Great use of Google Earth

[Mick_Berg]

I started out using Google Earth the way you have.
Here's some observations - Lat-Long Marker, the alternative Trig Point marker, is much easier to use, as it's easy to read the lat-long values. Mick Berg.

Sorry, it's called Lat/Long Reader.
I would certainly use the Basemaps that Claude refers to. No need to go into gmax to make the planes. The tutorial is good and clear.
There is one problem when using aTranzDEM map, if you accidentally alter the terrain height in Surveyor (which is very easy to do) your elevation info is gone forever. I can't think of a solution to this - can anyone else?
Mick Berg.

 

[geophil]

There is one problem when using aTranzDEM map, if you accidentally alter the terrain height in Surveyor (which is very easy to do) your elevation info is gone forever. I can't think of a solution to this - can anyone else?

Mick,

could you explain what kind of effect you mean?

Are you referring to TransDEM UTM tiles suddenly disappearing below the terrain surface (i.e snapping to their preassigned elevation)? If yes, you can easily raise them again. Switch to wireframe mode in Surveyor, and you will find the tiles. Raise and lower as usual.

The TransDEM-created landscape itself, based on DEM elevation, should not loose this information, unless you explicitly and intensively apply Surveyor terra-forming tools.

geophil

 

[Mick_Berg]

Mick,

could you explain what kind of effect you mean?

Are you referring to TransDEM UTM tiles suddenly disappearing below the terrain surface (i.e snapping to their preassigned elevation)? If yes, you can easily raise them again. Switch to wireframe mode in Surveyor, and you will find the tiles. Raise and lower as usual.

The TransDEM-created landscape itself, based on DEM elevation, should not loose this information, unless you explicitly and intensively apply Surveyor terra-forming tools.

geophil

I was referring to the latter case. It's quite easy to accidentally move the terrain up and down, for instance by using the "smooth spline" button. (Its's very easy to do the wrong thing in Surveyor!) Once you've done that, unless you undo it pretty soon, you've lost the original DEM information.
Mick Berg.
PS My remark was not intended as any form of criticism.

 

[Approach_Medium]

When I use Lat/Long Reader, I get an asset warning on loading my route.
I went into CMP to allow saving the cfg file in TRS 2006 format, but that didn't help.
Any idea of what's wrong here?

Thanks

FW

 

[Mick_Berg]

When I use Lat/Long Reader, I get an asset warning on loading my route. I went into CMP to allow saving the cfg file in TRS 2006 format, but that didn't help. Any idea of what's wrong here?
Thanks
FW

Here's a classic case of simple error fixing. Look at the config.txt file, (use "Edit in Explorer" in CMP) and you will see a file called "blue.texture.txt". But there is no "blue.tga" texture file to go with it. Therefore you get an error. The maker of the asset changed the colour to blue-black, and didn't remove the old texture.txt file. Delete it, and you will have an error-free asset.
The asset would work anyway, but TRS2006 spots errors more accurately than 2004 did. Most of us (I think) suppress the warning in Surveyor, as so many older assets have faults (errors) that actually do no harm.
Hope this helps,
Mick Berg.

 

[Approach_Medium]

Here's a classic case of simple error fixing. Look at the config.txt file, (use "Edit in Explorer" in CMP) and you will see a file called "blue.texture.txt". But there is no "blue.tga" texture file to go with it. Therefore you get an error. The maker of the asset changed the colour to blue-black, and didn't remove the old texture.txt file. Delete it, and you will have an error-free asset.
The asset would work anyway, but TRS2006 spots errors more accurately than 2004 did. Most of us (I think) suppress the warning in Surveyor, as so many older assets have faults (errors) that actually do no harm.
Hope this helps,
Mick Berg.

Thanks Mick; Works fine now.
I guess if I took the time to understand Trainz asset files a bit better, I would be able to figure out things like this myself. Problem is, I'm spending my time building my route(s), not creating or editing assets.
Eventually, when I get far enough on my 'prototypical' route, I will want to create some new assets using photos I have taken along the route.

It's amazing how much time it takes to create such a route. I am still using the manual method (using the lat/long markers to mark switches, etc) and then laying the track from point to point.
I am not even finished with the CSX North Bergen yard, which is tiny compared to Oak Island in Newark, which I will have to do someday. I think I am going to buy TransDem before attempting to lay out OI yard. That should be a good test for that process.

In any case, I still find this whole project fun and relaxing. I don't really care how long it takes me to complete it. Then I don't know really when I will consider it completed. Am I going to model all the active RR's in NJ? There's plenty to keep anyone busy here!

FW

 

[PEV]

Google Earth into Trainz

I have just added 23 base boards to a route I am working on. I used Vulcan's tutorial as a starting point. (Very helpful, thank you Ian)

I set the camera height in Google Earth to 998m as Vulcan suggested and put a horizontal ruler in at the bottom of the screen to be 720m long (one baseboard). I then panned over the route and ended up with 20 images.

In PaintShop Pro I then reduced the image sizes to make the 720m ruler 512 pixels long. Each tile texture was then made 512x512 pixels. (power of 2 rule).. and so on. The image reduction ratio ended up being 63%, which PSP conveniently stores so it all became fairly quick...I used registration lines to define the starting point of each tile. It took one day to make the textures, put then into Trainz and add the base boards.

Now all I have to do is populate the boards with scenery.....weeks of work..
The track laying is easy. And you can even get an idea if topography by studying the shadows. embankments, bridges etc are obvious...

More fun

 

[geophil]

I am still using the manual method (using the lat/long markers to mark switches, etc) and then laying the track from point to point.
I am not even finished with the CSX North Bergen yard, which is tiny compared to Oak Island in Newark, which I will have to do someday. I think I am going to buy TransDem before attempting to lay out OI yard. That should be a good test for that process.

Keep in mind that Surveyor lat/long readings introduce systematic errors with no reasonable way to correct them. Also, once you have started construction on a flat surface, you cannot modify it to DEM terrain later. Nevertheless, experimenting with manual coordinate transfer will help to understand the process of building prototypical routes.

geophil

 

[nbrettoner]

Or you could just use the existing 1km basemaps.

http://www.g0akh.f2s.com/Trainz/Basemap_tutorial.html

These are incredibly handy if you don't have DEM data.

Claude

Hi 'FW',

This is the method I used in my part of the DHR Project.
When you download the basemaps, there's a readme file in the folder that explains everything you need to do & how.

:wave:

 

[nbrettoner]

I have just added 23 base boards to a route I am working on. I used Vulcan's tutorial as a starting point. (Very helpful, thank you Ian)

I set the camera height in Google Earth to 998m as Vulcan suggested and put a horizontal ruler in at the bottom of the screen to be 720m long (one baseboard). I then panned over the route and ended up with 20 images.

In PaintShop Pro I then reduced the image sizes to make the 720m ruler 512 pixels long. Each tile texture was then made 512x512 pixels. (power of 2 rule).. and so on. The image reduction ratio ended up being 63%, which PSP conveniently stores so it all became fairly quick...I used registration lines to define the starting point of each tile. It took one day to make the textures, put then into Trainz and add the base boards.

Now all I have to do is populate the boards with scenery.....weeks of work..
The track laying is easy. And you can even get an idea if topography by studying the shadows. embankments, bridges etc are obvious...

More fun

Hi 'FW',

How do you know when you have a 512x512 pixel size?.
In Irfanview there's a readout window (I think at the top?) that shows the image dimensions when cropping, which is the way I did it.
ie I took screengrabs larger than the area 720 meter area in GE, so I could crop the area exactly to 512x512 = 720 x720 meters.
This was done in two stages.
First I'd crop the image to an exact square of the image's '720' meters. it didn't matter that it wasn't yet 512. Just as long as you used that 720 meter GE rule length & made the vertical exactly the same.
eg if the rule ended up showing say 613 in Irfanview, then the vertical you cropped to 613 as well, giving you a 613 cropped square.
After that resize it with aspect locked, to exactly 512 pixels, & you now have a 512 square.
A lot easier than it sounds here actually.

 

[Approach_Medium]

Keep in mind that Surveyor lat/long readings introduce systematic errors with no reasonable way to correct them. Also, once you have started construction on a flat surface, you cannot modify it to DEM terrain later. Nevertheless, experimenting with manual coordinate transfer will help to understand the process of building prototypical routes.

geophil

Geophil; I'm not sure I understand what you are telling me. Are you saying that if I apply DEM terrain to my currently flat surface layout, I will screw it up?
I would have thought I could apply the DEM terrain, and move the tracks up or down to fit the terrain.
I am planning to add terrain later anyway. I want to get all my tracks laid first.

FW

 

[geophil]

Geophil; I'm not sure I understand what you are telling me. Are you saying that if I apply DEM terrain to my currently flat surface layout, I will screw it up?
I would have thought I could apply the DEM terrain, and move the tracks up or down to fit the terrain.
I am planning to add terrain later anyway. I want to get all my tracks laid first.

FW

None of the terrain tools for Trainz supports this approach. They all demand: terrain first, populate later, not the other way round.

DEM terrain has 3-dimensional coordinates: horizontal position (usually UTM, although MicroDEM theoretically allows other projections) and elevation. Surveyor horizontal position in degrees, determined by lat/long reader or similar, comes from the simplified Trainz internal projection which is definitely not UTM, so your lat/long, be it the same numerical value, will end up elsewhere. And track laid at sea level (flat terrain) will not automatically be lifted to proper DEM terrain elevation.

geophil

 

[Approach_Medium]

None of the terrain tools for Trainz supports this approach. They all demand: terrain first, populate later, not the other way round.

DEM terrain has 3-dimensional coordinates: horizontal position (usually UTM, although MicroDEM theoretically allows other projections) and elevation. Surveyor horizontal position in degrees, determined by lat/long reader or similar, comes from the simplified Trainz internal projection which is definitely not UTM, so your lat/long, be it the same numerical value, will end up elsewhere. And track laid at sea level (flat terrain) will not automatically be lifted to proper DEM terrain elevation.

geophil

I wouldn't expect DEM to automatically lift my pre-laid trackage to the new terrain. I would have to do that myself.
I have been laying track first, then building terrain for a long time. It works as far as I need it to. After applying the terrain tools, I then apply the Smooth Spline Height tool to make sure the terrain conforms to the track.

As far as Trainz simple projections being off compared to UTM, how far off are we talking about, assuming I am within 10 miles of my World Origin?
I thought I might move the World Origin once I have laid track in an area about 10 miles radius, deleting the old Lat/Long markers, then start from the new origin with lat/long markers. I would think that would give me a little more accuracy.

In any case, I'm not really worried about errors in lat/long coordinates. All I want is a rough layout. I'm not doing a truly prototypical route.

FW

 

[geophil]

I wouldn't expect DEM to automatically lift my pre-laid trackage to the new terrain. I would have to do that myself.
I have been laying track first, then building terrain for a long time. It works as far as I need it to. After applying the terrain tools, I then apply the Smooth Spline Height tool to make sure the terrain conforms to the track.

Trainz does not support to replace one .gnd file (sea level) with another .gnd file (DEM-based) in a populated route and leave all the objects intact (buried deep under the surface afterwards). It is possible, theoretically, but it would require a dedicated piece of software to do it. The approach taken by HOG and MapMaker is to replace the .gnd file in a blank route. (In TransDEM all files making up the route are created in one rush, hence no need to replace the .gnd file.)

As far as Trainz simple projections being off compared to UTM, how far off are we talking about, assuming I am within 10 miles of my World Origin?

See here for a more in-depth analysis of this problem: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?p=219899#post219899

I thought I might move the World Origin once I have laid track in an area about 10 miles radius, deleting the old Lat/Long markers, then start from the new origin with lat/long markers. I would think that would give me a little more accuracy.

I'm afraid this won't work. How would you determine where to place the new World Origin?

The only reasonable way for a manual approach is to convert lat/longs to proper UTM externally, see below.

UTM is a Cartesian coordinate system, so is the Trainz internal system. Both are in meters. You can display Trainz coordinates in Surveyor. There will be a constant offset between UTM and Trainz coordinates which you have to add or subtract, but no longer any systematic error. To be fully compatible with TransDEM, make this offset a multiple of 720m from the equator for the northing and from the 500,000m central meridian for the easting.

I'm not sure about Google Earth but I think it can display UTM coordinates and their projection formula should be correct. There are other converters available on websites or as standalone applications. The projection formulas are no big secret but tend to be a bit complex.

In any case, I'm not really worried about errors in lat/long coordinates. All I want is a rough layout. I'm not doing a truly prototypical route.

The essential point is to keep geo-referencing and projection errors under control. Easiest way to do this is by using exactly the same projection for all geo resources.

geophil

 

[Approach_Medium]

I'm afraid this won't work. How would you determine where to place the new World Origin?

I would move the World Origin to one of my Lat/Long markers and set it equal to that marker.
I'll try the conversion, but truthfully, I may just leave well enough alone and just go with the Trainz coordinates.
I'll see how far off I am by the time I get 125 miles away from my WO.

FW

 

[Approach_Medium]

Does anyone know where I can find the conversion (offset) factor for getting the correct UTM coordinates from Google Earth into TRS2006?

Thanks

FW

 

[geophil]

I would move the World Origin to one of my Lat/Long markers and set it equal to that marker,

this way projecting the error of the marker to the new location.

Does anyone know where I can find the conversion (offset) factor for getting the correct UTM coordinates from Google Earth into TRS2006?

Presumably the way TransDEM does this is too complicated for doing it manually. But basically your reference point is the Trainz world origin object. Where ever you place it in Surveyor you need to know:

• lat/long of world origin
• UTM of world origin
• Trainz coordinates of world origin

lat/long is not essential, but as lat/long of the world origin is saved in config.txt you can always convert to UTM from there.

Your offset is the difference between the UTM coordinates of the world origin and the Trainz coordinates of the world origin.

Apply this offset to all UTM coordinates and you should be fine.

geophil

 

[Tokkyu40]

I would move the World Origin to one of my Lat/Long markers and set it equal to that marker.
I'll try the conversion, but truthfully, I may just leave well enough alone and just go with the Trainz coordinates.
I'll see how far off I am by the time I get 125 miles away from my WO.

FW

Just out of curiosity, could you actually tell the difference when you're in Trainz? A dedicated purist might be troubled just to know there's an error, but he should also be troubled by the lack of curvature to begin with.


Claude

 

[geophil]

Just out of curiosity, could you actually tell the difference when you're in Trainz? A dedicated purist might be troubled just to know there's an error, but he should also be troubled by the lack of curvature to begin with.

Occasionally you read about rivers flowing uphill when route builders describe their experience with geo data. There could be different reasons:

• Low accuracy of geo data sources
• Position, rotation, scale and distortion error caused by manual approximation during the geo data transfer process
• Systematic error by applying different map projections to different geo data sources.

Geo data processing is a fascinating activity as you can combine maps and DEMs from completely different and independent sources and surprisingly they all fit nicely together, provided you observe the rules how to project the data.

geophil

 

[Approach_Medium]

Just out of curiosity, could you actually tell the difference when you're in Trainz? A dedicated purist might be troubled just to know there's an error, but he should also be troubled by the lack of curvature to begin with.


Claude

That's exactly the way I feel! What I am getting by transposing "push-pin" marker data from Google Earth into Trainz is good enough for me. My route at least looks like it's taking the shape of the prototype. Whether or not the distances are correct is not really a concern of mine.

I am just wondering how long it will take me to lay out the trackage in a very large yard by hand. I was thinking about purchasing TransDem Trainz Edition, but I really don't want to spend another $35 on software at the moment. And, if that means ripping up everything I have done so far and starting over, I don't think I want to do it.

One thing I am finding is that I am having trouble getting the right bridges for my route.
For one, all of the bridges I have seen automatically move the support pylons when you stretch the splines, and sometimes these get in the way.
In one case, I have one track going under another at a very acute angle, so I need more space between pylons. I will have to search DLS for what I need, or try to build bridges myself<g>

FW