I have to admit that i really like the random buildings feature and it does wonders in most places, but this is so much closer to the real thing.
Thorsten wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:44 am:Can you point to the differences?
Having a scalable solution for the whole world is always preferable over having a solution for a particular place.
penta wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:02 am:I've some pictures taken at Innsbruck
What's the point of posts like that, Thorsten? I very much appreciate your constructive input on FG-devel (yet failed to say thank you for that so far -- Thank you for that!) or in other posts, but I don't see how this post helps the FG project
IMHO the most noticeable difference is the alignment of buildings with streets (you can clearly see blocks sorrounded by empty spaces where streets should be).
Having a scalable solution for the whole world is always preferable over having a solution for a particular place.
isn't god-given
Thorsten wrote in Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:52 pm:Which confirms that I'm thinking into the right direction - if we could come up with an algorithm which creates a virtual European-style street grid first and then places buildings aligned with the street grid, we'd generate better cities in Europe (OSM is a red herring for the purpose imo - once it's random, we need something plausible and fast, not something exact).
Thorsten wrote:Hooray has (probably) some more involved dynamical city-building scheme in mind (so have I actually) - finding an algorithm which dynamically generates a street pattern and places a plausible mockup of a city dependent on its knowledge of the underlying terrain. Much of the performance here depends on what models are placed - if models without an xml wrapper are used, it's going to be relatively fast, if not, then not. That's different from the situation with weather where we could never use models without xml wrapper, because the rotation effect needed to be declared there (merging the models to a whole block is also important though).
Torsten wrote:It really looks cool from the distance and close up.
Implementing it into FlightGear requires porting the OpenGL calls to be OpenSceneGraph compatible, probably by implementing osgDrawable.
The current implementation only shows night-time views, so this has to be tweaked, too.
Another issue to take care of is interaction with existing scenery models, so the generated buildings do not interfere with our scenery models. The same is true for our landcover, roads and elevation data.
Definitely worth some thinking. Probably as a google summer of code http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/GSoC project?
stuart wrote:I'd be very happy for my random buildings to be supersede by proper procedural buildings, and would be happy to discuss the technicalities further.
Good luck!
-Stuart
OK, so I got that wrong. When I read your post initially I swear it was saying "Can you point the difference?", as in "Wo ist der Unterschied?" with a deprecative connotation. This got me slightly offended.
it seems it doesn't take you exceedingly long to generate a city layout
Many buildings from OSM are just rectangular, so they basically look like random buildings. I wonder if a mixed approach would render any faster? Where an OSM building is rectangular, place a random building of similar footprint instead?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests