nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

In 3D ArcGIS Pro scene, need ability to display surfaces vertically "floating without a surface" with a defined “layer offset”

WillyLynch2

In ArcGIS Desktop ArcGlobe or ArcScene, a layer could be displayed vertically "floating without a surface" with a defined “layer offset”.

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.6/extensions/3d-analyst/setting-a-raster-layer-s-base-heights-using-a-surface-in-arcglobe.htm

The help added the tip: “To float the layer at an elevation provided by a constant offset, switch the option in step 3 to Floating without a surface and simply provide an offset in the combo box at the bottom of the dialog box.”

This does not seem possible in ArcGIS Pro scene. It is a common requirement to view surfaces as horizontal slices and having the ability to float the layer at specific elevations would be most helpful.

Perhaps I am missing a setting?

ArcGIS Layer Elevation Properties.jpg

2892b.jpg

Trouver plus de publications taguées avec

Scene Layers

Status: Ouvrir

Réponses

JeremyWright

@WillyLynch2 this is "Cartographic Offset" on the elevation layer properties page.

It works in conjunction with all the other elevation modes.

So to be equivalent with above you'd set it to "Absolute Height" and "a field" set to <Expression> (defaults to 0), and set "Cartographic Offset" to whatever you want the offset from 0 to be.

Help here: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/mapping/layer-properties/define-height-characteristics-for-layers.htm

WillyLynch2

Ah, now understood. I was missing the concept that a floating layer at a fixed elevation is a "cartographic offset". Mine Plans at fixed elevations or geophysical slices at defined depth make more sense described as a floating layer at an elevation provided by a constant. But now understand and makes sense. I will submit a short enhancement request for the documentation to include a "tip" as per the ArcGlobe documentation. Thanks for the quick reply and education.

WillyLynch2

Actually... this does not work as it only allows the surface to be offset from the topographic surface. We need floating layers

JeremyWright

@WillyLynch2 maybe I'm having trouble understanding the use case. You need a layer placed at a static elevation (e.g. 30000 feet). This can be achieved by using absolute height mode with an expression set to 0 and a cartographic offset, OR by setting the expression to the static height you want to achieve.

WillyLynch2

Jeremy- I submitted a support case for documentation enhancement- Esri Case #03108151 but then realized it might be more -- yes, I have mine plans or geophysical images at specific elevations such as 5000 feet (1524m), 3000 feet (914m) and 1000 feet (304m) absolute elevation. These need to "float" at the absolute elevation. I only see the elevation option for image layers to be "On the Ground". This is for a layer so not sure where "Absolute Height" is set.

JeremyWright

@WillyLynch2 I see what you're saying. For raster layers there is no "absolute" option.

I tried a 3dd I had with a raster layer set to "floating" and 5000m offset. It ends up set to "on the ground" with a 5000m cartographic offset, which does result in equivalent rendering to ArcGlobe.

Maybe we can work this one the opposite way....

Can you provide a repro case (a 3dd) for which there does not exist equivalent conversion in Pro?

If needed I can provide ad-hoc FTP for you to transfer it, if it's too big to post as an attachment here.

WillyLynch2

@JeremyWright My enhancement request for the documentation was closed as it is now likely seen as a none equivalent ArcGlobe/Scene to ArcGIS Pro scene functionality deficiency. I can share some examples and will raise a new support issue for the deficiency and request an enhancement request. I will advise Prem Support you are on this thread and have them get in touch as you seem to have a good understanding of the issue. Thanks

Rejoindre la conversation

Connectez-vous pour publier, suivre du contenu, et plus encore. Nouveau ici ? Inscrivez-vous gratuitement.