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; } } }

how can texture,such as lawn, fit terrain well

qingyangliu

Hello!
I want to add some lawn to my scene,but I find it can't fit terrain well when looking at it in a close distance. The terrain is DEM.
This is my CGA:
Lawn -->
setupProjection(0,scope.xz,~15,~15)
texture("images/lawn.jpg")
projectUV(0)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26905[/ATTACH]

1.jpg

NigelGriffiths_0-1728028710952.png

タグ付きの投稿をもっと見る

Accepted answers

All comments

MatthiasBuehler1

Hi,

Texturing does not change the geometry.

Your specific issue is that you need to align the terrain back to the shapes.

check the CE manual on :

- align shapes to terrain
- align terrain to shapes

ok ?

m.

qingyangliu

Hi,
To be honest,I have used both of them and tested many settings of them. I find that if the shapes are flat,it works very well.However,the shapes and the terrain don't fit well each other on the contrary.
For example,there is a hill. Firstly, I use align shapes to terrain and align terrain to shapes next. Then I find only vertices around the shape get the elevation but the middle of the shape can't get the elevation from terrain and it likes a interpolation between the vertices.Finally,the hill becomes flat.What's more,align terrain to shapes doesn't work well if the shapes aren't flat such as lower terrain.
Is there anything wrong and if there are better parameter combinations?
thanks
[ATTACH=CONFIG]26953[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]26954[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]26955[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]26956[/ATTACH]

4.jpg

3.jpg

2.jpg

1.jpg

MatthiasBuehler1

Hi,

Yes, if you align a shape to the terrain, only the vertices are considered, since the vertices define the polygon.

If you need the shape to adapt more precisely to the hill, you need to subdivide the shape more, to produce more vertices.

Also, pay attention that you don't work with too detailed shapes. Your shape geometry seems to have a LOT of points. Maybe reduce the precision on those.

If you do not care about the topology in the end of the textured Model, what you could do is use 2 CGA rules :

1] 1 rule for the texturing itself, as you already have it.
2] 1 rule which only subdivides your BIG shape into smaller bits in X and Z, just as a preprocess. With this code :

attr dim = 10

Cutter -->
    split(x, noAdjust) {~dim : split(z) {~dim : Cut. }* }*

This code only cuts the shape in little quadrangles. Use the Right-Mouse-Button to convert this grid back to a shape. Align then that new shape to the terrain and assign rule 1] for the texturing.

Hope this makes sense.

qingyangliu

Hi!

Yes,It works well. But it's a pity that it generates a lot of polygons.

I have the similar problem when I work with the street network. I use both align shapes to terrain and align terrain to shapes,while there are still some streets under the terrain. I wonder that why the Lower terrain can't work.

Do you have other better idea?

thanks

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27043[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]27043[/ATTACH]

1.jpg

MatthiasBuehler1

Hi,

That is because of the actual resulting size of the terrain.

If you select the terrain layer, go to the Inspector and set the wireframe alpha to 0.3, then press the '7' key after making the viewport the active window. this triggers the wireframe display render setting.

This way, you can see each polygon on the terrain layer.

Then, also in the layer attributes of the terrain layer, play with the U and V subdivisions to adapt the resulting polygon size of the terrain.

The issue in general is that if you align shapes to the terrain and the other way 'round is that only the individual points are moved up and down, but the edges between the points still may intersect the geometries. So what I usually do is make an offset of 0.5 meters to prevent this as well as possible.

The terrain tools need some updates, we have this on the wishlist already quite some time. 😕

Makes sense ?

Matt

qingyangliu

Hi!

I appreciate your suggestions and patient reply. Hoping this problem will be solved soon.

thanks

qingyangliu

Hi!
I have one more question:).

I want to export the KML, but it contain too many DAEs. How can I control the number of the DAE inside the KML. My scene have road network and buildings.

what's more, can I convert the model in the scene to static model? I don't find the way to do this.

when I import the OBJ which is exported from the scene as the static model, I find it difficult to control the position of it. Is there a convenient way to put the OBJ to the original place?

thanks

MatthiasBuehler1

Hi,

1]
It seems, 1 mesh is written out per shape in such a kml file. That's just how it works currently.

2]
There's currently no way to convert a generated Model to a Static Model. What you can do is :
-Export the model as .dae/kml or .obj. Those are the file formats supported for Static Models [and assets]. Then re-import them.

3]
Obj is not a georeferenced file format. Use kml instead. When drag-n-dropping a kml into the viewport from the project folder, it will automatically be placed in the right spot.

Ok ?

JugalPatel

I'm using your code to try to split up my polygons into a grid so that I can better align it to the terrain. However, you say to use the right mouse button to convert this grid back to a shape. What exactly do you mean? I do not see any option to convert the grid back to shape.

Matthias Buehler

CherylLau

Maybe you are looking for Shapes -> Convert Model to Shapes

JugalPatel

Ohh okay, I am starting to understand now. Do you know if it's possible to get rid of this grid though?

fishnet grid.png

I want it to look more like this layer but with the detail from the grid above

no grid.png

会話に参加する

サインインしたメンバーは投稿、更新のフォローなどができます。初めてですか？無料アカウントを登録してください。

クイックリンク

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.