Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Wilbur and Fractal terrains

  1. #11
      waldronate is offline
    Software Dev/Rep Gracious Donor waldronate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The High Desert
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    If you had been willing to describe the process you were using to get data into FT, I might have been able to offer suggestions to eliminate the type of problem that you were having.

  2. #12
      zhar2 is offline
    Guild Journeyer zhar2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, uk
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Well the process I used was exactly the one outlined here and on the tutorials, using a dte extension file. but FT destroys so much detail importing it in. I wish I could use ft as its nice and simple, and im having an afwul time trying to figure out how to import raster data as terrain into ArcGIS.

  3. #13
      waldronate is offline
    Software Dev/Rep Gracious Donor waldronate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The High Desert
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    My point is that FT will not destroy detail unless you specifically request it to using the Burn Into Surface operation. And use an MDR file type from Wilbur; it imports EXACTLY into FT. I say this based purely on the fact that I wrote the code and a number of tutorials for both. If you're willing to state the exact steps you use to get data out of Wilbur and into FT, it would help me to diagnose your problem and ensure that things are working properly (or to fix the software for others that might be having similar problem).

  4. #14
      zhar2 is offline
    Guild Journeyer zhar2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, uk
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Well I haven't used the burn into surface function, and I think I used your own tutorial on importing .dte into FT and haven't really used any different steps, I upload it as a binary, change the coordinates to match in ft and it seems to be placed correctly, but when I zoom in to a specific area I see im missing a lot of detail, seems it decimates the data as every single file I import no mater how big the original .dte file is ends up 700kb in size.

  5. #15
      zhar2 is offline
    Guild Journeyer zhar2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, uk
    Posts
    100

    Default

    It would be amazing if I could use FT to display the data drom the .dte with 1-1 fidelity but somehow I loose all my rivers, canyons and features I sculpted. as I can export current views as that's really all I need to do to completely map out a whole planet. I think its possible with ArcGlobe but its such a pain!!!!. is there a work around to convert a .dte into a .ftw directly?

    BTW other issue I found in Wilbur, I can use .tin to import from Wilbur into ArcGlobe but for somereason Wilbur is exporting it wrong and my system and ArcGIS think its a .png, if I rename it then its not recognised as a .tin

  6. #16
      zhar2 is offline
    Guild Journeyer zhar2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, uk
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Well the logic to me whould be that the larger the. .dte the larger the resulting .ftw right?

  7. #17
      waldronate is offline
    Software Dev/Rep Gracious Donor waldronate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The High Desert
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    A binary world has a relatively small .FTW file because the binary data is NOT stored in the .ftw file. You can have a 1GB binary file and a couple hundred KB FTW file that gives you the full resolution of the original binary file. What resolution (width and height) Wilbur input file are you using?

    There and Back Again offers a step-by-step round-trip example from Wilbur to FT. For what you're likely to want to do, start at the save portion of "Modify the World in Wilbur" and go from there.

  8. #18
      zhar2 is offline
    Guild Journeyer zhar2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, uk
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Hummm the issue might be that im using .dte and not .mdr, when I try using mdr FT creates a "scanned" line sorta corrupt file that crashed.

  9. #19
      zhar2 is offline
    Guild Journeyer zhar2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    London, uk
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Ok tried it in FT3 and worked, far better!, I think the primitive shading in FT3 cant keep up or something and its giving me the impression of lack of detail, where is the bulk data stored?

  10. #20
      waldronate is offline
    Software Dev/Rep Gracious Donor waldronate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The High Desert
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    The original FT (and FT2, to some extent) had a number of issues with binary file imports. FT3 should be much more robust in this regard. I forget that there are still folks out there trying to use the older versions and expect that use of "FT" means "FT3".

    For binary worlds, FT stores the name of the file in the .FTW file. All of the input elevations remained stored in the binary file used in the new file wizard. If the binary file is moved, FT will lose track of it and you'll need to go back to the new file wizard to update the location.

    Can you post a screenshot to show what you're seeing in FT? The problem could be any number of things, including not having the input elevations in a range that FT expects. If, for example, you 're trying to get data with a range of +100 meters to -100 meters, FT is unlikely to give you color shading unless you go Map>>World Settings and change the "Highest Peak" and "Lowest Depth" to something fairly representative of the input data. Wilbur automatically recalculates the min/max every time lighting happens, while FT doesn't.
    Last edited by waldronate; 04-12-2014 at 05:38 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •