EDDK (Cologne-Bonn Airport)

[Catalanoic]

"fewer objects (and combining textures) is the easiest way we have to improve performance of scenery" Already exist with the new OSM feature under FG 2017.1, need to extend to the whole world, but a lot of space, optimisation needed.
As for airport and some landmark singular objects, maybe custom work would be needed, if no OSM data availible.

[daweed]

Hello,
.ac file bigger than 2Mo are not accepted in the submit form on the scenery db website [and so on on TS ]
i encounter this problem when i begun LFLL scenery and it has been asked to me to split my unique file into more
As far as i know reason invoked was about "slow connexion user" [ and so max downloaded file size ]

One point, it's not easy to place each builing one by one, specially when they are connected with accurate.

One model file with all building setup with precision in Blender (or other 3d editor) is more easy to setup , placing 3d objet with the ovni or the blue bird is a lot of thing, but clearly not very accurate

[ThomasS]

May I ask you (@pommesschranke) about your further plans for this nice scenery. Are you still planning to have it part of the official scenery? If not, and I think thats ok according to the concept of custom scenery, I would like to add it to the wiki page http://wiki.flightgear.org/Suggested_custom_scenery to promote it a little more (if you agree).

BTW: Are the cats running across the apron intended to be a joke or some kind of testing?

[Catalanoic]

@daweed: If you already have the coordinates of that unique object, then you can split it in some smaller parts and upload it with the same coordinates. This works for big or adjacent buildings like terminals, just take care of elevations. But as ThomasS commented, a fast solution will be to be added as only custom, but so few people will benefit it unless they find it and download manually.

[ThomasS]

I added a note about the scenery to the wiki list in "Suggested custom scenery" now.

But I'm not really happy with it. Somehow it appears awkward to have several locations for sceneries (official terragear and custom), which most likely will lead to different development paths. Apparently this applies to many custom scenery projects out there. I wonder if there is some common understanding on how scenery (especially buildings/objects) should evolve. At first glance adding all objects to the scenery object database seems to be a good idea, but that might require some "area coordinator".

Well, anyway. I will have a closer look to the very nice terminal buildings pommesschranke created, try to split them and maybe replace the current EDDK buildings in the scenery object database with it.

[Catalanoic]

Develope what you can, there're thousands of airports to create and just few are developed enough to get improves or updates. Landmark scenery work is always well apreciated too. We need more hands and distribute it through centralised system, too many custom works lost on internet or old HDDs.

[ThomasS]

It's pathetic! All those potentially wasted time.

I had some success with extracting the EDDK Terminal1 building (and others) from the large AC file, but unfortunately some parts are not yet textured. Adding the missing UV coordinates might be possible using the original blender source file, but thats not available. Reimporting the once exported AC file back to blender appears to be too much fiddling, at least to me.
So I think I'll try to add the main terminal as is to the model database, see whether it is accepted and wait/hope for pommesschranke return. If it is accepted, I'll add other single buildings subsequently.

[Catalanoic]

Really appreciated, I use AC3D for object splitting in subobjects but remember to position it the whole single object in FG to get coordinates before.

[ThomasS]

EDDK Terminal1 was accepted: https://scenery.flightgear.org/app.php? ... id=3474621. I'll wait for it to be available in TerraSync and will then remove the older obsolete buildings.

[Thorsten]

Somehow it appears awkward to have several locations for sceneries (official terragear and custom), which most likely will lead to different development paths. Apparently this applies to many custom scenery projects out there. I wonder if there is some common understanding on how scenery (especially buildings/objects) should evolve.

The FG project believes all scenery should best go to terrasync - because all else is awkward.

Anyone who believes differently for whatever reasons (no intention to adhere to guidelines, different license, pride in the own creation, not wanting to cause conflicts...) creates a piece of custom scenery. So it's the lack of common understanding which drives the creation of custom scenery.

[pommesschranke]

May I ask you (@pommesschranke) about your further plans for this nice scenery. Are you still planning to have it part of the official scenery?

I haven't been active for a while. Thank you for uploading my (unfinished) building and your plan to remove the old, wrongly placed buildings.

BTW: Are the cats running across the apron intended to be a joke or some kind of testing?

It's just for fun. There is also a person walking on Parking Deck1

[pommesschranke]

Adding the missing UV coordinates might be possible using the original blender source file, but thats not available.

I just uploaded the blend file here:
https://github.com/mherweg/EDDK-fg-Cust ... test.blend

[Catalanoic]

Nice work Thomas!
"I haven't been active for a while": Great you're here again, we missed you

[ThomasS]

I agree. Glad you aren't lost.

[ThomasS]

Just to keep you informed: I now uploaded Terminal2 and it was accepted with some "warning" about the textures. Indeed both Terminal1 and Terminal2 have a large texture file (even though I downsized it to 512x512), in fact its just the same texture file. This provides options for upcoming improvements.