World Origin altitude

[martinvk]

I had a World Origin in my route with altitude = 0
When I measured the elevation of a specific location using the Get Height 'G' button in the Topology tab, it was reporting -11m when it should have been +4m.

So I changed the altitude value to 15m and the Get Height reported +4m. So far so good.

Next I used the Use Height 'H' button with the previous value of 4m and applied it to the area. Oh no, it looks wrong. If I then Get Height again, the value is +19m! A difference of 15m, the value I entered in the altitude field.

I tried raising the ground under the WO to +15m and setting the altitude to 0 but that didn't affect the local elevation readings, still 15m to low.

How do i get a proper 'G' reading and still get a proper 'H' result?

 

[martinvk]

From the underwhelming response and 43 looks, I infer that this is not an interesting problem or no one knows how to fix it.

I tested again in a new map: Altitude 0, Get Height is 0 everywhere.
Manually raised some ground to 10m. Get Height reports 10m where it is higher and 0 elsewhere.

Changed the Altitude to 10m and now Get Height reads 20m on the raised ground and 10m elsewhere.

Raising the ground using the Use Height set to 5m results in a raising of the ground to 15m, 5 + the 10 from the altitude.-10Physically raising the WO has no effect.

So as long as I don't use Get Height to set the Use Height value, I'm OK. Is this just the way it works or am I missing a step or doing something wrong?

 

[seeseeme]

I have never used the WOM for the altitude reference. I tried some time ago but could never understand how it helps. If I set the ground height in the WOM to 50 and then check the actual height in Surveyor it still showed Zero.

I have never tried testing the WOM when it is raised above Zero so I am not sure about that one.

Craig

 

[martinvk]

Hmmm, it would be nice if we could get some official clarification on the proper use of the Altitude parameter in the World Origin object.

1. is not associated with the Get and Use Height buttons
2. is meant for some future function that has not been implemented yet
3. was a good idea at the time but it never worked
4. something else

:wave:

 

[Jananton]

Hello Martin,

Let me begin to say I've never used this, but I had a look in the user manual of trs2006 about the world origin, and as far as I can see, it's something where you need two components to work with it. First there's the world origin marker that you place on your route with longitude lattitude and elevation. Second, to measure relative position and altitude, you have to place so called trig stations that will give you altitude and long and latt position.
So, I think get height isn't linked at all to the world origin. It isn't mentioned at all in the user guide in combination with it.

This would mean answer 1 and 4 seem to be applicable. :hehe:

Greetings from overcast Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[Bill69]

Hi Martin,

I posted in the trainzdev forum about this problem when TS2009 was at the beta stage. There was a responce from Auran at that time but it seems nothing has been done about it. I remember in TRS2004 ther was a choice of setting the terrain height as absolute or relative and I think from memory if you used relative height things worked out as they should. Could be wrong about that bit, only going on memory.

Cheers,
Bill69

 

[martinvk]

Well I finally had a chance to chase down various guides from previous versions.

In the World Builders guide from TRS2004, they mention that latitude, longitude and altitude can be set and are properties of the Origin Marker. The first two are described but the last is just mentioned.

In the TRS2006 manual, which also shipped with TS2009, pretty much the same text is repeated.

By the time the TS2010EE manual was released, it said:

You can also change the hemisphere that your route is located
in by selecting the add/move world origin button and clicking
on the map to place it. Once placed you can L-Click edit world
origin and change the exact location in the world.

Note that there is no more mention of altitude.

From this I can only conclude the my #3 is valid. "good idea but ...", and we only still see the altitude field because it's easier to leave it in than to remove it.

Too bad, I think it would have added extra flexibility to creating and modifying 3D maps. Is it too much to hope that it will one day be implemented?

 

[seeseeme]

Yeah, I think your right "sounds like a good idea BUT!"

Its a shame though, the other thing with it as well is that it only accepts up to 100m (from memory). I have not tried it in 2010 but I suspect it would be the same as other versions.

Craig