[longiron]

Goku, on 22 December 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Of course this projection isn't perfect, in London - 350 km north from center point the distortion becomes visible too:
https://i.imgur.com/IENLPzi.jpg
I'm sorry. By mistake I used MSTS projection instead of TSRE projection xDDD

In TSRE is looks much better even 350 km away:
https://i.imgur.com/6o19gcE.png

Goku,
Perhaps a dumb assumption: I assuming MSTS will not be able to run routes using this project. Is that a correct assumption? I personally don't care as I exclusively run OR.
chris

[Goku]

Of course the routes continue to work in MSTS, but with false lat/lon coordinates (does msts show them anyway?).

[James Ross]

Goku, on 23 December 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Of course the routes continue to work in MSTS, but with false lat/lon coordinates (does msts show them anyway?).

They appear in the compass window and HUD in MSTS IIRC.

[Simon E]

Goku, on 23 December 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

No one interested with this topic?

I am. I wish they (MS/Kuju) had of used something normal like UTM, It would have saved people loads of trouble.

It would have also helped MSTS to take off in Japan, The reason why any potential Japanese route builders were turned off, when they saw that horribly distorted Tokyo... (Who in their right mind would use IGH as a Map projection anyway?)

[Goku]

I think IGH is best compromise for whole world? Maybe it was choosen for Flight Simulator?

James Ross - this projection looks soo difficult. But if you have any example code to work with I can try.
I'd like to give something for users as fast as possible.

[Simon E]

Goku, on 23 December 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

I think IGH is best compromise for whole world? Maybe it was choosen for Flight Simulator?

James Ross - this projection looks soo difficult. But if you have any example code to work with I can try.

What? IGH in a Flight Simulator? you gotta be kidding Goku!

And to Ross, I think UTM is a MUCH Better Projection. Thats why Trainz, And Train Simulator (Railworks) 2018 uses it.

Also put a radio button somewhere to choose the old MSTS Projection and UTM.

and TSRE writes ORTSGeoProjection(MSTS) or ORTSGeoProjection(UTM) in the .trk file. So some innocent novice, doesn't go fiddling with switches in the options dialog in OR.

[Simon E]

I also wish, that you could come up with a way to Move And or rotate an entire Route to its correct co-ordinates..

[Simon E]

James Ross, on 23 December 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

They appear in the compass window and HUD in MSTS IIRC.

These GIS Programs (Both open Source) Maybe useful to you.

http://mapwindow4.codeplex.com/

And this is in c#
http://dotspatial.codeplex.com/

It will have code to screw around with this kind of stuff. (I have used these for real world railway based project, and I remember thinking of OpenRails and MSTS, while looking at code...) S I think it has exactly what you want.

ALSO ALMOST PROBABLY USEFUL TO YOU TOO GOKU..

[James Ross]

Goku, on 23 December 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

James Ross - this projection looks soo difficult. But if you have any example code to work with I can try.
I'd like to give something for users as fast as possible.

That is not a good strategy. You should at least consider some of the options; there have been plenty of discussions here about projections and the options seem to always come back to Transverse Mercator (TM ) although, having looked at it today, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) seems like a better option (see below).

Simon E, on 23 December 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

And to Ross, I think UTM is a MUCH Better Projection. Thats why Trainz, And Train Simulator (Railworks) 2018 uses it.

When making claims of "better" you really ought to include reasoning, even if it's just a link to a respectable source.

UTM and TM are strongly related as their names imply; TM is a projection down a single longitudinal line with good accuracy near to this line (a few degrees to either side), where as UTM is a collection of 60 of these TM "strips" stitched together to create a worldwide version.

Therefore, it seems that the only significant difference between UTM and TM is that UTM provides a global map, where as TM only provides it within a single longitudinal strip. Both provide similar properties (e.g. conformal) and accuracy AFAICT. I would say that UTM is the better choice simply because it is worldwide.

Simon E, on 23 December 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

and TSRE writes ORTSGeoProjection(MSTS) or ORTSGeoProjection(UTM) in the .trk file. So some innocent novice, doesn't go fiddling with switches in the options dialog in OR.

Nobody has suggested this is a user option in OR AFAICS; this is an option for the route creator only and whatever is selected will be included in the route data somewhere, most likely the track data file (.trk).

[Simon E]

James Ross, on 26 December 2017 - 03:33 AM, said:

That is not a good strategy. You should at least consider some of the options; there have been plenty of discussions here about projections and the options seem to always come back to Transverse Mercator (TM ) although, having looked at it today, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) seems like a better option (see below).


When making claims of "better" you really ought to include reasoning, even if it's just a link to a respectable source.

UTM and TM are strongly related as their names imply; TM is a projection down a single longitudinal line with good accuracy near to this line (a few degrees to either side), where as UTM is a collection of 60 of these TM "strips" stitched together to create a worldwide version.

Therefore, it seems that the only significant difference between UTM and TM is that UTM provides a global map, where as TM only provides it within a single longitudinal strip. Both provide similar properties (e.g. conformal) and accuracy AFAICT. I would say that UTM is the better choice simply because it is worldwide.


Nobody has suggested this is a user option in OR AFAICS; this is an option for the route creator only and whatever is selected will be included in the route data somewhere, most likely the track data file (.trk).

I should have explained in more detail. You have already done as much, so thats out of the way. And it is why i suggested UTM.

And yeah, I do propose, That Option is set by a route builder, and once its set, it shouldn't be fiddled with. Otherwise you will end up with a pretty strange looking route.