Scenario idea - heightmap ?

[Hawk]

I'm a little confused here, not about Microdem but the size of the map. Here's what I have.

In your tut you say this:

Decide the number of horizontal cells (East/West) you want on your final map. Say you want the RT3 map to be 448 cells from left to right (64 x 7). Zoom out to give a view of the displayed map that has 448 pixels in the horizontal direction.

How do I determine the cell count for the final map from the data in the screen-shot, aside from the 64 rule (shouldn't that be 64+1 )?

[Wolverine@MSU]

The .EXE file was a custom executable to allow elevation databases of 1024 entries; the V12 Microdem does this now, so the .EXE in the ZIP is no longer needed (and probably won't work in V12 anyway). The .DBF file is still necessary as it supplies the correct colors for elevations. The .XLS file is also still useful for placing things like cities and other "points of interest" on the map if the latitude and longitude are supplied.

[Wolverine@MSU]

How do I determine the cell count for the final map from the data in the screen-shot, aside from the 64 rule (shouldn't that be 64+1 )?

You don't "determine" it from the data in the screen shot. You decide what size you want your map to be (and yes, it should be 64N + 1) and use a zoom factor to acheve that size in Microdem. So if you wanted 449 pixels wide (7 x 64 + 1) you would use a zoom factor of 449/1317 (0.340926347). Once you have the horizontal size defined, you trim the top and or bottom to a 64N + 1 vertical by adjusting the latitudes at the top and bottom with the "keyboard corners".

[Hawk]

The .EXE file was a custom executable to allow elevation databases of 1024 entries; the V12 Microdem does this now, so the .EXE in the ZIP is no longer needed (and probably won't work in V12 anyway). The .DBF file is still necessary as it supplies the correct colors for elevations. The .XLS file is also still useful for placing things like cities and other "points of interest" on the map if the latitude and longitude are supplied.

That's what I suspected but wasn't sure.

You don't "determine" it from the data in the screen shot. You decide what size you want your map to be (and yes, it should be 64N + 1) and use a zoom factor to acheve that size in Microdem. So if you wanted 449 pixels wide (7 x 64 + 1) you would use a zoom factor of 449/1317 (0.340926347). Once you have the horizontal size defined, you trim the top and or bottom to a 64N + 1 vertical by adjusting the latitudes at the top and bottom with the "keyboard corners".

Your help here tells me that I didn't ask the question right.

How do I decide on what I want the cell count to be? What's average for a map? What's the max for a map?

I'm trying to create a new Southeast USA map. My plan is to try and create a scenario about the birth of Georgia railroading but I would need to include some Alabama cities as well as some in Tennessee, South & North Carolina, and possibly a couple of Florida cities.
I looked at the default Southeast USA map but didn't like it as much as what I hope a Microdem map would be like.

I understand that the max pixel size for a map is 1024 but pixels and cells are two different things, right? How many pixels in a cell?

Does that make sense?

[Wolverine@MSU]

Yes it does.

If your heightmap is fewer than 1025 pixels in both directions, then each pixel on your heightmap will become one cell in RT3 (actually, each pixel in the map will be a corner of a cell on the map, which is why you need one more pixel in each direction than the number of cells you want). If your heightmap is greater than 1025 pixels, RT3 will ask for a size of the final map when you import the heightmap (not preferred; see below).

As for what the final size of a map should be, that's the designer's decision. It has to do with how big an area you're trying to depict, what level of topographic detail you want, how far apart (in track miles) you want things to be etc. Remember that track miles are fixed relative to the map cell. The number of track miles from Atlanta to Acworth will vary depending on the size of the map (number of map cells between them). Now that computer CPU and graphics cards are pretty much not a limiting factor, you can go for bigger maps (more pixels on the heightmap) without running into hardware limitations.

A word of caution about resizing a heightmap made in Microdem: Don't do it! Make your heightmap from Microdem exactly the size you need. If you use an editing program or the RT3 import to resize/rescale a heightmap, you may run into problems with interpolating color values (heights), which can do weird things to coastlines.

[Hawk]

OK! Now I think I understand.

[nedfumpkin]

Yes it does.

you may run into problems with interpolating color values (heights), which can do weird things to coaslines.

Yeah...just look at Lousiana! :)



...sorry couldn't resist.

[Hawk]

Well, I finally got through the tutorial and got the map into RT3, but then I come up with this in the Northeast corner.

Not sure what I did wrong but I reckon I'll try again.


Edit 1: It just dawned on me what caused that spike in the terrain.

How do I get rid of that color bar and those black X's? They also show up in the map in RT3

Here's a crop of the saved bmp.

Edit 2: OK! I figured out how to get rid of the black X's. That's the grid and I found where to turn that off, but what about that color bar overlay?

[Wolverine@MSU]

click on ""Modify" in the menu bar, then "Map Marginalia" and uncheck the "Elevations" box. I'm working from V11, but V12 should be similar.

[Hawk]

That did the trick.

I looked everywhere for somehow to turn that off, but never imagined it would be under "Map Marginalia".

[thietavu]

Sigh... What Microsoft's Train Simulator 2 promised to be! A part of a global network of trains, based on real world! When that project and team was killed near finishing it, I almost lost my hope. If everything will just be fast-food, social gaming like WoW - gaming without brain, just for action, what will be there for us? :(

I don't know. I almost *hate* World of Warcraft because it started something I shall never be a part of. Probably great, but still... not my thing. Never.

Although I didn't love Microsoft as an industry giant any more than something like Intel, I did love some of their special projects. Like their Flight and Train simulators.

And they are no more here. Because we are insignificant business for them compared to kids playing WoW and similar things. Who cares about trains? Only old, stupid weirdos?

That's what Microsoft must have thought. Can we prove them that they are wrong?

[Stoker]

Who cares about trains? Only old, stupid weirdos?

You better smile when you say that around here partner....