I noticed when doing the hometowns that if the spaceport was in water Pioneer would adjust the position to the planet's polar regions until it was on land. I had to adjust some of them to fit. I don't know if that's the issue here. You didn't accidentally put it in Walensee did you?

no, <img src="' http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//crazy.gi f"' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> besides "Walensee" where do you know that one from? i know Google Maps.

in europe everything is really tight, he, he, "Walensee" is a good example, there exist a song from the 70's here where "Walensee" is modified to "Qualensee" (Lake of pains), because there was no road along parts of the southside of Walensee (in north the mountains are such steep there is no road possible), so all cars had to go over a pass (Kerenzer, close to Mollis) and it came to horrible traffic jams in the small town Mollis. we have now a continous highway since the 80's along the walensee. soon they will revive the old "racetrack" over "Kerenzer" aka "Kerenzerberg Race", if all towns subscribe to it, that's always difficult here in switzerland, where every john & henry has a veto right.

a different "problem". i discovered a small difference between the real situation and the height map we have for pioneer (perhaps, that could be fixed with a slight editing of the map, but i didn't found a software yet to open the maps, besides i know the standard already).

it happened that i took a trip to london and recognized it's not where it's supposed to be.

ok, the data wasn't very accurate so i changed it to what Google Maps outputs as lat. & long. for london.

i recognized very soon it's still a little to close to the sea.

then i zoomed out from top of the station until i could see the coast of south england, to have a sort of reference.

(takes 8mins to zoom out until you see the coastal line of south england)

[attachment=1393:Bildschirmfoto 2012-09-05 um 11.07.19.png]

now i compared the picture to Google Maps.

[attachment=1392:Bildschirmfoto 2012-09-05 um 10.54.14.png]

and estimated a difference of +0.3° in longitude compared to it, you can see it well in the picture above.

some might feel 0.3° isn't much, but in europe, where everything is so tight, this is a lot.

it could happen in europe, 0.3° from somewhere they speak a different language <img src="' http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//jester.gi f"' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

after adding of +0.3° it turns out to be proper (could be it's now 0.025° to far in the west, i will test this once with a small island, but on the other hand it's quite good already and +0.3 is easy to calcuate with)

[attachment=1394:Bildschirmfoto 2012-09-05 um 11.23.20.png]

used data for this picture

latitude: 51.506°

longitude: 0.179°

like i said this is a different problem

---

the wrong longitudal radiants i have no idea where they come from, or have forgotten it, but i remember we discussed that once.

the math.rad2deg works proper, even this i tested, that won't produce any error, of course not.

the issue appears only with long. data around 10° smaller, e.g. at ~1°, there is no problem to see.

of course one could say now simply: "then don't use long. data around 10°". but hmm...

Yep, Google Maps. I love the internet. It makes me seem more intelligent than I actually am. I noticed the London thing, but figured it was close enough so I didn't change it. When I add spaceports I use the location of the local airport. If I can't find an airport I get the location from Wikipedia. I don't know, but could it have something to do with the longitude lines converging near the poles? I tried flying to the south pole in Flight Simulator 2004 and the game went crazy. There were multiple overlapping landscapes and you couldn't actually get there. I know that FS doesn't actually model the Earth as a sphere, but could it cause an error in Pioneer?

i guess the simplest would be, not to use 10.x ° longitude <img src="' http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//wink3.gi f"' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

[attachment=1395:Bildschirmfoto 2012-09-06 um 13.28.41.png]

latitude:°0 (aequator)

longitude:0,9,10,11

Two things Gernot, is that image showing that the cities at a longitude of 10° are appearing in the wrong place? I can't quite figure it out from the image.

Also do you have a file which you could upload with the problem in it and I'll try to take a look on my machine.

yes, they all located along the aequator "distance" is: 0°,9°,10°,11° longitude, only 10° is somewhere off.

i assume that 9.00... 1° and 10.999...° are wrong as well, in divisions of it, i checked once 9.5 and 10.9, 10.9° is already close to what it should be

you can take any planet, i.e. moon, just place some cities along the aequator (lat:0°) in "distance" 9°,10°,11° (long), name them i.e. 9,10,11,

you can add 8°, 9.5°, 11.5° and 12° if you like.

[attachment=1413:Bildschirmfoto 2012-09-10 um 02.48.43.png]

[attachment=1414:Bildschirmfoto 2012-09-10 um 02.53.55.png]

I can't see anything in the code that would make values around 10 degrees behave differently.

I did add a couple of print statements to emit a warning when a surface starport is relocated to avoid water, and that's what's happening with the test cities on Earth. 47 North, 10 degrees West is in the North Atlantic Ocean. If you want to compare with values from Google Maps, you have to negate the longitude value.

Yes, I should have thought of that. <img src="' http://spacesimcentral.com/forum/public/style_emoticons//good.gi f"' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> It's + West of Greenwich and - East of it.