Forum: Vue


Subject: Cloud Layer Problems

Jonj1611 opened this issue on Feb 17, 2010 · 44 posts


Rutra posted Wed, 17 February 2010 at 6:24 PM

Quote - "In real life atmospheric items such as clouds and items on the ground such as mountains, valleys etc. are all defined relative to sea level (as you so correctly pointed out). "

Actually, that's not what exactly I said. The altitude definition relative to sea level is just a human convention. Same cannot be said regarding atmosphere, which is physics (atmosphere does not follow the ups and downs of mountains and valleys).
So, whereas it does make sense (in Vue) to define atmospheric settings relative to sea level (a matter of physics), it's arbitrary if other settings (such as ground) should be also relative to sea level. They chose not to, which is as good as the other way around, since it's a human convention only.

Quote - "level and whereas terrains/ground is relative to an arbitrary coordinate system.
The ground should not have moved, but it's coordinate should have changed if the sea level is the reference point. The ground was 300m below sea at the beginning and its 200 m below sea at the end.
"

Disagree, for the reasons mentioned above.

Quote - "So  - unlike in real life they have chosen inconsistent definitions. That's a flaw, exassubated by not defining it clearly for the user."

No, not inconsistent. They basically respected physics where physics should be respected and followed another convention (a more logical one, and easier for the user) where a simple human convention existed. It's not a flaw. Like I said before, the only flaw is in the documentation.

Quote - "Adding and manipulating an  object that I dont need just to enable a redefinition of a reference point is a twisted way of doing it, from a logical point of view. If a change in reference point is needed it should be done by...changing the reference point. "

Why do you say you don't need the object? You need it to define the sea level. You don't need to render it, but that's something very different.
Having an object to define a reference point doesn't seem odd to me and it's easier than defining an option in the menu. Anyway, they actually, they made both things, so you can even choose!

Quote - "It is certainly not an obvious way for the average user  to go about it - neither Jon or I thought about it."

That's very subjective. What's obvious for you is not for me and vice-versa. For me it seemed obvious (I found it without anyone telling it to me).

Quote - "You are right that it isnt a difficult issue to fix - either by moving the whole scene or by manipulating a water plane, but it could have been done by allowing negative values for cloud altitudes."

Is a negative altitude more obvious than thinking that clouds are relative to sea level?... Hmmm... not for me. :-)