HF rotate

[Tangled-Universe]

I'm not entirely sure, but a georeferenced heightfield, or basically all .ter files contain their own height information. So if you resize X/Z, or the software does that for you, then you need to resize Y accordingly.
I can't tell you why it is not doing that but it's probably related to the fact(?) that heightfields contain the height info themselves.

Cheers,
Martin

P.S. Just curious, Dutch too?

[Erwin0265]

Uhhh....I can't.
The Heightfield load has only one area that relates to terrain dimensions and that is under statistics (which, in my case, is 7998 by 7998 metres) and that is not editable.
In the heightfield shader node dialogue box there is no mention of dimensions at all.

P.S. Just curious, Dutch too?

I was born there (Breda) but emigrated to Australia when I was six in 1968................
I never really learned the language, other than the vocabulary of a six-year old (and reading ability of a Monopoly game - the same one I still have in my bedroom cupboard; and it looks it's age)...........
I can understand most of what mum says as we spoke Dutch at home - to maintain our spoken language (she tends to speak in mingled Dutch/Australian nowadays) but I lost most of the spoken language when I went to Uni (living away from home for 4 years).

[RedSquare]

I thought that Y was the up/down axis but here the Y coordinate is used to indicate the depth...

Oh thank goodness I'm not alone in thinking this;  I was blaming brain fade, perhaps it's not after all.

[bobbystahr]

I thought that Y was the up/down axis but here the Y coordinate is used to indicate the depth...

Oh thank goodness I'm not alone in thinking this;  I was blaming brain fade, perhaps it's not after all.

I use the Heightfield resize Operator and type the actual size of the terrain in the meters area also click Re-scale vertical or you'll have no height if you are scaling up and too much if you're scaling down.

[masonspappy]

...I can understand most of what mum says as we spoke Dutch at home.. ).

I had a friend in college named Hector. His parents brought him to the states from Mexico when he was about a year old. His father died just a few months after immigrating, so Hector and his mother went to live with his fathers relatives. Hector's mother spoke little English so he learned to speak with her in Spanish while he learned fluent English in American schools. When he got into college he had to take a foreign language to graduate, so he signed up for Spanish,  figuring it would be a breeze to pass.  It turned out that, although he had learned to speak Spanish, he had never learned to read and write it, and damn near failed the course. 

[Oshyan]

Georeferenced terrain should automatically scale properly in all dimensions. What you may be seeing is *incorrect* height scaling when georef is not being used, in other words it is a correct height but relative to the area covered it is too tall, but when goereferenced it actually covers the appropriate area for its height; the height doesn't change in that case, just the area covered. I am just speculating here though.

TER format maintains terrain scales correctly (or should do), unlike pretty much any other image format, so that's why TER would generally be preferred; it has terrain-specific meta data basically. TIFF is an occasional exception when you're referring to GeoTIFF, but WorldMachine does not output GeoTIFF. But if you're using WM, something to be aware of is that WM's TER export is... well, I'm not sure it's fair to say it's "broken" per se, but it definitely doesn't work as the TER format was intended. This is why you sometimes get very weird vertical scaling. In that case you can look at the total height range of your exported terrain *in World Machine* and then use a Heightfield Adjust Vertical to set the correct range.

- Oshyan

[Erwin0265]

I use the Heightfield resize Operator

Remember, newbie; aka:- 

Georeferenced terrain should automatically scale properly in all dimensions. What you may be seeing is *incorrect* height scaling when georef is not being used, in other words it is a correct height but relative to the area covered it is too tall, but when goereferenced it actually covers the appropriate area for its height; the height doesn't change in that case, just the area covered. I am just speculating here though.

To see if what I am seeing and what you are saying correlate (I have no idea; I got kinda lost after "Georefferenced terrain"...  ), I have attached a screencap:-
[attachimg=1]
This is of the same terrain I mentioned in previous posts (created in WM2, saved in .TER format {broken or not?}).
As you can see, there is a "slight" discrepency between the size of the non-GR vs. the GR terrain; there is also no detail to be seen in the GR version.
BTW, GR = "Georeferenced", not "Global Radiosity", in this example anyway.......

[Oshyan]

Well, I should clarify: if it's a World Machine generated terrain, there is no georeferencing data in the file, so enabling georeferencing is not going to give you a "correct" result.

- Oshyan

[Erwin0265]

Ahh, yes; of course.................. D'oh!

I use the Heightfield resize Operator

I looked it up; imagine - a complete entry (sorry, a bit of a dig at the wiki lack of comprehensiveness. I've been in hospital {again!}; that's my excuse and I'm stickin' with it).........