Map files, Altitude Etc.

[caddylars]

I'm building a route at altitude 0, and i would like to merge in a dem route at altitude 180.
I have tried to change the altitude values in the config file, on both routes, but so far no luck.
There's still a difference at 180.
I know i could use portals, but i would do anything to avoid that.

Is there any solutions to this?


Lars

 

[Bill69]

altitude

Hi caddylars,

How about a spiral? Maybe over the area of two or even three boards.

Hope this helps,
Bill69

 

[geophil]

There is a TransDEM function to do this: Menu Trainz | Adjust Elevations in Entire Route

HTH
geophil

 

[HiBaller]

If you don't have a lot started on your first route, perhaps you could use the "Set Height" tool in surveyor. Set it to 180, and use the maximum diameter to raise the entire route up to the merging height. All the texturing would follow. The vertices would show up so you could then raise them up using the "Set Vertice height" tool. The only problem would be the various content you already have.

Bill

 

[caddylars]

There is a TransDEM function to do this: Menu Trainz | Adjust Elevations in Entire Route

HTH
geophil

Please, do tell me more.

lars

 

[geophil]

Lars:

Quote from the TransDEM Trainz manual (p 28):

TransDEM offers a function to raise or lower an entire Trainz route and its assets. The purpose of this function is to facilitate merging of route modules built conventionally with TransDEM-generated DEM-based route modules. Conventional building in Surveyor will create base-boards at “sea-level”. TransDEM-created modules will be at DEM height, usually higher than sea-level.

Note 1: A precondition for such a merge is that the conventionally-built module is largely built to scale and oriented north. The elevation adjustment function will be used to raise the conventionally-built module to the terrain height imposed by DEM data.

[...]

Calling this function opens a dialogue to set the parameters and select the route.

 

[Zwabberaar]

Lars:

Quote from the TransDEM Trainz manual (p 28):

It would be great if this function would be shared as a stand-alone tool as I find buying the program for just this utility quite expensive.

 

[caddylars]

It would be great if this function would be shared as a stand-alone tool as I find buying the program for just this utility quite expensive.

The program itself is well worth the money, trust me.
It offers many many hours of pure fun.


Lars

 

[caddylars]

Problem solved

Thanks to Geophil

Also, a big thanks to everyone else for yout great ideas.

Lars

 

[Zwabberaar]

The program itself is well worth the money, trust me.
It offers many many hours of pure fun.


Lars

I am sure the program is well worth its money. But I am not into building prototypical routes and therefore have no need for the program.

 

[Dap]

I am sure the program is well worth its money. But I am not into building prototypical routes and therefore have no need for the program.

Ah, but building a nonprototypical route over existing terrain can be lots of fun. Searching thru the hills and valleys to find the "best" route for your tracks. And there is no better way to generate realistic terrain.

 

[Zwabberaar]

Ah, but building a nonprototypical route over existing terrain can be lots of fun. Searching thru the hills and valleys to find the "best" route for your tracks. And there is no better way to generate realistic terrain.

You mean like the 175 maps of fishlipsatwork ( kuid 59012 )?

That is exactly what I do at the moment

So still no use for the expensive program, but the standalone "terrain raiser" would be a nice utility. Perhaps Auran should include it as one of the new features for Classics?