[jhb_airlines] Re: Photo Scenery

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:47:26 -0000

I guess it depends on the source data Alastair. All the viewing engines
don't have copyright on the material - it still belongs to the agency that
took the photos.

Coverage is indeed patchy right now - I still need high res images of quite
a few airports for my Kinetic work as Belfast, Gloucester, Bristol,
Plymouth, Exeter, Southampton, Alderney, Jersey, Guernsey, Shoreham, Lydd,
Manston, Carlisle, Humberside, Teesside, Kirkwall and Inverness are all
outside quality coverage.. The other point noted is that some of the photos
are up to six years old so currency is an issue.

Those points aside the concept is still staggering and I am sure these
issues will not remain a headache for long.. It would be superb to fly
through the Himalayas, New Zealand, Cape Town or other such striking
topography in photo quality scenery - rather awesome methinks..

bones

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alastair
Sent: 12 December 2006 10:46
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Photo Scenery




Bones wrote:
> To UK users the concept of photo scenery is old hat - anyone with VFGM
> has accepted it as normal and we forget that most FS users elsewhere
> in the world are still looking at synthetic scenery.

Including Scotland and Ireland <G>

Looks interesting, but as you know the Google Earth can be a bit variable.

At best it can be excellent, but otherwise can be a bit 'patchy'

You will find that the States will have good cover, with the rest of the
world, away from populated areas, not so good.

I wonder what will happen with the licence arrangement, should it go
into production?

Will it include better quality data than the free version of Google Earth?

Alastair



Other related posts: