the 50 'of last century it suggested that UFOs were not of terrestrial origin, but made in England and Canada starting from German construction plans.
Currently the Vesco theory was not supported by the facts (Still, we wonder if the phenomenon of the UFO is real or not ...), but remained his drawings and perhaps even his dreams to build a machine that can function as a UFO as optimized for the flight from the 30 km altitude up.
In fact the UFO designed by Renato Vesco was a big vacuum cleaner, I think that could never fly, although he ordered the construction, I think in Sweden, a couple of models that do not know if they've ever flying.

I really like the shape and direction of an object derived from the technology available in the years 40-50. I think it would be nice to put a period instrument panel and try to simulate what could be the flight model of this strange and original aircraft.

Here there is a translation of an article by Renato Vesco in English:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/vesco.htm

[Thorsten]

Seriously though - please don't use tinypic as image hoster, it doesn't allow direct links to the hosted pics and the indirect links aren't looked up by all browsers.