[Therion] Sorting scraps/maps by height in default mode

Fri May 31 22:14:40 CEST 2019

Thank you for your message, this helps alot.
There is a way out tough, a middle ground: one can define custom maps in 
the thconfig file using source.

I need to think about how this affects the projects structure.

Besides that, is there a option to disable map-averaging and tell 
therion to use the scrap average for each scrap?
That would solve this imho.

Thanks, i understand i better now, how this works currently.

Am 2019-05-31 21:22, schrieb Stacho Mudrak:
> Hello Beni,
> 
> I am not 100% sure if I understand your problem correctly, but this is
> how therion does average altitude calculations:
> 
> the altitude of a scrap = arithmetic average of altitudes of its
> stations
> the altitude of a map = arithmetic average of altitudes of scraps
> 
> And your observation is correct. If you have some maps defined in your
> dataset, then maps of selected surveys are exported and sorted
> according to their altitudes. If you have no maps defined, then scraps
> in selected surveys are taken and altitude sorted.
> 
> So if you are working on a large dataset and you do not want to define
> upper-level maps, it is probably better not to define any maps at all
> - then only scraps will be taken into consideration.
> 
> Best regards, S.
> 
> On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 15:38, Benedikt Hallinger <beni at hallinger.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Stacho,
>> your infos did the trick.
>> indeed the data showed at closer examination, that the parts where
>> averaged lower than the part in question. The wrongly-lower part
>> contains a steep slope but the average height was still some few
>> meters
>> below the average of the offending part.
>> 
>> What puzzled me was that even splitting the scraps was not enough!
>> I now have a scrap containing only the sloped part of the tunnel,
>> and
>> that is surely averaged above the lower part.
>> 
>> What solved it was to also rearrange the map definitions that
>> contain
>> the sloped part: i put the low part prior the slope in question in
>> another map like this:
>> -------snip----------
>> # This works instead:
>> map working-priortunnel
>> scrap-low-tunnel-before-slope
>> endmap
>> map working-slope
>> scrap-slope-itself-with-followig-high-part
>> endmap
>> 
>> # this does NOT work lie intendet:
>> #map notWorking-combined
>> #  scrap-low-tunnel-before-slope
>> #  scrap-slope-itself-with-followig-high-part
>> #endmap
>> -------snap----------
>> 
>> It looks like therion currently uses the average height of the MAP,
>> not
>> the contained scraps, to calculate which part is above or below. In
>> this
>> example, it looks like it is getting the average height of the
>> "notWorking-combined" combined map and comparing this to the
>> uncorrelated below-tunnel.
>> If i put the "scrap-low-tunnel-before-slope" in its own MAP
>> definition,
>> the average calculation can only take the
>> "scrap-slope-itself-with-followig-high-part" and thus resulting in a
>> 
>> much higher average height.
>> 
>> Can you confirm this from therions sourcecode, and is this really
>> the
>> intendet behaviour, since i think each scrap shopuld be averaged for
>> 
>> itself, regardless of its map allocation...?
>> 
>> Wih best regards,
>> Beni
>> 
>> Am 2019-05-30 22:27, schrieb Stacho Mudrak:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> if you select just survey, then all maps consisting of scraps in
>> this
>>> and sub-surveys should be ordered by average altitude. But this
>> may
>>> easily cause that some overlapping is not done correctly. But it
>> is
>>> also possible, there is some bug and it is not done correctly. Are
>> you
>>> able to post some minimalistic sample, where depth sort fails?
>>> 
>>> The only way how to manually order maps in the output is to create
>>> upper-level maps (in your case probably what you mean by
>>> <region>-Hautplan) consisting of lower level maps in the correct
>>> order.
>>> 
>>> HTH, S.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 15:55, Benedikt Hallinger
>> <beni at hallinger.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello there,
>>>> i have a very large dataset here. It is organised by regions like
>>>> this
>>>> (but much more leaf objects and regions):
>>>> 
>>>> =====snip=====
>>>> - survey TheCave
>>>> - survey RegionWest
>>>> - survey 1
>>>> - survey 3
>>>> - survey 5
>>>> - survey RegionEast
>>>> - survey 2
>>>> - survey 4
>>>> - survey 6
>>>> =====snap=====
>>>> 
>>>> I currently work from bottom to up, that is i draw the individual
>>>> surveys as scraps, based on original material (sometimes they are
>>>> really
>>>> large and cosnsist of several many scraps).
>>>> 
>>>> In each of they leaf surveys (the numbered ones) i make by
>>>> convention a
>>>> map called "<n>-Hauptplan". The main idea is that every leaf
>> survey
>>>> can
>>>> be treaten modular and that i can compile varoius maps at upper
>>>> levels
>>>> (i.e regions).
>>>> 
>>>> Currently, the regions have no "<region>-Hautplan". When i use
>>>> "select
>>>> RegionWest.TheCave", therion is instructed to select all scraps
>>>> below
>>>> it. For the most part, this works like intendet and the
>> overlappings
>>>> are
>>>> calculated correctly. There are some places however, where the
>> upper
>>>> 
>>>> part of the passage is rendered below the lower part, which is
>>>> wrong.
>>>> This is with about 10-15% of the passages (so most is already
>> ok).
>>>> 
>>>> I know from the manuals that therion does this "randomly" so
>> there
>>>> is no
>>>> real way to adjust this from my perspective (placing the "input
>> 2.th [1]
>>>> [1]"
>>>> command in the region.th [2] [2] file, wich then inputs the
>> scraps etc,
>>>> lower in
>>>> the list does not help - it seems random where it is).
>>>> I think, however, that it would be a very great addition, if
>> there
>>>> would
>>>> be some code in the renderer, that sorts the vertical
>> presentation
>>>> of
>>>> the scraps/maps by average altitude of said scrap/map, and that
>> this
>>>> 
>>>> behavior is controllable by some configuration (cmdline option,
>> or
>>>> even
>>>> better, thconfig parameter).
>>>> => Is there maybe already something hidden like this i don't know
>> so
>>>> 
>>>> far?
>>>> That would be very great, because when i look at the dataset, i
>> face
>>>> 
>>>> about 30-50 hours producing correctly manually sorted handcrafted
>>>> maps
>>>> at the region level...
>>>> 
>>>> Sincerely, Beni
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Therion mailing list
>>>> Therion at speleo.sk
>>>> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] http://2.th
>>> [2] http://region.th
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Therion mailing list
>>> Therion at speleo.sk
>>> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
>> _______________________________________________
>> Therion mailing list
>> Therion at speleo.sk
>> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://2.th
> [2] http://region.th
> _______________________________________________
> Therion mailing list
> Therion at speleo.sk
> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion