Hi Stacho,
your infos did the trick.
indeed the data showed at closer examination, that the parts where
averaged lower than the part in question. The wrongly-lower part
contains a steep slope but the average height was still some few meters
below the average of the offending part.
What puzzled me was that even splitting the scraps was not enough!
I now have a scrap containing only the sloped part of the tunnel, and
that is surely averaged above the lower part.
What solved it was to also rearrange the map definitions that contain
the sloped part: i put the low part prior the slope in question in
another map like this:
-------snip----------
# This works instead:
map working-priortunnel
scrap-low-tunnel-before-slope
endmap
map working-slope
scrap-slope-itself-with-followig-high-part
endmap
# this does NOT work lie intendet:
#map notWorking-combined
# scrap-low-tunnel-before-slope
# scrap-slope-itself-with-followig-high-part
#endmap
-------snap----------
It looks like therion currently uses the average height of the MAP, not
the contained scraps, to calculate which part is above or below. In this
example, it looks like it is getting the average height of the
"notWorking-combined" combined map and comparing this to the
uncorrelated below-tunnel.
If i put the "scrap-low-tunnel-before-slope" in its own MAP definition,
the average calculation can only take the
"scrap-slope-itself-with-followig-high-part" and thus resulting in a
much higher average height.
Can you confirm this from therions sourcecode, and is this really the
intendet behaviour, since i think each scrap shopuld be averaged for
itself, regardless of its map allocation...?
Wih best regards,
Beni
Am 2019-05-30 22:27, schrieb Stacho Mudrak:
Hello,
if you select just survey, then all maps consisting of scraps in this
and sub-surveys should be ordered by average altitude. But this may
easily cause that some overlapping is not done correctly. But it is
also possible, there is some bug and it is not done correctly. Are you
able to post some minimalistic sample, where depth sort fails?
The only way how to manually order maps in the output is to create
upper-level maps (in your case probably what you mean by
<region>-Hautplan) consisting of lower level maps in the correct
order.
HTH, S.
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 15:55, Benedikt Hallinger <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello there,
i have a very large dataset here. It is organised by regions like
this
(but much more leaf objects and regions):
=====snip=====
- survey TheCave
- survey RegionWest
- survey 1
- survey 3
- survey 5
- survey RegionEast
- survey 2
- survey 4
- survey 6
=====snap=====
I currently work from bottom to up, that is i draw the individual
surveys as scraps, based on original material (sometimes they are
really
large and cosnsist of several many scraps).
In each of they leaf surveys (the numbered ones) i make by
convention a
map called "<n>-Hauptplan". The main idea is that every leaf survey
can
be treaten modular and that i can compile varoius maps at upper
levels
(i.e regions).
Currently, the regions have no "<region>-Hautplan". When i use
"select
RegionWest.TheCave", therion is instructed to select all scraps
below
it. For the most part, this works like intendet and the overlappings
are
calculated correctly. There are some places however, where the upper
part of the passage is rendered below the lower part, which is
wrong.
This is with about 10-15% of the passages (so most is already ok).
I know from the manuals that therion does this "randomly" so there
is no
real way to adjust this from my perspective (placing the "input 2.th
[1]"
command in the region.th [2] file, wich then inputs the scraps etc,
lower in
the list does not help - it seems random where it is).
I think, however, that it would be a very great addition, if there
would
be some code in the renderer, that sorts the vertical presentation
of
the scraps/maps by average altitude of said scrap/map, and that this
behavior is controllable by some configuration (cmdline option, or
even
better, thconfig parameter).
=> Is there maybe already something hidden like this i don't know so
far?
That would be very great, because when i look at the dataset, i face
about 30-50 hours producing correctly manually sorted handcrafted
maps
at the region level...
Sincerely, Beni
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
Links:
------
[1] http://2.th
[2] http://region.th
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
