TransDEM Forum

Hello,

This week, I made the following route in Transdem

From Brussels-to Charleroi South- to Namur.

Total baseboards were Ew = 60, NS = 78

created a new map with dem elevations and ground elevations.

created track splines from route vector data

I added three renamble station board to mark the positions of the stations.

I imported the route in transdem without a problem.

I'm using the google earth ground textures created by ModelerMJ.

My question : the size of the route ( mapfile.gnd ) is 103Mb.

What is the reason, the mapfile.gnd is so big?

Is there a posibility to reduce this size?

Thank You

Best regards.

Kurt

G'day Belgian46,

Dare I say, Kurt, the file is the size it is because of the amount of data that has been used to create it. I would not be too concerned about the size of this file, I quite often find my routes reach such 'great heights', especially if I use 1 arcsec DEM data...

Jerker {:)}

Hello Jerker,

Thank you for your reply.

I only have to bear in mind that importing routes into trainz has it limitations. When the size is to big, the Taddaemon.exe error pops up.

I was just looking for some possibilities in order to have the possibility to make a larger selection, but also have the possiblility to receive a smaller gnd.file ( size ).

Best regards

Kurt

G'day Belgian46,

If the size of the file becomes a major issue for you, Kurt, you may consider some of these possibilities...

...you can 'split' the route in TransDEM into smaller individual portions and then merge them again later in Trainz (TransDEM is capable of doing this almost seamlessly, although it does require a bit of "input" from the user)...

..you may reduce the size of your image files (albeit only sightly) by using *.jpg type files instead of *.png type files when creating the topographic map tiles for the route, an option provided by TransDEM (of course, there is a subsequent 'loss' in image quality along with this process)...

...and...

...you can switch from 1 arcsec DEM data 'back' (and it is a huge 'backward' step) to 3 arcsec data. This will reduce the size of the terrain data by a whopping 9 times (not 3 times as you might expect, because for each datum point that exists in the 3 arcsec (90 meter) data, there are 9 in the 1 arcsec (30 meter) data) but again, there is a (some would say) disastrous loss of resolution in the terrain produced by TransDEM...


...of these three 'choices', I can only (due to my naturally high standards) recommend the first as a 'viable' option...

Jerker {:)}