Hi Tarquin
There is no difference between colouring of plan or elevation projections.
If I am being pedantic, I make sure that scrap joins in plan and elevation are
all made in the same passage location, and then colour both plan and elevation
by altitude, unless I don't colour them at all. If I am colouring for
presentation I usually colour by altitude, but I also make use of all of the
other automated colouring options, and white is a good choice too.
Automated colouring options are listed here, along with user definable
overrides.
https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/examples?s[]=lookup#colour_scales_-_lookups
Usually I am not so pedantic, and my scrap joins in elevation do not match
those in the plan. To compensate I just make sure scraps are short, and joins
are placed near a change in gradient or altitude.
In the situation you describe I would probably define a new elevation map
between each of your 'breaks'.
Then in your layout include...
colour map-fg map
Then if you also wish to manually specify the actual colours or labels, in your
th-config include...
lookup map -title "Map colour legend"
map1@some_survey [colour] "passage in front"
map2 [colour] "passage in between"
map3 [colour] "passage behind"
endlookup
The colours are optional I think, you should be able to replace them with empty
square brackets if you also want labels in the legend. You can omit specifying
the colours and the labels. When this feature was first introduced I played
with it quite a bit, but I may not have used the exact variant shown above. I
did have some trouble with colouring maps directly using select statements, as
hinted at in the web page above, so it may not work perfectly.
Strategic use of transparency and opacity in your layout can also minimise the
need to apply fancy colouring to your outputs, and in any case will enhance
them.
Here are the statements and comments I put in my 'standard' layout to remind me
of what might be good settings. The opacity setting that works best for white
passage fill is different to that which works best with colour fills. It also
differs for on-screen or printed output viewing.
transparency on # see thru passages
opacity 50 # degree of transparency: transparent = 0 <= opacity
<= 100 = opaque
#00 = transparent
#40 = subtle, 60 - 70 = apparent: overwritten text still
visible
#80 = good passage definition but overwritten text barely
visible
#100 = block out passage underneath
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Therion <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tarquin Wilton-Jones via
Therion
Sent: Tuesday, 30 April 2019 03:03
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: [Therion] Best approach for colouring elevations
Hi folks,
With either extended or projected elevations, we end up with a few passages
overlapping each other. This is intentional (so displacing some of them is not
a desired solution). However, it would be nice to be able to colour them
differently, to make it easier to see which parts belong to which passage.
Colouring by altitude doesn't help in elevations, because they are all at the
same altitude when they are overlapping.
"Colour by distance from the viewer" is better.
This could be coloured by colouring the individual scraps, but that is messy,
and hard to maintain. The desired output would be "colour by break". Meaning;
each time there is a "break" in the map, change the fg colour.
Does anyone have any tips on how best to colour extended/projected elevations?
Is "colour by break" possible in some way? Or do you prefer a different
approach?
Cheers,
Tarquin
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
