Sorry, just to be clear, the "burn in" method I'm referring to is from the "Airport_Workflow_CDB_19_Course_Notes.pdf"
Good point. there are two possible workflow for this "high resolution runway". The first is the burn-in as you mention. This is taking the runway polygons with texture and burning it into the imagery such that the runway is simply imagery. In that burn-in process (supported Presagis TerraVista), you can select the output resolution. We sometimes go up to LOD12 to get "less pixelated" output but this has imagery paging performance implication.
However, CDB has a dataset just for that. It is called Tiled2D. This is geometry (dataset 310) which can refer to geotypical textures (GT folder) and materials. This is the preferred approach in CDB but does require the runtime component to support this dataset. The runtime "pages" the geometry and texture but has to "conform" it to elevation as the Tiled2D does not have elevation information. This dataset is supported in Presagis VegaPrime and other CDB products on the market.
See attached picture for and example of Tiled2D rendered on top of CDB imagery and elevation dataset.
Hope this helps. Let us know if you need more details.
Thank you Hermann for your quick reply!
I will have to play around with both of your suggestions and see how they work out.
Hi folks, looking for any insight as to why the CDB airfield procedure manual uses the "burn in" imagery method for runways and paint vs incorporating the actual 2D runway flt into the CDB terrain? Does the "burn in" method not put you at the mercy of your source imagery resolution? Using 25cm source imagery, I have found it produces pixelated looking results (runway edges and paint) in other RTPs.