There's value in showing elevation and it's something we plan to add in the future.
To start though, from the usage numbers we have already gotten (since we launched 1.0 last year), there are thousands who are happy using it as is.
That said, again, I do see the value in showing elevation for some users.
First off John, great tool. We spend a lot of time helping integrators and end users understand protection coverage through camera layouts. Equipping them with tools to perform this activity on their own helps us focus on solving intrusion detection problems.
Secondly, I agree with Simon. Blind zones are still a huge issue we see during the camera layout phase, especially as high resolution cameras allow detection at greater distances. That also introduces larger blind zones.
That being said, I certainly understand scope creep. So kudos on a great tool. When you get a chance to enhance, certainly take Simon's suggestion and place camera height on the top of the list.
They don't necessarily, but the they are often used to cover larger areas and this can lead to them being mounted higher up to see over obstructions. That's what can lead to larger blind spots.
Without getting into all the nitty gritty details, given a field of view, but more pixels, means you can achieve your needed pixels on target at a greater distance from the camera. If you are setting up your cameras correctly, the tilt should be now be optimized for viewing targets at that distance (and not trying to view the sky.) So as you look to detect at greater distances, you begin to tilt your camera up and potentially narrow your lens. Both of those actions, move your minimum detection distance farther from the base of the camera. Obviously, if you are only detecting out short distances this isn’t a huge impact.