Post by: Krein on December 22, 2005, 02:31:50 PM
Can I get a round of applause?
..
..
A yee-haw?
...
How about a "FINALLY!!"
Anyone?
It wasn't easy. But this is the number one feature request we get. It could use some testing, because it's actually a complicated procedure.
Some notes:
* You can enter whatever size you want, but it will give you a message if DirectX refuses to create a surface that's too large. This should be a function of your video card and (mostly) main memory. I have 256mb video and 1 gig system and I can export 9000x9000, but 10,000x10,000 is too big.
* It will adjust the zoom so that whatever is shown in the current view will be there. If the aspect ratio changes there may be more showing (either horizonatally or vertically), but there won't be less.
* Detail. Selecting maximum detail (the default) is the same as having the "Tileset zooming" slider (in options->preferences) to maximum. Selecting "Use current" will keep the tileset zooming where it is. Note that even with "use current" you can still get a different tileset than you are on now, but it is less likely (this really only matters with topo, when there are different basemaps).
Comments? Questions? Problems?
Post by: on December 22, 2005, 04:46:02 PM
If you do get checkmarks (this will happen more often the larger the image and if you use the "high detail" setting) the tiles will queue up for download. If you wait a bit and do an export again, you should get a full image.
Super large images take a while to generate anyway, so I think I'm going to have to get a progress bar going. If I do
that they I could have the export wait for all the tiles to be downloaded before writing out the image.
Post by: haroow on December 23, 2005, 10:57:55 AM
So far the best large topo, combo, size I can go is the  twice the screen size 2560x2048..
I still have issues with not being able to view all topos as discussed and emailed before and this does not make the issue go away.
The aerial maps they work great in fact i successfully at this time set up the numbers to be 3x the normal size 3840 x3072 and it work fines no check marks. I placed the image in a web document in word, and it works and good detail...
I have no idea the limitations of this computer since I supposedly  have a system faster than what the designers are using...I know it has to do with the reading certain images...gif vs others...I have successfully in the past few weeks pulled the maps i have and exported the images and then brought them into adobe photo and panorama them into one large picture....It works but a alot of work...I will keep working with it, and give more info...but I would really like the lack of topo availibiity worked out....But your defintlaey on the right track....It's probably the video driver since this seems to be an integated shipset I beleive...NO more riding for you all till this gets figured out...(just kidding..I want no virus sent to me...clear your mind) Â
Post by: on December 25, 2005, 12:03:26 PM
So that has nothing to do with your system config. If you do try an image too large you'll get an error message and it won't create a .jpg or .bmp at all.
As for the problem with .GIF images, yes, we need to investigate it more aggressively. We're out of town right now (guess... doing some riding) but when back...
Post by: haroow on December 31, 2005, 01:17:35 AM
Using 4 meter combo tilesets i can go as high as the preset of 1024 x768 and as high as custom 1274 x 1274. any higher check marks..
Messing around with the preference section...i excluded the following :combo 1,topo 2, topo 8, topo 32, topo 56 and all color aerial (urban)...while doing so I can zoom to the pixel ...it gets fuzzy but it will zoom... Interesting enough...I was using this while using my Kodak image software digcam....I the purchased the Adobe and photoshop and can make maps as larger than than i was able to....Clarity Ehh..I have yet to print it off on a plotter... Still no images on the the other maps as described in emails...
Post by: sanewcomb on December 31, 2005, 09:10:56 AM
Technically, what you achieved is adding more pixels to a given view. When I first tried to use it, I thought when I increased the pixel count, TF would save more area outside the view. I kept getting the same view, only with more and more pixels. It preserves the view and creates an image with the desired pixel count. So pick the view you want first (it makes more sense this way).
I'm still playing around with it, but have created maps up to 4000x4000 with a 128MB board.
Here's a question. How do I save an extended view where there has been no scaling of the tiles coming from Terraserver? Or is that possible? I'm interested in saving from 1:24,000 to 1:48,000 scale images that will be as detailed as possible printed on a deskjet. Since TF seems to scale all the tiles to fit the view regardless of the pixel request, I'm wondering if this was possible. Maybe viewing something in the 1:4 ratio and clicking the use max res tiles option?
So far I haven't had problems with missing tiles (added checkmarks).
Thanks for the ongoing efforts - Steve
Post by: Krein on December 31, 2005, 03:56:07 PM
| Quote (haroow @ Dec. 31 2005,12:17) |
| Using 4 meter tilesets i can can use the standard 1600 x 1200/ use current but nothing larger..if i go higher there is check marks. Using 4 meter combo tilesets i can go as high as the preset of 1024 x768 and as high as custom 1274 x 1274. any higher check marks.. Messing around with the preference section...i excluded the following :combo 1,topo 2, topo 8, topo 32, topo 56 and all color aerial (urban)...while doing so I can zoom to the pixel ...it gets fuzzy but it will zoom... Interesting enough...I was using this while using my Kodak image software digcam....I the purchased the Adobe and photoshop and can make maps as larger than than i was able to....Clarity Ehh..I have yet to print it off on a plotter... Still no images on the the other maps as described in emails... |
What kind of internet connection do you have? Did you try waiting a fair amount of time before trying the export again at large sizes?
It shouldn't matter how big you go for getting check marks. It's just whether or not you've "seen" those maps before. If you have, no check marks. If you haven't, the requests for downloads of those check marked areas will queue and eventually get downloaded.
Post by: Krein on December 31, 2005, 04:02:58 PM
| Quote (sanewcomb @ Dec. 31 2005,4:10) |
| Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap (but still not a real print feature!) Technically, what you achieved is adding more pixels to a given view. When I first tried to use it, I thought when I increased the pixel count, TF would save more area outside the view. I kept getting the same view, only with more and more pixels. It preserves the view and creates an image with the desired pixel count. So pick the view you want first (it makes more sense this way). I'm still playing around with it, but have created maps up to 4000x4000 with a 128MB board. Here's a question. How do I save an extended view where there has been no scaling of the tiles coming from Terraserver? Or is that possible? I'm interested in saving from 1:24,000 to 1:48,000 scale images that will be as detailed as possible printed on a deskjet. Since TF seems to scale all the tiles to fit the view regardless of the pixel request, I'm wondering if this was possible. Maybe viewing something in the 1:4 ratio and clicking the use max res tiles option? So far I haven't had problems with missing tiles (added checkmarks). Thanks for the ongoing efforts - Steve |
Glad you agree that the way it works (showing what's currently on the screen) makes the most sense. It isn't obvious that it works that way at first, no doubt.
It appears the limitation for how big you go is more a function of your video driver than how much memory (video and system) you have. I went huge on my laptop and it took a LONG time, but did eventually come back. I was definitely going into virtual memory (hard drive bound).
I don't think there is a way to guarnatee a certain zoom scale.
I could add an option to not change the tileset, no matter what. But since we're working on the "show what the current view shows" model, it still won't guarnatee that you won't get any stretching or shrinking of the maps.
I'll think about this a bit, but any ideas on how to do it differently would be welcome.
Post by: haroow on January 01, 2006, 12:50:56 PM
My video:
DirectX* Version: 9.0
Physical Memory: 509 MB
Minimum Graphics Memory: 1 MB
Maximum Graphics Memory: 96 MB
Graphics Memory in Use: 95 MB
Processor: x86
Processor Speed: 2992 MHZ
Intel® 82865G Graphics Controller
I have it set at 32 bit per Scott... 16 v 32 was never an issue with this system.
I do notice though, if i run the tilesets that i wont receive images and do 3d w/o topo they will present the 3d image correctly, but with no topo maps just checks or no checks if i enable the download button.
I guess i have no idea... but I still love the software and the new map feature...now if i can play a movie clip from a gps location that would be cool......but you guys work hard enough on other stuff.. let us know what you come up with...
Post by: sanewcomb on January 08, 2006, 05:48:25 AM
| Quote (Krein @ Dec. 31 2005,11:02) |
| I'll think about this a bit, but any ideas on how to do it differently would be welcome. |
One approach would be to let the user center the desired view on the computer, then select how many pixels they want saved. The default could be to use the current scale and tileset, with options to lock either. (One danger to locking the tileset is if the person has a state wide view and has the 2M tileset locked - some sort of check should be made to make sure the request is reasonable).
You could simplify the logic a bit by adding 2x, 3x, 4x screen sizes rather than base it on pixels. People would probably understand multiples of their screen better. Being a geek, I would like it if the custom box for pixels is kept so I can play around and get as big an output as possible for my machine.
The way I currently save maps is, after locating the area, I change the tileset upwards (like 8M), then back (often 2M for the gifs), then save. I'm assuming if the zoom or scale is set to the tile resolution (1:2 for the 2M tileset), TF doesn't touch the original tiles other than displaying them (but I could be wrong).
Steve - Tucson, AZ
Post by: Larry on January 15, 2006, 04:42:40 PM
Krein,
Great! Applause yes! When the bugs are worked out this will be very useful for me. Can't wait. Keep on keeping ahead of the curve.
Larry
Post by: Krein on February 14, 2006, 01:06:39 PM
Give v2.8 a shot. It will now wait for downloads to finsih so there shouldn't be any more download check marks.
Also, there's an option for "current" size, which will do exactly as export did in the past. I already found myself wanting a "What you see is what you get" export as it was in the past.
Canceling is there, but it may be slow if TF is trying to allocate tons of memory, so be patient. If it's just downloading tons of tiles it will abort out.
Thanks.
Post by: Larry on February 28, 2006, 02:26:29 PM
I've been playing a bit with the export feature in v. 2.8. Works *great* for me up to a certain resolution. If I make the width greater than 1600 I get hash as a result, or if I make the height greater than 1600 I start getting a blue strip at the bottom of the saved image. I have a Raedon 9200 SE video card (128 mb). Is this all the card can manage?
In any case, now that you have this feature sort'a under control, what would really be the cat's meow is to extend it to the 3D view. That would be absoutely great for illustrating routes, both in print and even on info boards at trailheads. Can you do it? Is it possible?
Larry
Post by: Krein on February 28, 2006, 07:59:41 PM
How recent is your video card? If it isn't a oldie, you should be able to go a lot higher than 1024x768.
As for 3D export it is definitely possible and should be done. Not in the next release though. Once I get Garmin X-series support working we'll do a release and then move on to new stuff.
Thanks.
Post by: berck on March 01, 2006, 10:04:41 AM
I'm using v2.8. My video card only has 32MB, but it had no problem exporting 4000x3000. Also, I noticed that the export dialog box doesn't go away after the export has been finished.
Post by: Krein on March 01, 2006, 10:10:42 AM
I felt this made the most sense, because you can position certain landmarks that you want on the map. Otherwise you'd be guessing how many pixels you need to extend out to "see" what you want to see.
Make sense? I admit the way it functions is not obvious.
I generally try multiple exports to "get it right" so I don't mind the dialog staying open. Any one else have an opinion on whether it should stay open or close?
Thanks.
Post by: berck on March 03, 2006, 10:35:10 AM