Things are starting to move as far as this project is concerned. Since it's inception, we have managed to achieve the following:
- Create a 'home base' on NZFF
- Establish a rough idea of people's skillsets
- Decide 'where to from here'
- Start building an inventory of present scenery to be used as part of this project
- Elect people for the team leadership role
- Finalise a list of developers we would like to see on this project
This is really not bad going, considering the size of this team, and the fact that we're all working for free and in our own personal time. A big thanks to everyone for perservering and taking the time to read this forum in what might appear to be a very slow and boring phase in the life of this project.
As of today (19 January 2008) the priorities for the team are:
- Chase up all team members on our 'wish list' to see if they are interested in assisting with this project
- Decide on where the data will be hosted in the short term (this may be a moving target but we do need a place to be 'first up')
- Complete the inventory of present scenery to be used as part of this project
Recruiting team members should become a priority. If we get the 'dream team' in here, this project will have a much greater chance of success. I'm not saying we don't have the knowledge and power here to do it at the moment, but people suggested each member for a good reason and we should acknowledge that by trying to make contact with them. Even if they say 'no', at least we know that. If you are contacting any members from our 'dream team', please remember that this project could be huge. Let them know that. If they want recognition, they will get it by being part of this project.
Andrew has been in discussion with Laurence, who has very kindly offered to make some hosting space available to the project. This will not offer FTP uploading capabilities, but it is hoped we will be able to source a free front-end to allow uploading (much like how you upload to sites like avsim). Potentially, there are things we could do down the track to streamline this process and manage version control a little better, but at this stage we just need a place to save our work.
Andrew has designed a spreadsheet that will form the basis of an inventory of present scenery to be considered for use with this project. A topic has already been set up for recording this information, so please continue to keep the submissions flowing into http://nzff.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5606 if you will. Something I should point out is that people shouldn't hold back in mentioning a good quality scenery area, even if they didn't write it. We can always try and contact the author. As people will no doubt have considered, we are going to end up with more than one version of some areas, and this will be our next priority - deciding which package to use for a given area.
If we end up having more than one package that covers the same area, the decision of which to use will depend on a number of factors. The license of each version, availability and/or consent of the author, currency of the information represented and of course, the standard to which it has been finished and subsequent work required to bring it up to standard. Sadly, the latter factors aren't as important as the earlier ones. If we have a dream package but don't have the author's permission, or we do but it's payware, then we would have to use the 'not-so-finished-but-free' version and complete it ourselves. The possibilities for this are endless really. If we have two good areas and could legitimately use either, we do have the scope to use, for instance, objects from one area and an AFCAD from another, provided the authors will let us use their work in part.
The next step we are going to need to do once we have our list is start grading the available work to give us an idea of what is 'best'. To do this, we need a baseline to grade the existing areas against. Andrew and I both feel that this would be a good topic for the forum to discuss. We need some 'standards' for our scenery. As I see it, scenery is composed of mesh, VTP/LWM polygons, objects, AFCADs and airspace, with a little bit of overlap from one to the next. Each one of these types would have it's own set of standards. Developers need to be able to use their own creative flare and do something that is unique to them if they see fit, but there is also a need for standards. For instance, someone could haul out an old FS2002-style scenery area they had written with all sorts of obscure tools and claim it's perfect for use. By definition, a 'standard' could be anything from a checklist through to a set of tools that developers can use. I know Robin is not a fan of using FS2002-style photoreal runways, for instance. We'd have to decide how we all felt about this, and make the decision a 'standard' for AFCAD/airport development. As an example, some standards for AFCADs might include:
- Modelled taxiways match width of actual taxiways
- Only taxiways with lighting are lit in the AFCAD
- Only one com frequency from each type per airport
- Main runway designation is NOT Left/Right unless this is the case in real life
We don't need to go on for days with this list. But I do think it would be worth putting some effort into something for each area. If someone uses one photo texture resolution and a developer of an adjacent area uses another, the 'seam' will look awful.
I will start another topic for this purpose for AFCADs. What other aspects do people think we need to separate? There are obviously objects, VTP layers and mesh (including photo bitmaps). Any others? We can make topics for each and post our thoughts in there.
Last of all, we are considering using a map of New Zealand to illustrate the areas we have available and to track progress. This could take a bit to develop and maintain, so it depends on what people think as to whether we'd do anything about it or not.
So, in summary, lets get the dream team here, keep filling our inventory, and start thinking about standards you each feel are important for a given scenery type.
Cheers
Richard
