TransDEM Forum

I am slowly getting used to Trainz Route creation using TransDem.
I am having issues importing UTM Tiles into Trainz 22.

With TransDem, I have created a georeferenced map (Stratford to Guelph_Lp-001_036_georef.lgb), a concatenation of 36 individual .trf files that cover my entire route.
I select the entire route and press the UTM Tile Creation button. For the most part, I keep the default settings for export to Trainz. The exception is the UTM Tile Object's settings which I adjust to: 500m tile, 3D tile, 4096 Max. texture size. The map name matches my project, and the layer name remains as default TransDem-UTM.
TransDem does it's processing thing, and finishes with a writing file warning for UTM Overlay Objects ... a series of tiles skipped due to not having a map source.
Over to Trainz22 content manager (CM) now to import into Trainz.I select "Import content folder..." from the File menu, and find my way to where the TransDem route creation aspects were exported to. Two files exist, one named as the route for vector and DEM info, and a scenery file for UTM tile info.
Trainz does it thing, but returns with 14 named assets in red with "Modified, Faulty" statuses.



The task completed interface revealed this info ...



So, what's going on? Something wrong with my settings? The original raster map? Suggestions on how to correct this?

You apparently manged to successfully create and import the two UTM tiles from the Muengsten tutorial. Were those 2D or 3D? Did you install the Trainz Mesh Importer for the 3D tiles?

Hi @geophil.

You apparently manged to successfully create and import the two UTM tiles from the Muengsten tutorial. Were those 2D or 3D?

When I practiced with the Muengsten tutorial, I imagined I used what was presented which I believed would be 2D.

In my Export to Trainz: UTM Tiles as overlay settings, I have the Trainz Mesh XML Importer set to it's "installation" folder : D:\Trainz\TrainzImporter_111019.

Using TransDem v2.6.7 on a WIndows 11 64 system.

Not really certain what differences 2D vs 3D tiles produce, so maybe 3D is unnecessary.

The 2D UTM tile is flat, the 3D tile corpus takes the shape of the terrain. Details in the manual. One of the Trainz tools, I think it's Content Manager, has some sort of preview function. Try this with one of the new tiles and the earlier Muengsten tiles.

OK, yes ... I can click on the erred KUID (Muengsten tutorial) and in content manager, select Open>Show in Explorer which reveals a series of different files for that KUID. Comparing the two, they have the same number of files, and the same .txt, .tga, and .im files - except .im files refer to 500 mesh in my project vs. 1000 mesh in Muengsten). Each has a .jpg thumbnail to view. Viewing them shows nothing out of the ordinary IMO. Comparing the .txt files (essentially config files I suppose) are of the same format and not seemingly missing information.

If I click on the erroneous KUID in content manager, and select view errors and warnings, it reveals this information which may be contributing to the problem. But I don't know what any of it means.

It looks like an issue with the 3D corpus, the "mesh", and I have a vague idea what the reason might be. It had been reported before, by another user, in the German section of the forum: viewtopic.php?p=3203#p3203. From that older thread it appeared something went wrong when the UTM tiles were created, so I suggest to double-check the situation when you create the tiles. The major difference between 2D and 3D tiles is the terrain. TransDEM takes the terrain for the 3D tiles from the previously created .gnd file, not from the DEM. (2D tiles have a pre-fabricated corpus and are not affected by terrain.)

For proper UTM tile creation, the Trainz baseboards for each tile must not only exist but also have full terrain, without any void sections (outside the original DEM). And there are the different rasters, 720m for baseboards, 1000m for UTM tiles. These must also match. TransDEM does a few checks before generating a tile, but it may not detect every possible flaw. Missing DEM data may be the cause of the problem. The required baseboards may exist, but not completely filled with valid DEM data, like cliff edges into the abyss. In such cases the UTM tile geometry could be messed up.

To be on the safe side, to ensure that there is no principle problem: Redo the Muengsten tutorial, but this time create the two UTM tiles as 3D and as 500m tiles. Those two tiles are in the center of the scenario and should not be affected by missing terrain data. If those work, recreate your route, make sure to only generate baseboards fully covered by DEM, and restrict (3D) UTM tile generation to areas with terrain-filled baseboards.

• Sufficient lateral DEM extent
• Fewer lateral baseboards
• Fewer lateral UTM tiles

There is also the "Mesh Viewer", either a separate Trainz tool or a Content Manager tool (not sure) that will render individual Trainz assets, including TransDEM generated UTM tiles. That viewer must be able to show the tile, too.

Good day @geophil.
I think you've pinpointed the issue.

Missing DEM data may be the cause of the problem. The required baseboards may exist, but not completely filled with valid DEM data

On looking at each thumbnail of the UTM tile KUID, they are not complete with an image, and all have a portion of unpoulated black. I suspect these are the tiles around the perimeter of defined route DEM. A would say about 98% of the perimeter of my DEM coverage has UTM imagery outside that DEM area. I have 14 tiles with these errors, so that would lead me to assume there are 14 tiles around the perimter of my DEM that are incomplete.



I'm thinking, as suggested, I'llhave to go back and tweak my project. The UTM tiles are much larger than I need obviously, but I don't know how to restrict their area to only where I have DEM coverage. So, thinking I need to expand my DEM coverage to ensure the full baseboards are created even if it far more area than I need covered for my route. One can crop DEM coverage to remove unnecessary area, but I don't see where I can crop raster maps to reduce their coverage area. Seems that the raster is defining the amount od DEM I need to process. With that, more than enough area is being processed for my project. Originally I had cropped my DEM layer, but couldn't with the raster, as as result I had this import problem as the raster area exceeded by DEM coverage. I'll recrop the DEM once I have the additional DEM integrated.