CT needs to completely rework the way terrain is generated... it's just terrible

[Quieve]

I find the current terrain elevation system absolutely atroscious. You have to draw numerous lines to make something as simple as this:

 

 

I always found it a nightmare with these lines, a lot of trial and error is involved to get it right. It's just a terrible, terrible system... 

 

There is so much simpler and faster way to do it, just use the Audio EQ style? Low-pass filter, high pass filter, or regular dip/peak?  Why not just draw A SINGLE line and then then specify how high/low and sharply/widely it curves. 

 

 

Step 1: draw an elevation line.

Step 2: specify type, height/width of effect.

Done.

 

Not drawing 10 lines and then dragging them back and forth nonsense to get things right. That's just such a terribly inefficient and frustrating way to program elevations, I'm so surprised we're still doing this in year of 2018... 

[glennw]

Sounds much like Terrain Surface Smoothing to me.

[Quieve]

Smoothing? This way you can do a lot more than smoothing. You'd have of course to insert a few more to render some more complex terrain lines, but to achieve a similar effect with the current system you have to draw probably something like 2,185 lines and then spend a few hours dragging them back and forth to find the right look... EQ-style would provide accurate terrain drawing with minimum effort and I think it would be far more accurate. If this could be somehow implemented in 3D view where you could see elevation points or lines and manipulate Q number and visualize changes it would be absolutely awesome.

[Alaskan_Son]

On 6/27/2018 at 8:50 PM, Quieve said:

I find the current terrain elevation system absolutely atroscious. You have to draw numerous lines to make something as simple as this:

 

 

I always found it a nightmare with these lines, a lot of trial and error is involved to get it right. It's just a terrible, terrible system... 

 

There is so much simpler and faster way to do it, just use the Audio EQ style? Low-pass filter, high pass filter, or regular dip/peak?  Why not just draw A SINGLE line and then then specify how high/low and sharply/widely it curves. 

 

 

Step 1: draw an elevation line.

Step 2: specify type, height/width of effect.

Done.

 

Not drawing 10 lines and then dragging them back and forth nonsense to get things right. That's just such a terribly inefficient and frustrating way to program elevations, I'm so surprised we're still doing this in year of 2018... 

 

This is an absolutely fabulous idea...if all you need to do is show a terrain cross section and your regular CAD tools have all gone on the fritz.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure you've given this the proper consideration.  Building a terrain is far more complicated than the simple waves you've described.  What you have shown involves amplitude and frequency.  First off, with terrain definitions, there technically is no amplitude.  It could rise but never drop, or visa versa.  Secondly, the frequency is rarely if ever constant from one elevation line to the next. 

 

At best, your setting could only ever apply to one single section cut plane out of the infinite number of cut planes you could be dealing with.  Anything outside that cut plane would need to be interpolated much like it is now.  Think about it...If you have 2 contour lines that are 6 inches apart at one location and 30 feet apart at another location, how is a simple wave definition supposed to apply?

 

I agree that there are ways that the terrain could be simplified in Chief.  I'm just not convinced that this is one of them. 

 

 

[jcaffee]

I have good success using GPS data points from the survey or from Geoplaner (https://www.geoplaner.com/) if I'm looking for a headstart on lot placement without the need for absolute accuracy.

 

That said, data points ALWAYS need some cleanup. 

 

What I would like is some automation in determining how much material is added/removed from the baseline lot with the use of terrain tools.  Computers are s'posed to be really good at math, right?

[Alaskan_Son]

4 hours ago, jcaffee said:

What I would like is some automation in determining how much material is added/removed from the baseline lot with the use of terrain tools.  Computers are s'posed to be really good at math, right?

 

I've developed a couple different methods for helping to automate terrain cut/fill calculations.  I made a paid access video tutorial package for the first method.  Shoot me an email at alaskansons@gmail.com  if you're interested. 

 

It's been my intention to create another tutorial package to go over the second method.  I just haven't had a lot of time, and haven't seen a whole lot of interest, and so that's been put onto the back burner for now.  

[Quieve]

15 hours ago, Alaskan_Son said:

 

This is an absolutely fabulous idea...if all you need to do is show a terrain cross section and your regular CAD tools have all gone on the fritz.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure you've given this the proper consideration.  Building a terrain is far more complicated than the simple waves you've described.  What you have shown involves amplitude and frequency.  First off, with terrain definitions, there technically is no amplitude.  It could rise but never drop, or visa versa.  Secondly, the frequency is rarely if ever constant from one elevation line to the next. 

 

At best, your setting could only ever apply to one single section cut plane out of the infinite number of cut planes you could be dealing with.  Anything outside that cut plane would need to be interpolated much like it is now.  Think about it...If you have 2 contour lines that are 6 inches apart at one location and 30 feet apart at another location, how is a simple wave definition supposed to apply?

 

I agree that there are ways that the terrain could be simplified in Chief.  I'm just not convinced that this is one of them. 

 

I'm not sure if I completely understand what your argument is... Amplitude means that say elevation of 6' would produce a hill that is either 20' wide or 100' wide. You adjust the width.  But in your example with different points the program would find a median between each of these two points and smooth it out. So where they're 6" apart the the rise/fall would be more sharp than where it is 30'. Or, if set amplitude is smaller than the distance to the next set elevaiton line/point, it would just build a hill and then remain flat beyond it's set width. Seems simple to me.

 

For gradual declines/inclines a low/high-pass-like  filter can be used.

For sharp elevations/drops a regular peak -like filter.

There's band filter for plateau like formations. 

 

All these can still be used with elevation lines or point, line keep things steady (and they could be straight or polylines), point specify an effect of smaller variations. Additional tools can be created. 

 

Every other change could be use by manipulation of these two. I think CA team could easily figure out how to implement it properly. The current system produces wacky/unpredictable terrain changes with any elevation point. Every time I draw something when I look at the rendering I can't believe my eyes "what in the world did it do?". I think any change would be better than the current system. CA got many things right, but terrain rendering is not one of them. 

Quote

 

 

[Richard_Morrison]

While I agree that Chief's terrain paradigm is terrible, replacing one bad approximation with another -- even if it's easier to place initially  -- is not the way to go. We need to know that a particular elevation contour line is at that exact elevation, not an approximation. A spot elevation should be exactly there. I suspect that this means a triangulated irregular network method, rather than a warped surface. 

[lbuttery]

Richard:

 

I like the TIN method (not that I understand the math etc)

 

but would there be a way to have far fewer triangles ???

just curious ...

 

Lew

[stephenbc]

5 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

a triangulated irregular network method, rather than a warped surface.

 

I am in total agreement with this. TINs (while honouring spot elevations and contour lines/break lines) with smoothing algorithms have been in use for decades.  There are a number of companies that specialize in providing the code and I suspect it would be quite easy for CA to incorporate such code in their system as a replacement to the horrible algorithm that exists today,   

 

The survey of the project area has to be spot on...and TINs can honour each surveyed point, yet open the door for surface tools that provide way better control over the end result. While we are at it, it would be great to have the ability to store at least two surfaces in a plan.  Elevation views need natural and finished grade...yes, I know, we create a symbol of the natural, and use it as such when creating elevations, but frankly, I can't even get the natural to honour the survey.

[lbuttery]

TIN's must be a natural concept

 

first house I tried to measure I wanted to know where all the trees and other landscape hard features were in relation to the corners of the house

the terrain dipped and rose all over the place

 

the builder had flattened an area and put the house on it

everything else was a "jumble"

 

I started measuring and ended up with a large series of irregular triangles and dims

 

when I got home I was discussing with my partner who understands these things better than I

and doing some googling for "irregular triangles" I found TIN's and how to use them

 

didn't help with mapping out the crazy terrain around the house but did help with accurate tree placement

 

Lew

 

 

[Archnot-Boltz]

.....and sometimes (most all times), you just have to throw in the towel and say "Good Enough for Con Docs"! 

I'll keep hoping and for sure, waiting for something more intuitive and user friendly from our friends at Chief (hey I'm only 61, so there's a chance of it happening in my lifetime).

 

Have a nice weekend. Maybe I'll have to bite the bullet and look at some of Michael's "Secret Handshake" vids! -bB

[Doug_N]

I am working on a large deck design and did a topographical survey of the property.  Here is a view of the map.

For the client, it would be helpful if I could increase the frequency of the elevation data that appears on each ISO elevation line.  Right now there are only two elevation data labels on each line, one at the bottom of the contour and one at the top of the page.  If you send the plan to a layout and crop the view, you have no data labels, or very few.

 

It would be good to repeat the labels every 10' or so.  Anyone know how to do this?

 

Doug Norton

Whitby Ontario

905 409 8487