Helena,
I took a look at the sample dataset you put up (hoodtest) and was able to replicate
the nviz bug. The data appeared dark and over exagerated with shadowing.
I was able to improve on the view by applying a suggestion from Bill given a while
back. He suggested that the USE_GL_NORMALIZE define flag in the ogsf library could
be removed for building the opengl version. This flag is used in the gs_norms.c and
gsd_prim.c. If you comment out the define flag in gs_norms.c and re-build the
library and nviz, you should see an improvement. Do not remove it from gsd_prim.c.
The effect of removing the flag is to take the exageration out of the normal
calculation.
If you (and others) could try this and find it helps, we could apply it to the CVS.
At this point I have not had much time to test it.
Hope this helps.
--
Bob Covill
Tekmap Consulting
P.O. Box 2016 Fall River, N.S.
B2T 1K6
Canada
E-Mail: bcovill@tekmap.ns.ca
Phone: 902-860-1496
Fax: 902-860-1498
Bob,
On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:37:05PM -0400, Bob Covill wrote:
Helena,
I took a look at the sample dataset you put up (hoodtest) and was able to replicate
the nviz bug. The data appeared dark and over exagerated with shadowing.
I was able to improve on the view by applying a suggestion from Bill given a while
back. He suggested that the USE_GL_NORMALIZE define flag in the ogsf library could
be removed for building the opengl version. This flag is used in the gs_norms.c and
gsd_prim.c. If you comment out the define flag in gs_norms.c and re-build the
library and nviz, you should see an improvement. Do not remove it from gsd_prim.c.
The effect of removing the flag is to take the exageration out of the normal
calculation.
If you (and others) could try this and find it helps, we could apply it to the CVS.
At this point I have not had much time to test it.
using a lat/long dataset your proposed change leads to the opposite effect:
The surface is rather dark then. If switching back to the current CVS
version it's quite good (little dark only, but adjustable).
Maybe the use of USE_GL_NORMALIZE must be dependent on the projection?
Markus
----------------------------------------
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo@geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'
Markus Neteler wrote:
Bob,
using a lat/long dataset your proposed change leads to the opposite effect:
The surface is rather dark then. If switching back to the current CVS
version it's quite good (little dark only, but adjustable).
Maybe the use of USE_GL_NORMALIZE must be dependent on the projection?
Markus
----------------------------------------
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo@geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'
Markus,
Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to test the change on alot of datasets.
I would suggest also removing the changes in GS2.c that I made a while back as a temp
fix for Lat Long databases. This is the section where the Longdim variable is
calculated. Just revert it to the old calc method and give it a try.
Let me know if this helps.
--
Bob Covill
Tekmap Consulting
P.O. Box 2016 Fall River, N.S.
B2T 1K6
Canada
E-Mail: bcovill@tekmap.ns.ca
Phone: 902-860-1496
Fax: 902-860-1498
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:01:00PM -0400, Bob Covill wrote:
Markus Neteler wrote:
> Bob,
>
> using a lat/long dataset your proposed change leads to the opposite effect:
> The surface is rather dark then. If switching back to the current CVS
> version it's quite good (little dark only, but adjustable).
>
> Maybe the use of USE_GL_NORMALIZE must be dependent on the projection?
>
> Markus
Markus,
Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to test the change on alot of datasets.
I would suggest also removing the changes in GS2.c that I made a while back as a temp
fix for Lat Long databases. This is the section where the Longdim variable is
calculated. Just revert it to the old calc method and give it a try.
Let me know if this helps.
--
Bob,
obviously not... I reverted to GS2.c rev.1.3 and commented the
USE_GL_NORMALIZE in gs_norm.c, rebuilt the lib and NVIZ: All black
then.
Sorry for no better news,
Markus
----------------------------------------
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo@geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'
Markus Neteler wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 12:01:00PM -0400, Bob Covill wrote:
> Markus Neteler wrote:
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > using a lat/long dataset your proposed change leads to the opposite effect:
> > The surface is rather dark then. If switching back to the current CVS
> > version it's quite good (little dark only, but adjustable).
> >
> > Maybe the use of USE_GL_NORMALIZE must be dependent on the projection?
> >
> > Markus
>
> Markus,
>
> Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to test the change on alot of datasets.
>
> I would suggest also removing the changes in GS2.c that I made a while back as a temp
> fix for Lat Long databases. This is the section where the Longdim variable is
> calculated. Just revert it to the old calc method and give it a try.
>
> Let me know if this helps.
> --
Bob,
obviously not... I reverted to GS2.c rev.1.3 and commented the
USE_GL_NORMALIZE in gs_norm.c, rebuilt the lib and NVIZ: All black
then.
Sorry for no better news,
Markus
----------------------------------------
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo@geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'
Markus,
Well it was worth a try. There is one other routine that I was playing with a while back
for calculating normals with Lat Long databases. I will give that a try later on and let
you know if it works.
--
Bob Covill
Tekmap Consulting
P.O. Box 2016
Fall River, NS
Canada
B2T 1K6
----------------------------------------
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development Team mailing list write to:
minordomo@geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'