Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
- EDB
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am
- Location: The Netherlands, Europe Continent, Earth Planet, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Super Cluster
Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
A 100% area in a thermalmap indeed produces more thermals then a 0% area...
BigPyrenees2 has no thermal map.
AA2 has 100% in snow area's. Which is wrong btw... Snow reflexes light.
BigPyrenees2 has no thermal map.
AA2 has 100% in snow area's. Which is wrong btw... Snow reflexes light.
Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
Open your eyes Erwin!... AA2 thermal map is based on the CORINE coverage map, and takes into account the Glaciers and perpetual snow areas.
Actually, we've tested the mont Blanc and the Ecrin zones to tweak the intensity over the various types of soil so it would be as realistic as possible.
the resulting choice over ice and snow was 42%.
- EDB
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am
- Location: The Netherlands, Europe Continent, Earth Planet, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Super Cluster
Re: Condor error
I measured it a minute ago :
Snow and Glasures in AA2 is 68-69%
That is Dessert territory...
Snow should be about 5%
Time to go back on topic.
Thermal-maps do matter. And there are differences per landscape. Not every landscape is created equal.
So when you have errors. Try to reproduce them in the Slovenia2 landscape.
Snow and Glasures in AA2 is 68-69%
That is Dessert territory...
Snow should be about 5%
Time to go back on topic.
Thermal-maps do matter. And there are differences per landscape. Not every landscape is created equal.
So when you have errors. Try to reproduce them in the Slovenia2 landscape.
Re: Condor error
No.
I'm sorry, but you must have got your measurements wrong again.
But anyway this thermal map is as we wanted it to be, and it seems to suit the few pilots who use AA2 regularly enough.
Of course, you are free to make a better thermal map if you want to create a new mountain scenery.
- EDB
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am
- Location: The Netherlands, Europe Continent, Earth Planet, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Super Cluster
Re: Condor error
OFF-TOPIC MODE ON
You ask, we deliver...
OFF-TOPIC MODE OFF
You ask, we deliver...
OFF-TOPIC MODE OFF
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Condor error
Now it's becoming interesting!
Either you don't know how to correctly transform a .tdm file into a greyscale image file, which confirms that you were wrong again, and you are not really competent to talk about this subject.
Or you have maliciously modified this image to support your false assertions.
Unless you have simply modified the AA2 thermal map on your computer (but I don't see how your version could remain compatible for network flights).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by dgtfer on Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
- EDB
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am
- Location: The Netherlands, Europe Continent, Earth Planet, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Super Cluster
Re: Condor error
You are a funny guy. I will remember this...
RGB 172, 172, 172 is 67% gray.
Snow should be somewhere around 5%.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... CAw&uact=5
These are just screenshots made smaller in Windows Paint to reduce bites. The JPG compression might changes values a bit.
You work in the source file. I work in the converted TDM. And I already made some other edits after converting. This is not a file to convert into a TDM. I don't care of I measure 67%, 68% or 69%. They are all way off what they should be... 5%..!
Screenshot from CS4 and reduced in Paint.
Grow up..!
And when you are @ school tomorrow, ask your teacher how this works.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
OK Erwin, now it's time to cool down a bit... even if you were hung by your balls you would still say it doesn't hurt!
I don't know what causes your resentment against my work, but please try to understand what I'm telling you:
- The lower part of the image is extracted from the actual AA2.tdm file, transformed only by changing the file type from .tdm to .raw, without any alteration.
- The 68% value you've calculated is from your wrong map, that you have transformed.
- The real map (point 1) has a black value (N in french) of 42%, while your version (point 2) has only 30%. That means that your map has been lightened by a 1.4 factor!
- I don't know if this is intentional on your part, and that's not the main point.
- The real subject from my point of view, is the desired value for the probability of thermals in snowy areas.
Through our experience of real mountain flights, we have always found that simple theoretical models are heavily wrong about the presence of thermals in snowy areas. One only needs to make a few flights in good weather in the Alps in April or May when the summits are still largely covered with snow, to see that, while weather models such as RASP predict an absence of convection, it is generally extremely well developed!
Another well-known example for us is the flight over Glacier Blanc, where thermals are often very good.
If my former paragliding experience has also shown me that on lower layers over the snow the sink is general; with gliders, we fly high enough not to be affected by this.
I guess that the good thermals over the snowy or glaciers areas are due to the contrast between snow-covered and uncovered zones (rocks, boulders, scree slopes, moraines, lone trees, windblown zones...) that trigger the thermals.
So as we wanted the most realistic thermal map, we've decided, after a few test flights to set the snow zones to a medium value.
(In fact, I had to slightly increase the value of all the zones because the first version of the thermal map gave a too low activity compared to the reality.)
That's all I had to say on the subject, and I won't come back to it again, I don't want to get lost in a perpetual skirmish.
I don't know what causes your resentment against my work, but please try to understand what I'm telling you:
- The lower part of the image is extracted from the actual AA2.tdm file, transformed only by changing the file type from .tdm to .raw, without any alteration.
- The 68% value you've calculated is from your wrong map, that you have transformed.
- The real map (point 1) has a black value (N in french) of 42%, while your version (point 2) has only 30%. That means that your map has been lightened by a 1.4 factor!
- I don't know if this is intentional on your part, and that's not the main point.
- The real subject from my point of view, is the desired value for the probability of thermals in snowy areas.
Through our experience of real mountain flights, we have always found that simple theoretical models are heavily wrong about the presence of thermals in snowy areas. One only needs to make a few flights in good weather in the Alps in April or May when the summits are still largely covered with snow, to see that, while weather models such as RASP predict an absence of convection, it is generally extremely well developed!
Another well-known example for us is the flight over Glacier Blanc, where thermals are often very good.
If my former paragliding experience has also shown me that on lower layers over the snow the sink is general; with gliders, we fly high enough not to be affected by this.
I guess that the good thermals over the snowy or glaciers areas are due to the contrast between snow-covered and uncovered zones (rocks, boulders, scree slopes, moraines, lone trees, windblown zones...) that trigger the thermals.
So as we wanted the most realistic thermal map, we've decided, after a few test flights to set the snow zones to a medium value.
(In fact, I had to slightly increase the value of all the zones because the first version of the thermal map gave a too low activity compared to the reality.)
That's all I had to say on the subject, and I won't come back to it again, I don't want to get lost in a perpetual skirmish.
- EDB
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am
- Location: The Netherlands, Europe Continent, Earth Planet, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Super Cluster
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
It's the contrast that works good. Warm rising air from the good rocks and Cold descending air above the bad snow.
I'm convinced that you guys make a mistake. I think you guys mistakenly see cap-clouds for thermals. Those are different type of clouds. The first one is generated by ridge-lift on the wind side. A thermal is generated on the sunny side. We currently have no cap clouds in Condor2.
I don't believe that the second best thermals are generated by snow...
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
What could happen is that the transition between rock and snow triggers a thermal. I don't think the middle of a large patch of uniform snow will generate a thermal. A parcel of warm air will usually not start to rise on its own. It needs some kind of trigger.
On flatland these are stuff like forrest edges, buildings, windturbines ect. I've even found good thermals over lakes next to nice fields. The warm air from the fields got blown over the colder lake and was triggered to rise. Why would the air start to rise above a uniformly heated field? There is nothing to kick it into rising. That is why the thermal was above the lake, not the warm field. I can imagine this effect is similar with a rockface next to a glacier. You would find the thermal above the glacier, but the source of warm air is the rockface next to it.
Because Condor does not work with triggers, I think the way DGT has done the thermal map simulates what happens in RL. I think both of you guys are right. EDB in that snow is not a primary source of the thermal. And DGT because he is trying to simulate what happens in RL with the limitations Condor has in that the snow is a good thermal trigger.
On flatland these are stuff like forrest edges, buildings, windturbines ect. I've even found good thermals over lakes next to nice fields. The warm air from the fields got blown over the colder lake and was triggered to rise. Why would the air start to rise above a uniformly heated field? There is nothing to kick it into rising. That is why the thermal was above the lake, not the warm field. I can imagine this effect is similar with a rockface next to a glacier. You would find the thermal above the glacier, but the source of warm air is the rockface next to it.
Because Condor does not work with triggers, I think the way DGT has done the thermal map simulates what happens in RL. I think both of you guys are right. EDB in that snow is not a primary source of the thermal. And DGT because he is trying to simulate what happens in RL with the limitations Condor has in that the snow is a good thermal trigger.
PH-1504, KOE
- EDB
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:17 am
- Location: The Netherlands, Europe Continent, Earth Planet, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Super Cluster
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
But now you add wind to the equation.
When the thermal is created over the good rocks, it (can) get(s) blown over to the other (bad snow) area. In real life the trigger-point might often be closer to the edges of those areas then in Condor. In this example on the downwind side of the Rocks, close to the Snow.
The thermal-map is about heat generator locations. And snow is just a bad generator.
When the thermal is created over the good rocks, it (can) get(s) blown over to the other (bad snow) area. In real life the trigger-point might often be closer to the edges of those areas then in Condor. In this example on the downwind side of the Rocks, close to the Snow.
The thermal-map is about heat generator locations. And snow is just a bad generator.
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
The solution is to model heat transfer and convection properly, not this rough imitation we have now and... why am I only getting 0.1 FPS now? ![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Also, I suspect the reason you two were getting different percentages when measuring the thermal map was that Photoshop was probably applying a color profile, like Dot Gain 20%, which will make those measurements wonky.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Also, I suspect the reason you two were getting different percentages when measuring the thermal map was that Photoshop was probably applying a color profile, like Dot Gain 20%, which will make those measurements wonky.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 2:46 pm
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
here a short video about where, for me, condor goes far away from reality in thermals triggering and maps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA1Bok6l7uM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA1Bok6l7uM
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:29 am
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
I must +1 this. I thought it was just me, but evidently not.Friggitotti wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 11:11 amhere a short video about where, for me, condor goes far away from reality in thermals triggering and maps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA1Bok6l7uM
In most maps, I'm unable to fly over areas that should be giving something in the way of thermals on the flat (e.g. built-up areas are a good source), but in Condor, it just doesn't seem to work that way.
Earlier this evening I had some strong flat-land thermals right on the edge of a river and over a lake (UK SE 3 scenery), and I saw almost nothing over built-up areas.
Is there any way to check the thermal map?
G-ZULU /// LTN
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/jXNcj04.png)
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/jXNcj04.png)
Re: Thermal map discussion (split from Condor error)
Ref your comment on the South East UK Thermal map. Unfortunately you are correct about the the Thermal map not being too precise. Having just looked at it, I created the thermal map from a Mapnik Open street map and converted the grey scale in accordance with the Condor Landscape Creation Guide:
https://www.condorsoaring.com/downloads-2/
This explains how themal areas are created and a probality applied to to each type of landscape area.
The fault with SEUK is that there are parts of the map that indicated road numbers etc which give incorrect greyscale value in certain areas.
To highlight this difference here are two images of the Dover area in the UK, one from SEUK and one from the new United Kingdom scenery.
The built up area is more defined in the newer scenery. I could update the SEUK thermal map with a patch but there is little point with the improved United Kingdom scenery now available (with a better thermal map).
Hopefully my scenery creation has improved since SEUK. To create a Thermal map now I use the Open street layers accessed through the QGIS application. Many different layers can be downloaded; Built up, Forrest, Orchard, heathland, scrub, rivers, highways, farmland etc. In fact as many as you wish to add for accuracy. However the more you add although more accurate will take more time to process into a grey scale. Once again it is a factor of how much time and attention to detail that the scenery designer wants to add. You could work on a scenery for years or knock one out in a week.
As for viewing the thermal map, only the scenery designer will have the original and correct map. There maybe ways to convert the .tdm file (EDB seems to have done it) but no gurantees that it reflects the original design. Having access to the thermal map is something that contest organisers would not want as it provides a similar advantage as the thermal helpers.
https://www.condorsoaring.com/downloads-2/
This explains how themal areas are created and a probality applied to to each type of landscape area.
The fault with SEUK is that there are parts of the map that indicated road numbers etc which give incorrect greyscale value in certain areas.
To highlight this difference here are two images of the Dover area in the UK, one from SEUK and one from the new United Kingdom scenery.
The built up area is more defined in the newer scenery. I could update the SEUK thermal map with a patch but there is little point with the improved United Kingdom scenery now available (with a better thermal map).
Hopefully my scenery creation has improved since SEUK. To create a Thermal map now I use the Open street layers accessed through the QGIS application. Many different layers can be downloaded; Built up, Forrest, Orchard, heathland, scrub, rivers, highways, farmland etc. In fact as many as you wish to add for accuracy. However the more you add although more accurate will take more time to process into a grey scale. Once again it is a factor of how much time and attention to detail that the scenery designer wants to add. You could work on a scenery for years or knock one out in a week.
As for viewing the thermal map, only the scenery designer will have the original and correct map. There maybe ways to convert the .tdm file (EDB seems to have done it) but no gurantees that it reflects the original design. Having access to the thermal map is something that contest organisers would not want as it provides a similar advantage as the thermal helpers.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Andy1248 on Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Condor CN = E20