Figure 1
The Leitha Hills outlined in white (Doneus & Briese 2011).
Table 1
The meta-information of the ALS data used in this paper (Doneus & Briese, 2011).
| ALS project | Leitha Hills |
| Purpose of scan | Archaeology |
| Time of Data Acquisition | March-12th of April 2007 |
| Point distribution (pt. per sq.m) | 7 |
| Scanner Type | Riegle LMS-Q680i Full-Waveform |
| Scan Angle (whole FOV) | 45° |
| Flying Height above Ground | 600 m |
| Speed of Aircraft (TAS) | 36 m/s |
| Laser Pulse Rate | 100 000 Hz |
| Scan Rate | 66 000 Hz |
| Strip Adjustment | Yes |
| Filtering | Robust interpolation (SCOP++) |
| DTM-Resolution | 0.5 m |
Figure 2
Imported as a texture file, the extracted roads and paths line up well with the Leitha Hills height model in Unity.
Figure 3
The relative costs of different surfaces.
Figure 4
The slider function in ArcGIS/Unity.
Figure 5
The location of the two caves (in green). The LCP path (in blue) and the sections that didn’t align (in purple) to roads and paths visible on the ALS data.
Figure 6
The location of the two caves (in green); the LCP path (in blue) and the parts that didn’t align (in purple) to roads and paths visible on the ALS data.
Figure 7
The results of LCP analysis in ArcGIS between points of the selected tile of 1 km2. The final part of paths with different starting points and the same destination overlap. This can be explained by the distribution of the points in the corners of the square kilometer.
Figure 8
The NavMesh outcome: the navigable areas (in purple).
Figure 9
Comparison of LCP results between ArcGIS (left) and Unity (right) on area of 1 km2. Due to resolution differences, the DTM in ArcGIS is much clearer. Furthermore, it shows that in both applications the stream in the lower left is clearly avoided. In the central part of both tests the results show the largest differences in routing. Additionally, the routes in ArcGIS are more winding than the ones in Unity which tends to produce long straight sections.