> extend [left | right] [0 - 100] # 0 to 100% of the horizontal extension of
> the leg, left or right where
> extend left 0 would be the same as extend vertical, and
> extend left 100 would be the same as extend left (ie 100% is
> the default behaviour we have now
Coincidentally, I'm working on an extended elevation at the moment, comprising
six surveys.
Happens to be the easiest I've ever worked on - no loops!
But I would like to tweak the length of some of the legs/branches to make the
adjacent passage relativity align better. Sometimes extend
left/ver
if it could provide easily understood
and predictable control.
Maybe TopoDroid has some lessons for what might work well?
Bruce
-Original Message-
From: Therion On Behalf Of Marco Corvi
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2020 23:26
To: therion@speleo.sk
Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking exten
i realized i was too naive:
the "principle" of the spanning tree is ok, but it is not enough.
suppose to have five legs at a station
6-7
7-8
20-7
7-21
7-45
and some of them belongs to loop(s).
Suppose that the user wants to have 6-7 7-8 together, and 20-7 7-21 together
but the two pairs s
Thanks Marco and others for pointing these problems out.
So I have another suggestion. Not to implement extend stop, equate, but add
the possibility of 3 stations in extend ignore. I.e.
extend ignore
would mean, do not go to s3 if you came to s2 from s1. In your case
Tarquin, specifying
exte
> extend ignore 8 7 11
> extend ignore 6 7 12
>
> should save the situation. Am I missing something?
This is basically what I also thought; you need to supply three stations
to control it.
I was going to suggest the opposite notation:
extend prefer 8 7 12
meaning "to get to 12, prefer to start f
> Something important I had not considered. I wonder what it does to tarquin's
> example.
I don't even begin to know how to cope with the situation where there is
a separate branch from 7 to 12 in my example, where you want
2-10-9-8-7-12 to be shown as one branch in the extended elevation, and
1
Behalf Of Stacho Mudrak
Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2020 20:26
To: List for Therion users
Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific
stations
Hi Bruce,
extend stop 8 7
would mean, that if the algorithm reaches station 7 from station 8, it stops
extending
`> needless to say, i was not able to tell therion how to break the centerline
for the extended elevation. Eventually i removed a few "equates"
>(the loops closed quite well anyways)
> what about an option to "equate" to tell therion that it must not be used for
> the extended elevation ?
>marco
last weekend i completed the survey of a cave with some parallel close pits
connected through several "windows".
the last survey joined the previous surveys at seven stations.
needless to say, i was not able to tell therion how to break the centerline
for the extended elevation. Eventually i remov
erion chooses the best order to process
> them (as it does with survey data)?
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> *From:* Therion *On Behalf Of *Stacho Mudrak
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 July 2020 17:43
> *To:* List for Therion users
> *Subject:* Re: [Therion] Revisit
process them (as
it does with survey data)?
Bruce
From: Therion On Behalf Of Stacho Mudrak
Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2020 17:43
To: List for Therion users
Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific
stations
Hi, after returning from the caving trip, I would
Hi, after returning from the caving trip, I would like to finish this topic.
For me, adding another parameter to extend is a little bit problematic, I
would prefer some new keyword.
What do you think about:
extend stop 8 7
S.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 11:01, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion <
ther
> How about...
> extend ignore 8 7 [ (from) | to ]
> ... since we already use the from and to keywords with respect to stations at
> each end of a survey leg?
It's all good by me.
The only reason I didn't suggest that keyword is that Therion is
stepping through my loop backwards. So a user might
>The modifier name I suggested was "break at the *end* of the leg, not the
>start of it like you normally would". Sortof like "to" rather than "from",
>except that Therion picks its own start station and end station of a >leg when
>traversing an extended elevation.
OK, I misunderstood...
>ext
> Not sure about the word 'end', as it will not always be evident which
> end of a loop is the 'end’.
The modifier name I suggested was "break at the *end* of the leg, not
the start of it like you normally would". Sortof like "to" rather than
"from", except that Therion picks its own start station
I wondered if adding extend statements in-line with data would offer a
solution, or at least some insight.
If so I have not found it yet. Interested to see if anyone else can:
1. Make the loop generate anticlockwise and produce a gap at station 2,
with the second instance of 2 on the r
-Original Message-
From: Therion On Behalf Of Tarquin Wilton-Jones via
Therion
Sent: Wednesday, 8 July 2020 02:42
To: therion@speleo.sk
Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones
Subject: Re: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific
stations
> Well, there is one w
> Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/
>
> extend ignore 7 8
> extend ignore 8 7
Wow!
First thought is; that ... really shouldn't work, and it looks almost
like a bug.
Maybe there is logic though, if you look at those two statements in the
opposite orde
Well, there is one workaround. But to be honest, I have no idea why :/
extend ignore 7 8
extend ignore 8 7
Something like:
extend end 8 7
... would be definitely better. Is it OK to implement it like that?
S.
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 11:38, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion <
therion@sp
> Actually, I have found a way, but it is cheating, and not suitable for a
> real-life project.
Indeed. starting from the wrong end would just swap one problem for
another ;)
I added an "Important note" to the end of this:
https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend
Summary:
As it currently st
> OK, I give up I think. It might not be possible to break a loop at it’s
> closing end.
OK, so if even the extended elevation master can't do it, I don't have
to feel like I missed something obvious...
My proposed solution would be for "extend ignore 7 8" to tell Therion "I
want you to break at
n mailto:therion@speleo.sk> >
Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones mailto:tarquin.wilton-jo...@ntlworld.com> >
Subject: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations
Hi all,
I have a puzzle that comes from my old puzzle:
<https://therion.speleo
although more intuitive, lets cancel that idea!
Bruce
-Original Message-
From: Therion On Behalf Of Tarquin Wilton-Jones via
Therion
Sent: Tuesday, 7 July 2020 09:12
To: Therion
Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones
Subject: [Therion] Revisiting Breaking extended elevations on specific stations
Hi all,
I have a puzzle that comes from my old puzzle:
https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/breakingextend
1 2 10 -10
2 3 10 -10
3 4 145 -10
4 5 145 -10
5 6 145 -10
6 7 190 -10
7 8 1.71 225 60
8 9 1225 10
9 10 1225 10
10 2 1.8 225 -32.2
7 1
25 matches
Mail list logo
