Comments on: NASA World Wind for sea level change modelling http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/ Juicy Geography's web log Tue, 11 May 2010 21:03:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Erik http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/comment-page-1/#comment-6430 Erik Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:38:04 +0000 http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/#comment-6430 I don't have the pay version of GE to test, but probably just GE's 3d precision is better. I guess there is an advantage to having money to throw at 3d graphics programmers. ;) I don’t have the pay version of GE to test, but probably just GE’s 3d precision is better. I guess there is an advantage to having money to throw at 3d graphics programmers. ;)

]]> By: Noel Jenkins http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/comment-page-1/#comment-6429 Noel Jenkins Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:33:41 +0000 http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/#comment-6429 In Google Earth its not necessary to exaggerate the vertical scale by anything more than 1.5 to 2. It seemed more accurate at street level to me, though I really like your World Wind solution for larger areas. In Google Earth its not necessary to exaggerate the vertical scale by anything more than 1.5 to 2. It seemed more accurate at street level to me, though I really like your World Wind solution for larger areas.

]]> By: Erik http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/comment-page-1/#comment-6428 Erik Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:10:38 +0000 http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/#comment-6428 Actually, now that I look closer, the GE technique is similiar. It looks like the only difference would be the source DEM. Is the GE one actually accurate at street level? Actually, now that I look closer, the GE technique is similiar. It looks like the only difference would be the source DEM. Is the GE one actually accurate at street level?

]]> By: Erik http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/comment-page-1/#comment-6425 Erik Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:55:05 +0000 http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/04/nasa-worldwind-for-sea-level-change-modelling/#comment-6425 The reason your google one is more "accurate" is because it uses just a few pre-generated images for that one location. The World Wind one renders the water surface in 3d in the application itself where ever you are looking on the globe at any elevation you specify, so its accuracy is limited by the current level of terrain loaded in WW and the precision available from your graphics card in calculating where the terrain and the flood mesh intersect. You can cut down on the z-buffer artifacts by cranking the terrain exaggeration all the way up to 20x in the alt-w window. Just don't expect it to look realistic up close then. ;) -Erik (one of the WW flood plugin authors) The reason your google one is more “accurate” is because it uses just a few pre-generated images for that one location. The World Wind one renders the water surface in 3d in the application itself where ever you are looking on the globe at any elevation you specify, so its accuracy is limited by the current level of terrain loaded in WW and the precision available from your graphics card in calculating where the terrain and the flood mesh intersect. You can cut down on the z-buffer artifacts by cranking the terrain exaggeration all the way up to 20x in the alt-w window. Just don’t expect it to look realistic up close then. ;)

-Erik (one of the WW flood plugin authors)

]]>