https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 79#p286849Mr. Thorsten (Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) wrote:Ah yes - was that the boundary someone assured me during the last conversation with you people isn't actually created because the way the TerraGit team selects the input terrain data to avoid that?
However you got to that interpretation, you are wrong.
the seams at tile boundaries are there, and are visible. It is a problem inherent with ws2.0 scenery and terragear, and we don't know how to fix this.
therefore, the type of patching we do in terraGIT is unacceptable for the QC required on terrasync.
My point is that this "thin red line" is irrelevant, and hardly seen except by a very cautious exploration of the scenery, and then I don't mind a patch work .Really the boundary becomes very evident if landclasses at the boundary are not matching, which becomes a massively evident change on landclasses which the eye readily detect. (Say, Kansas, per example)
On matching landclasses the gap is seen as a tiny (1 or less pixels) discontinuous gaps in rect-lines.
It does not cross Torsten's QC requirements, and as such, there's no terrasync patching doable (as Torsten said, except in fully surrounded by water areas -- read isolated islands)
I mentioned before: Torsten's requirements are so far fetched with what's technically possible that it comes as just another point for him":
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=520#p8772IAHM-COL wrote:That answer was an end of the deal. Because I can't satisfy such stringest requirements yet.
The conflicts he mention there exits are are latent in terraGit, such as the tile boundaries, and the fact that the database doesnt get updated.
He throw the ball too far, and I couldn't reach it. Goal! Torsten 10 - Israel 0
Mr. Thorsten (Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde) wrote:So yes, if this is an acknowledgement that the TerraGit procedure (as expected by yours truly) will create a patchwork of discontinuous tiles, then the strategy indeed doesn't qualify for terrasync (which has the stated aim of providing a consistent world scenery).
Thanks for letting me know then. I sort of took your (I don't remember whether this was you in particular, so this is a general you) word that you're able to create seamless scenery despite my expectations.
Ok. Good is clarified.
Also, OSM2city objects can't be submitted by the scenery database, so forget about those coming into terrasync as well.
I tried hard to push Geneve OSM2City to terrasync, only to get severely talked down by VicMar.
And respect to the work by Omega Hangar (Changi buildings) they are not formatted properly for The database submission.
I wont attempt formatting these to submit to terrasync (on the database) after the bitter-bitter experience with Chubu (RJGG)
So, no
This works remains as terraGIT only, since it all counts, it does not satisfy the Quality requirements for Terrasync.
It is just too great to be consistent to terrasync.
And you are definitely looking for consistency.