HTC.....Can you clarify?

[Strip]

I see "water not zero" has been replaced "steep water slope", this along with the error report implies that we can have water above 0 elevation.

 

Is this correct and will it be allowed for SEA and MA terrains?

Strip

[ghostdancer]

Yes, you can now set water at altitudes above 0ft. However all the water can only have a slope of 6ft. For lakes this is no problem since you can set them all to the same altitude. For rivers, well it is difficult since water can only drop by 6ft over a length of 5280ft. So rivers that actually hook up to water still roughly need to be at 0ft alt.

Lakes at altitude will definitely be used in the SEA.

[Strip]

Yes, you can now set water at altitudes above 0ft. However all the water can only have a slope of 6ft. For lakes this is no problem since you can set them all to the same altitude. For rivers, well it is difficult since water can only drop by 6ft over a length of 5280ft. So rivers that actually hook up to water still roughly need to be at 0ft alt.

Lakes at altitude will definitely be used in the SEA.

Well, at least we can have lakes above zero elevation! That will be an awesome new addition and was something I asked about before.

Thanks Ghost!

Strip

[ghostdancer]

Yep, that is a definite nice change. As for rivers we can at least have them on the coast plain (rivers that actually connect to large bodies of water).

[bravoa8]

  Yeah!

[715]

6 ft per mile sounds like a navigable river?  For example, the Columbia at Portland (many many miles inland) is something like only 20ft alt?  Won't a lot of real rivers fit this criteria?  For example, you could model the Columbia as water for longer than a 512 map: 300 miles inland it's only about 350 ft alt while 6 ft per mile would allow it to be 1800 ft.

[ghostdancer]

Yes it is possible but it is going to be a bit of a pain. Basically you place your river then you have to go along the full length of it and check the vertices to make sure that it doesn't have a difference of more than that within that length. If it does then you need to go and adjust its vertice and land vertices around it.

For a 20 mile river it means going and actually checking the whole length for it. Since the TE will take you to the vertices out of whack but adjust one area might still leave it out of whack with another.

So, definitely possible just requires a different approach to it.

Especially since you can very, very exact now with the course of a river and width via the waterd.bmp but you can't get that exact with the elevation (9 vertices per area) over the cell (1 sq mile). So a river can meander back and forth in one cell / square quite a bit but you only have those vertices to work with. Basically resulting in having to set this 1 sq. mile at the same alt. Then the next cell that has a river in it can have a difference of 6ft in elevation and so on. So a lot depends on the size and course of your river and then making sure you don't violate the 6ft increase / decrease in all the affected vertices of a cell.

Definitely doable but I would recommend you don't go crazy trying to create all the tributaries down to streams that feed into a river since you will end up driving yourself crazy.

[Strip]

There is only one solution, ask for better elevation control!

 

[ghostdancer]

Never sastified are we?

[Strip]

I was only half joking, elevation control would be nice but the new T.E. is light years better than the previous one. I played around with the previous version enough to know we are now spoiled.....for now I am satisfied with what we do have.

 

Strip

[USRanger]

Dang!  I wanted to make some waterfalls.

[Strip]

Well, in theory you could make a special .shp couldnt ya?

(non-animated of course)

Would be cool for sure....