Surface tile scaling.

[Notebook]

Not sure if this is the correct forum, but here's the query.

I'm using Google Earth images to make surface tiles for my local airport and have had some fun? trying to match the edges. I am making some progress and quite enjoying it at times.

However, the aircraft and airport buildings don't seem to be in the correct proportion with regard to Orbiters scale.

here's a ShuttleA next to a 737, the 737 is about 36m, the ShuttleA is given as 34m
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032419-57-22SH-02.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032419-57-34SH-02.jpg
The ShuttleA is longer than the 737?

Not a big deal, but I'm curious why.
I've checked dimensions and lat/lon with regard to the runway thresholds, and they agree with Google Earth. The runway also fits the surface tiles as these images show

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032420-00-50PB-01.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032419-57-59SH-02.jpg
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032419-22-52PB-01.jpg

Any ideas?

Credit to "vchamp" for the screen capture utilty, nice work.
[ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3279"]Screen capture[/ame]

N.

 

[n0mad23]

Well pulling up the ShuttleA.pdf, I see that it's actually 35 m. I'm surprised. I thought it was smaller.

So there's only a 1 m difference between the two. Given the scale of your Google Earth images, I'm thinking that 1 m is too small to notice. But more significantly is the perspective/foreshortening. Notice that your ShuttleA is a direct overhead view. The 737 is slightly skewed so the port side is more visible than the starboard side. This also effects perception here.

Any other suggestions thread readers?

 

[NukeET]

See the following link for a Boeing fact sheet:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/media_kit/pdf/fact_737-900ER.pdf

This lists the 737-900ER model as being 42.1m long...I think you're in the ball park.

On a lighter note, I know which one I'd rather fly in!

:edit: Where is this airport?

 

[Notebook]

Well pulling up the ShuttleA.pdf, I see that it's actually 35 m. I'm surprised. I thought it was smaller.

So there's only a 1 m difference between the two. Given the scale of your Google Earth images, I'm thinking that 1 m is too small to notice. But more significantly is the perspective/foreshortening. Notice that your ShuttleA is a direct overhead view. The 737 is slightly skewed so the port side is more visible than the starboard side. This also effects perception here.

Any other suggestions thread readers?

Yes, Google must have been on a flying visit that day, I did use their measure tool, and the dimensions are close enough, it just looks...odd? As you suggest, it could be the 2D perspective with the 3D ShuttleA next to the 737.
When I finish the surface tiles, I intend to start on the airport buildings, that may improve the look.

N.

 

[Notebook]

See the following link for a Boeing fact sheet:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/media_kit/pdf/fact_737-900ER.pdf

This lists the 737-900ER model as being 42.1m long...I think you're in the ball park.

On a lighter note, I know which one I'd rather fly in!

:edit: Where is this airport?

I forgot the 737 had so many variants!
The airport is Newcastle(UK), in the North East:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_Airport

It has one runway, 07/25, and is my local regional airport, though it does have international and European conections. It has a new Control Tower:-http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=174 very smart, though £8million is a bit steep.

N.

 

[tblaxland]

From what I can find from Google, EasyJet only had 737-300 and 737-700. The Google Maps picture looks like a 700 which is 110ft 4in long (33.6m). Using Wikimapia to measure gives me the length of 110ft.

Overall it scales pretty well spot-on against a 35m long ShuttleA.

 

[Notebook]

Well, I'll take the majority view, and declare it ok:beach:

I just parked my PB at the taxi rank, there'll be trouble...

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032417-34-22PB-01.jpg


N.

 

[NukeET]

Well, I'll take the majority view, and declare it ok:beach:

I just parked my PB at the taxi rank, there'll be trouble...

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/08032417-34-22PB-01.jpg


N.

Only if bystanders are too close when you leave.:rofl:




EDIT: Thanks for the location. Curiosity got the better of me...

 

[n0mad23]

Yeah the scale is great, and from the moment I looked at the first image, I kept thinking of a line from Finnigan's Wake: "Close enough as dammit."

Looks like a really fun project. What are you using for graphics editing?

 

[Notebook]

Its a fairly straightforward procedure.
I used ar81's Tile Calculator[ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2752"]Surface Tile calculator v5.0a[/ame] and got the corner lat/lon co-ordinates. Went into Google Earth, marked the corners, saved as a jpeg at as large as screen size as possible.
Used Paint Shop Pro to crop to the markers and alter the aspect ratio to match Orbiter's. Saved as a bmp, then used DxTex to convert to dds.

I think the hard bit, going back to it after two months, is due to me not having a system for keeping track of the tiles. I now have 175 .bmp images, 164 .jpg and 125 .dds files, and I can't remember which went where....
I did use a reference tile, the airfield VOR and named the .jpegs from that,such as "NewcastleVOR_L7_S3.jpg". That is a level 7 tile 3 South. Unfortunately, that dosen't link nicely to the .dds names!
Also, I think I should have used a runway threshold for the reference, I want to have level 9 for the taxiways and ramp areas, and the tile alignment drifts as they move further from the VOR.

Its good practice, and I'll keep going, but I do need a system for keeping the files organised.

N.

 

[tblaxland]

Thanks for the info Notebook. I have often thought that it would be great to bring a DG4 in over Botany Bay to Kingsford Smith International 34L. At least I have the tools to go about it, now to find the time...

 

[Notebook]

Thanks for the info Notebook. I have often thought that it would be great to bring a DG4 in over Botany Bay to Kingsford Smith International 34L. At least I have the tools to go about it, now to find the time...

Many thanks tblaxland, there is probably an easier method than that, if I find it I'll post it.
Iceverska had a method using Landsat imagery, but I didn't have the tools for that. He had a good methodolgy, and it was semi-automated, with a proper tile labeling system. Can't give a link, with m6 being poorly.

Did you know about this, http://www.orbithangar.com/advsearc...uthor=default&category=default&subcat=default

Don't know if it'll work on the 2006 version, but its worth a try?

N.

 

[tblaxland]

Did you know about this, http://www.orbithangar.com/advsearc...uthor=default&category=default&subcat=default

Don't know if it'll work on the 2006 version, but its worth a try?

Thanks, I didn't know about that. I'll give it a try. I don't know how keen the greenies would be about having an SLF right across the Towra Point Nature Reserve. In a way, that site is very similar to KSC with the wetlands and beaches.