Wow-that surely is not easy to figure out i think. But at least you have a dataset to reproduce this!
My naive guess is that when no Maps are defined and maps-off Not in effect, that sometimes the order of definition plays a role too? Btw, i love maps-off and that was a feature i was wanting a long time. When i finally requested it, it got quickly implemented, and i am very grateful for that! > Am 27.09.2020 um 10:28 schrieb Bruce Mutton <[email protected]>: > > > This is just a FYI in case anyone is interested. > A problem solved, but a mystery not solved. > > On and off through 2019 there were discussions about how to predict or debug > scrap stacking order. > This message by Tarquin covers the expected behaviour fairly comprehensively. > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07925.html > > That is all very well, and 99% of the time my projects stack scraps the way I > expect. Except that I have one large project where lower passage scraps > stack on top of upper level scraps, in a few locations only, in the scenario > where no maps defined whatsoever (with the intention that scraps therefore > stack according to average altitude). Other scenarios using the same source > data, where maps are defined and selected, all plot as expected according to > the map structures. But for large overview maps I need to plot all scraps > without any map structure, and I’d like them to stack correctly. > > The offending scraps were drawn many years ago, and were all much longer and > encompassing much greater passage height variations than I would adopt these > days. I just assumed that the average heights that Therion calculated were > somehow not collated in the stacking order that I expected. Anyway I > eventually found the time to check the scrap and heights reported in > therion.log. To my slight surprise I found that in fact the average heights > that Therion calculated were in exactly the order I expected. So why was > Therion not stacking the scraps in the expected order? My anticipated > solution of breaking the scraps into pieces to make them behave properly no > longer seemed likely to make any difference. > > Since it was implemented, I have been making use of the ‘maps off’ to disable > previews and offsets, as a more refined way of achieving a particular output > than just ‘not defining’ any maps in a particular thconfig. > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07571.html > > In desperation I thought I’d try adding ‘maps off’ to the thconfig above, > where no maps were defined. It should, I expected, make no difference at all. > And in one easy step, all of the scraps now plot in the correct stacking > order! > So why does ‘maps off’ make scraps plot in the correct order when there are > no maps defined? > > Bruce > > _______________________________________________ > Therion mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
