Comments on: An Exclusive Club

By: Fred Schutzman

Fred Schutzman — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:59:58 +0000

I agree that the airport boundary should function as an exclusion zone maybe with a yes /no choice in WED. Some of us want to add things that are near the runway but not necessarily part of the runway,i.e., a big building that is against a taxiway and do not want trees growing into or next to it. If we can include the object inside the airport boundary, and that was part of the exclusion zone, we could make the airport look more like the real thing. If there is a conflict about a road being inside the exclusion zone maybe a road object could be available to drop in to recovery the lose of the road. I know that was available in OE. I can imagine people would be willing to give up a few feet/mile of road to get the benefits of boundary/exclusion zone.

Fred

By: Heiko

Heiko — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:02:59 +0000

creating my airports with wed i do not have scenery/osm information available anyway. i’dd be more than happy with everything excluded by default within airport boundaries…

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:38:34 +0000

In reply to Bob Marsh. Hrm - there are no docs on exclusion zones? I better write something specific. :-(

By: Bob Marsh

Bob Marsh — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 19:27:33 +0000

Ben: Your descriptions above are a great help. Could you expand a bit on the way exclusion zones work and how they affect roads in particular. IE: When you place an exclusion zone, and it overlays an object or a road, what is the criteria for its amount of overlay to mask the underlying object, and are excluded “types” masked with different rules? (forests, objects, roads, fences & facades).
Because exclusions are necessarily global “squares” the pain of producing a precise exclusion will benefit very much from the above requested into.
Thanks again!!

By: Heiko

Heiko — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 10:17:22 +0000

i think so too. might be better to have ‘inclusion’ zones if really required…

By: Mark Hayling

Mark Hayling — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 21:44:59 +0000

Why not make the airport boundry double as an exclusion zone?

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 16:37:47 +0000

In reply to AndyrooC.

Exclusions don’t cost you anything in fps. They cost you a little of time at load to examine data and see if it needs exclusion. But they’re pretty fast, and if you exclude something, you don’t pay for it later (either in setup or fps).

The airport boundary doesn’t exclude things because it isn’t obvious what we’d want to exclude. For example, OSM highways often enter the airport area, and that’s usually a good thing. (Also the exclusion system needs AABBs, not polygons, but we could convert the boundary polygon directly to exclusion zones IF we thought it was a good idea.)

By: Andreas

Andreas — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 10:51:24 +0000

I had some idea about automatic generated exclusions. It should be not so complicated to make a programm which analyses the apt.dat of airports. There it could get the top left and bottom right koordinates. Than it would generate a scenery just with exclusions.
The user can than bring this exclusion scenery between default scenery and his other sceneries.

By: snagar

snagar — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 09:56:19 +0000

I totally agree with Ropeless,

A simple page that lists the airports,authors,like/dislike (rating) will be a great boost for the authors. The rating should be implemented (simple counter + captcha) that allow the simmers to vote.

The scenery that receive high “dislike”, might be reviewed and re-considered by Laminar team.

Simple intuitive and rewarding.

By: AndyrooC

AndyrooC — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 06:30:19 +0000

There is a problem with testing scenery exclusions zones. That is, you have to exclude things that may appear in the future – whatever they may be. How do you test for what may occur in the future? You can’t, so you simply exclude everything you can exclude in a 1km radius of the airport.

It makes you wonder why the airport boundary doesn’t simply exclude everything that can be excluded since anything not excluded may appear in the future and compromise your scenery.

I’m sure scenery developers in the past – keen on keeping frame-rates high, have avoided adding anything that is not absolutely necessary. Including excessive exclusions. Do exclusions have any significant cost in cpu – or is the excluding cost offset by not rendering excluded bits?