Hi Fabriz,

What do you mean by

Posted by: @fabriz-galbiatigmail-com

a "shadow" profile at the lowest height within a distance

?

-Tim

Thank you Tim for your request for clarification.

I have difficulty expressing myself in English which is not my language. I try to clarify ...

When one traces a route through mountains, he has no chance of tracing it through the winding valleys. This is because the route that somebody traces follows slavishly the reliefs it encounters.

In reality the pilot who will fly that route will interpret the surveys he meets in real time on sight.

If during the planning phase the pilot could already imagine the possibilities that will arise, it would be easier.

To achieve this, I imagined a software that could detect the altitudes not only of the traced line, but also those within a defined distance to the right and to the left of that line, choosing the lowest one. Lower altitude values ​​will be displayed with a “shadow” trace that follows the vertical traced profile. This is useful in planning.

Instead in flight it is useful, dynamically, since the minimum altitude of flight in the mountains must take into account not the absolute height of the relief that is exceeded, but the height of the relief with respect to the surrounding valleys. This serves to predict the influence of the winds and to have control over escape routes in the event of descending currents.

I stop because it entered into a complex discourse that would be difficult to understand for those who don't usually fly in the mountains, and for me to explain in English... 

I hope I was more explicit. Otherwise, just ask me questions for further clarification and I will try to do my best to explain myself

Hi Fabriz, 

Many thanks for your explanation. And don't worry about the language. If it is easier for you, you can write to me in your preferred language and I will use Google translate.

I understand that you would like to achieve the following. In the Vertical Profile Viewer (VPV) you would like to see not only the terrain elevation under your planned route but also the maximum and minimum terrain elevation close to the planned route. Is that correct?

This is what EV does at this moment: 

• The proposed planned altitude of a route leg is the maximum terrain elevation along that route leg +1.000 ft;
• The maximum terrain elevation used for the proposed planned altitude is looked up in a path width of 10 NM (5 NM on each side of the route);
• At this moment the terrain elevation shown in the VPV is only the terrain elevation directly under the planned leg. So it does not take any path with of 10NM into account.
• The feature "Valley terrain" (only in planning mode) can help to see the lower and hight terrain on the map: Map Layers Menu -> Terrain. Enable "Valley terrain" and set the "Valley reference elevation" to what fits best for that region you are exploring. Enabling "Hill Shading" makes it even more appealing.
• In flight mode, the Relative Terrain option can be enabled (in the above described menu). It uses the GPS altitude. On the map all-terrain which elevation is higher than your current altitude minus 1000 ft is colored. The terrain you are between 1000 ft and 500 ft above, is gradient colored from yellow to red and if the separation is less then 500 ft, it is colored from red to dark red.

Does this make sense?

So am I right that you suggest to visualize in VPV the maximum and minimum terrain elevation along the leg with a with of 10NM? This is actually something we earlier discussed, but we need to explore how to visualize this in the VPV. Do you have a suggestion?

Cheers,

Tim

Hi Tim,

You say: “In the Vertical Profile Viewer (VPV) you would like to see not only the terrain elevation under your planned route but also the maximum and minimum terrain elevation close to the planned route.”

It's correct.  I would find it very helpful.  But I dont consider very useful the setting that EV does at this moment...

 “- The proposed planned altitude of a route leg is the maximum terrain elevation along that route leg +1.000 ft;

- The maximum terrain elevation used for the proposed planned altitude is looked up in a path width of 10 NM (5 NM on each side of the route);”

The proposed planned altitude is always far greater than the feasible one, when passing the Alps, for example.  May be it could fit in the hills.

I believe it is excessive the width of the path where the maximum altitude is sought.  In 5 NM per side you often find very high mountains, but in reality in that space there are also wide valleys, quietly flying at much lower altitudes. A very wide valley rarely exceeds the width of 2 NM.

First, I would greatly reduce the size of the corridor under consideration (or I would make it settable by the menu).

“- The feature "Valley terrain" (only in planning mode) can help to see the lower and hight terrain on the map...”

 I already use currently these settings, which I find very useful.

“So am I right that you suggest to visualize in VPV the maximum and minimum terrain elevation along the leg with a with of 10NM? This is actually something we earlier discussed, but we need to explore how to visualize this in the VPV. Do you have a suggestion?”

I would greatly reduce the size of the corridor taken into consideration (settable by the menu, if possible).

I would suggest to create attenuated profile lines, which follow the one generated on the route line, one on the highest altitude points of the set corridor and one that follows the minor altitude points in the same area.

At this point I would add that EV proposes the flight altitude as set by the parameters, but that allows to trace routes, even if they apparently cross the mountains.  The creation of doodles that are seen now, to respect the parameters, is however unmanageable.

As usual I hope you understand what I wrote.

Thanks for your patience

Fabriz