[Therion] Loch passage tube behaviour

2013-07-21 Thread Bruce 
Footleg

I think the answer is 'yes'.

Hopefully you can view the images embedded in the image rather than
attached, otherwise this won't make much sense.



In this example there is a single centreline (comprising both cave and
surface survey) and 4 scraps.

A short section of cave at the left hand end does not have any scrap drawn.

Compiled with Therion 5.3.11



One interesting point is that regardless of the 'walls' setting, there is
never a tube generated there once we have scraps drawn anywhere in this
centreline.  My deduction is that Loch uses only one type of tube generation
per centreline, because in almost all my larger projects that transition
between traditional survey and paperless survey, I have a combination of
each type of tube generation within the same Loch model.

This fits with the description in the Therion Book

"walls   turn on/off passage shape generation from LRUD data
for

subsequent shots. If set auto, passage is generated only if there is no
scrap referencing

given centreline."



In these examples I have not used any 'point passage-height' or 'point
dimensions' in the scraps.





Paperless survey (no LRUD), walls auto, off or on (or not specified), No
plan scraps. [Loch always guesses tube dimensions]

-same if LRUD present and walls off





Paperless survey (no LRUD), walls auto, off or on (or not specified), plan
scraps drawn [Loch uses scraps for tube width and guesses tube height]





Now, I added a few LRUD to the same centreline, including some with only UD



  data dimensions station left right up down

  1.4 - - 20 20

  1.5 - - 20 20

  1.6 2 2 20 20



  3.13 10 10 20 20

  3.14 10 10 20 20



Tube generation, where it occurs extends one station beyond those specified.





Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto (or not specified), No plan
scraps. [Loch uses LRUD for tube dimensions and only for stations where
partial data is provided, it guesses the missing data   ie if a station has
no data, no tube is generated]



And now adding some scraps and things get interesting.





Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls off (or not specified), Plan scraps
drawn. [Loch uses scraps, not LR, for tube plan dimensions, and UD for
height where specified, otherwise height is guessed.  Where there are no
scraps, LRUD is not used.]

That is perhaps contrary to what one might expect from the Therion Book
'walls' entry.  It also produces perhaps the best model.



Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto, Plan scraps drawn. [Loch
uses scraps AND LR for tube plan dimensions, and UD for height where
specified, otherwise height is guessed.  Where there is no LR, then it is
guessed. Where there are no scraps, LRUD is used.]



If I change the LRUD definition like this.



  data dimensions station up down

  1.4  20 20

  1.5  20 20

  1.6  20 20

  data dimensions station left right up down  

  3.13 10 10 20 20

  3.14 10 10 20 20



..then the guessed width troubles continue.



Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto, Plan scraps drawn. [same as
above]



So my final conclusion, for paperless survey, no need to include walls
statements in each survey, or if you do, walls off is better than on or
auto. If you happen to provide some UD data, then your model will be
improved (more realistic).



I surmise that with these same settings, scraps with point passage-height or
point dimensions will have a similar effect, but I have not tested this.



Bruce





-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16835 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19226 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23904 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22270 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23202 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image

[Therion] Loch passage tube behaviour

2013-07-21 Thread Footleg 
A very useful account of the various options Bruce. Well worth adding to
the wiki!

I will experiment with some of my caves were I have LRUD data but have not
entered it into Therion to see if I can improve my models.

Footleg


On 20 July 2013 23:12, Bruce  wrote:

> **
>
> Footleg
>
> I think the answer is ‘yes’.
>
> Hopefully you can view the images embedded in the image rather than
> attached, otherwise this won’t make much sense.
>
> ** **
>
> In this example there is a single centreline (comprising both cave and
> surface survey) and 4 scraps.
>
> A short section of cave at the left hand end does not have any scrap drawn.
> 
>
> Compiled with Therion 5.3.11
>
> ** **
>
> One interesting point is that regardless of the ‘walls’ setting, there is
> never a tube generated there once we have scraps drawn anywhere in this
> centreline.  My deduction is that Loch uses only one type of tube
> generation per centreline, because in almost all my larger projects that
> transition between traditional survey and paperless survey, I have a
> combination of each type of tube generation within the same **Loch**model.
> 
>
> This fits with the description in the Therion Book
>
> *“walls   turn on/off passage shape generation from LRUD
> data for*
>
> *subsequent shots. If set auto, passage is generated only if there is no
> scrap referencing*
>
> *given centreline.”*
>
> ** **
>
> In these examples I have not used any ‘point passage-height’ or ‘point
> dimensions’ in the scraps.
>
> ** **
>
> 
>
> Paperless survey (no LRUD), walls auto, off or on (or not specified), No
> plan scraps. [**Loch** always guesses tube dimensions]
>
> -same if LRUD present and walls off
>
> ** **
>
> 
>
> Paperless survey (no LRUD), walls auto, off or on (or not specified), plan
> scraps drawn [**Loch** uses scraps for tube width and guesses tube height]
> 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Now, I added a few LRUD to the same centreline, including some with only UD
> 
>
> ** **
>
>   data dimensions station left right up down
>
>   1.4 - - 20 20
>
>   1.5 - - 20 20
>
>   1.6 2 2 20 20
>
>   
>
>   3.13 10 10 20 20
>
>   3.14 10 10 20 20
>
> ** **
>
> Tube generation, where it occurs extends one station beyond those
> specified.
>
> ** **
>
> 
>
> Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto (or not specified), No plan
> scraps. [**Loch** uses LRUD for tube dimensions and only for stations
> where partial data is provided, it guesses the missing data   ie if a
> station has no data, no tube is generated]
>
> ** **
>
> And now adding some scraps and things get interesting.
>
> ** **
>
> 
>
> Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls off (or not specified), Plan scraps
> drawn. [**Loch** uses scraps, not LR, for tube plan dimensions, and UD
> for height where specified, otherwise height is guessed.  Where there are
> no scraps, LRUD is *not* used.]
>
> That is perhaps contrary to what one might expect from the Therion Book
> ‘walls’ entry.  It also produces perhaps the best model.
>
> 
>
> Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto, Plan scraps drawn. [**Loch
> ** uses scraps AND LR for tube plan dimensions, and UD for height where
> specified, otherwise height is guessed.  Where there is no LR, then it is
> guessed. Where there are no scraps, LRUD *is* used.]
>
> ** **
>
> If I change the LRUD definition like this…
>
> ** **
>
>   data dimensions station up down
>
>   1.4  20 20
>
>   1.5  20 20
>
>   1.6  20 20
>
>   data dimensions station left right up down  
>
>   3.13 10 10 20 20
>
>   3.14 10 10 20 20
>
> ** **
>
> ..then the guessed width troubles continue.
>
> 
>
> Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto, Plan scraps drawn. [same
> as above]
>
> ** **
>
> So my final conclusion, for paperless survey, no need to include walls
> statements in each survey, or if you do, walls off is better than on or
> auto. If you happen to provide some UD data, then your model will be
> improved (more realistic).
>
> ** **
>
> I surmise that with these same settings, scraps with point passage-height
> or point dimensions will have a similar effect, but I have not tested this.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Bruce
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> Therion mailing list
> Therion at speleo.sk
> http://mailman.speleo.sk/mailman/listinfo/therion
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scru

[Therion] Loch passage tube behaviour

2013-07-23 Thread John Stevens 
Bruce a very useful article but it differs from my experience in a couple of 
ways.

I thought a couple of months ago I would try and produce a reasonable 3d model 
of a cave. So I surveyed a short section of passage with more data than I could 
possibly normally use. I set stations at 5m intervals and took 8 wall 
measurements every 1m. This would get me a lot of splays that I could then use 
as vertices for a 3d model (if I could find/write some software to make the 
model, not done yet)
I could then compare this model with the one Therion produces and see which 
extra splays are really needed. 

Unlike your models I seem to get the centreline tube in the middle (mostly) of 
the scrap tube. Unfortunately this centreline tube often protrudes through the 
scrap tube, ruining the model. How am I getting two tube?  I have tried various 
options with walls on/off/auto or commented out, to no avail.

I also found the Dimensions –value [up, down] useful but it sometimes does 
unexpected things.
Passage Height was even worse for this. If a single number was given it 
distributed the measurement above and below the centreline. If + – was used 
it appeared on the plan but did nothing on the model.

using Therion 5.3.11

This is a work in progress and your mail has come at just the right time

Cheers

John


From: Bruce 
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:12 PM
To: 'List for Therion users' 
Subject: [Therion] Loch passage tube behaviour

Footleg

I think the answer is ‘yes’.

Hopefully you can view the images embedded in the image rather than attached, 
otherwise this won’t make much sense.



In this example there is a single centreline (comprising both cave and surface 
survey) and 4 scraps.

A short section of cave at the left hand end does not have any scrap drawn.

Compiled with Therion 5.3.11



One interesting point is that regardless of the ‘walls’ setting, there is 
never a tube generated there once we have scraps drawn anywhere in this 
centreline.  My deduction is that Loch uses only one type of tube generation 
per centreline, because in almost all my larger projects that transition 
between traditional survey and paperless survey, I have a combination of each 
type of tube generation within the same Loch model.

This fits with the description in the Therion Book

“walls   turn on/off passage shape generation from LRUD data for

subsequent shots. If set auto, passage is generated only if there is no scrap 
referencing

given centreline.”



In these examples I have not used any ‘point passage-height’ or ‘point 
dimensions’ in the scraps.





Paperless survey (no LRUD), walls auto, off or on (or not specified), No plan 
scraps. [Loch always guesses tube dimensions]

-same if LRUD present and walls off





Paperless survey (no LRUD), walls auto, off or on (or not specified), plan 
scraps drawn [Loch uses scraps for tube width and guesses tube height]





Now, I added a few LRUD to the same centreline, including some with only UD



  data dimensions station left right up down

  1.4 - - 20 20

  1.5 - - 20 20

  1.6 2 2 20 20



  3.13 10 10 20 20

  3.14 10 10 20 20



Tube generation, where it occurs extends one station beyond those specified.





Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto (or not specified), No plan 
scraps. [Loch uses LRUD for tube dimensions and only for stations where partial 
data is provided, it guesses the missing data   ie if a station has no data, no 
tube is generated]



And now adding some scraps and things get interesting.





Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls off (or not specified), Plan scraps drawn. 
[Loch uses scraps, not LR, for tube plan dimensions, and UD for height where 
specified, otherwise height is guessed.  Where there are no scraps, LRUD is not 
used.]

That is perhaps contrary to what one might expect from the Therion Book 
‘walls’ entry.  It also produces perhaps the best model.



Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto, Plan scraps drawn. [Loch uses 
scraps AND LR for tube plan dimensions, and UD for height where specified, 
otherwise height is guessed.  Where there is no LR, then it is guessed. Where 
there are no scraps, LRUD is used.]



If I change the LRUD definition like this…



  data dimensions station up down

  1.4  20 20

  1.5  20 20

  1.6  20 20

  data dimensions station left right up down  

  3.13 10 10 20 20

  3.14 10 10 20 20



..then the guessed width troubles continue.



Paperless survey (some LRUD), walls on or auto, Plan scraps drawn. [same as 
above]



So my final conclusion, for paperless survey, no need to include walls 
statements in each survey, or if you do, walls off is better than on or auto. 
If you happen to provide some UD data, then your model will be improved (more 
realistic).



I surmise that with these same settings, scraps with point passage-height or 
point dimensions will have a similar effect, but I have not tested this

[Therion] Loch passage tube behaviour

2013-07-24 Thread Bruce 
Interesting John

With your model as posted I did not get dual tubes with walls off although I
did with walls on.

If you remove all of the point passage-height and point dimensions from your
scrap, then the behaviour of your model seems to match the behaviour I
described.



BTW I added my previous post to the wiki examples page
http://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/doku.php/examples#loch_models_paperless_survey
_plan_scraps_and_lrud



Not able to spend more time on this just now (winter sniffles-back to bed),
but seems like point dimensions and point passage-height changes the
behaviour.



A semi automated way of enabling therion to produce accurate model passage
heights using splay shots would be useful, and it seems like Footlegs
proposal might be convenient (for those of us who don't have to write the
code). 

Bruce



  _  

From: therion-bounces at speleo.sk [mailto:therion-boun...@speleo.sk] On Behalf
Of John Stevens
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 7:03 a.m.
To: 'List for Therion users'
Subject: Re: [Therion] Loch passage tube behaviour



Bruce a very useful article but it differs from my experience in a couple of
ways.



I thought a couple of months ago I would try and produce a reasonable 3d
model of a cave. So I surveyed a short section of passage with more data
than I could possibly normally use. I set stations at 5m intervals and took
8 wall measurements every 1m. This would get me a lot of splays that I could
then use as vertices for a 3d model (if I could find/write some software to
make the model, not done yet)

I could then compare this model with the one Therion produces and see which
extra splays are really needed. 



Unlike your models I seem to get the centreline tube in the middle (mostly)
of the scrap tube. Unfortunately this centreline tube often protrudes
through the scrap tube, ruining the model. How am I getting two tube?  I
have tried various options with walls on/off/auto or commented out, to no
avail.



I also found the Dimensions -value [up, down] useful but it sometimes does
unexpected things.

Passage Height was even worse for this. If a single number was given it
distributed the measurement above and below the centreline. If + - was used
it appeared on the plan but did nothing on the model.



using Therion 5.3.11



This is a work in progress and your mail has come at just the right time



Cheers



John

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20130724/383f6ec7/attachment.html>