Messages

1

TopoFusion Pro / Re: DEM data flavors

« on: February 21, 2014, 02:28:46 AM »

Thanks Scott -- I had installed the new TF v4.81, but didn't get rid of the map cache and DEM cache.  Once I did that, problem solved.  That's pretty cool that you got DEM support for us northerners.  Nice!  Now I don't have to worry about the extent of my local DEM files.

Is the DEM data resolution fixed, or variable by area?  It's chunky up near Fairbanks.

Tom

2

TopoFusion Pro / DEM data flavors

« on: February 20, 2014, 06:51:39 PM »

I'm above 60 degrees latitude, so I have to use local DEM files.  I've been using the same DEM files for a few years now, and I thought I'd see what else is out there.  USGS offers digital elevation models at 1/3 arc second resolution, but in some formats (IMG, ArcGrid, GridFloat) that I wasn't able to make work.

Does TF require that the DEM file has the .dem extension, or are other data types accepted? 

Thanks
Tom

3

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Trouble contacting map servers

« on: January 25, 2014, 02:09:45 PM »

Have you added a map server to "Window / WMS Custom Servers"?  I was having some issues so I did a Google search for "WMS server Alaska" (my region), found a site with a published WMS server URL, put it in there and it took care of the erratic behavior.

4

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Maps have compressed aspect ratio

« on: July 02, 2012, 12:42:20 AM »

Well, I haven't gotten any replies, so I searched around in my "Downloads" folder, and found version 4.31.  Uninstalled version 4.60, installed 4.31, and that sort of fixed the problem.  At least when I select "Switch to Topo" from the Map pull-down, I get a correctly displayed topo map.  Selecting the "Switch to MyTopo" still shows the really squished view.

Guess I'm stuck at version 4.31....  sigh.

5

TopoFusion Pro / Maps have compressed aspect ratio

« on: June 26, 2012, 05:12:53 PM »

The platform is Windows 7 on a Core I7 laptop with sufficient RAM, graphics, etc.  I've used TopoFusion for a number of years now as my GPS interface, track library, track editor, etc.  Nice tool.  After upgrading to TopoFusion 4.50, I noticed that all the maps were compressed vertically, such that square objects (section lines, for example) are shown as rectangles.

Here's a screen shot of the problem:



Here's an image of the same area from an old map:



I don't see anywhere to adjust the vertical or horizontal aspect ratio of displayed maps.

Is this some new "feature", reflecting my relatively far-north latitude of 64 degrees? (I'm in Fairbanks, Alaska).

Just to be sure, I deleted the topofusion.ini file and restarted TF, with the same results.

Is this correctable, or is this the new normal?

Tom Clark

EDIT: I've now upgraded to TF v4.60.  Same vertical compression for all maps except B/W Aerial, which has a natural 1:1 aspect ratio.  I thought that I'd try Topo (Old), but it doesn't even try to load.  Whatever map is currently loaded just stays in the viewport, and there is no sign of attempting to switch to Topo (Old).

6

Feature Requests / Configurable Profile Items

« on: March 25, 2008, 12:59:17 AM »

I'm generating track profiles with v 3.31, and there's an item on my wish list:

Either add a tab in "Options" or have a "Settings" button on the profile window that would allow the user to select what data are displayed in the climbing analysis.  

This would allow a less cluttered view for those of us without Power Taps or heart-rate monitors.

Additionally, items like "climbing distance", "descending distance" could be added to the list of selectable data items to be displayed.

Of course, I want this done NOW, for ME.  ;-)

As always, thanks for a great product!

Tom

7

Archived Support / Profile Issues

« on: March 19, 2008, 12:37:37 AM »

As a quick follow-up, I've removed the TF .INI file and reinstalled 3.30 to let it build a new one.  I still get the same bogus profiles.  

I've noted that if I delete a point from the track, quit TF (saving changes), reload TF, I can produce a good profile.  

In addition to hopefully being a good tidbit of information, it appears to be a workaround for now, albeit clunky.

Thanks again,
Tom

8

Archived Support / Profile Issues

« on: March 18, 2008, 09:34:18 PM »

The .ini file is on it's way.  I might try deleting mine and letting TF v3.30 build a new one.

Thanks,
Tom

9

Archived Support / Profile Issues

« on: March 18, 2008, 09:10:45 PM »

OK, I've upgraded to TF v3.30.  Thanks, btw, for the handy link on the website to resend download and registration info.

v3.30 does the same thing.  I select an arbitrary point, delete it, and when I view the profile, it is a pack of lies.

Here's a link to a GPX file of mine, and some before and after images of the profiles that I'm seeing:

Note that the images are of v3.18, but I get the same behavior in v3.30.

sample GPX file

Good profile.

Ugly profile.

Does the fact that I have to use self downloaded DEM files enter into this?  (The automatic downloading of DEM information doesn't work for my latitude.)

Thanks again,
Tom

10

Archived Support / Profile Issues

« on: March 18, 2008, 03:44:47 PM »

TF 3.18, Win XP sp 2

I'm trying to generate a profile of an edited track.  The track was collected using a eTrex Vista HCX.  If I use the profile tool and click on the un-edited track, I get a good looking profile, and useful information about grade, max elevation, distance and so on.  If I delete even a single point of the track, the resulting profile is garbage.  The profile is either completely or nearly flat, and the reported length is in the tens of thousands of miles (from a 30 mile track).  Is there a way to delete points from a track and not have this behavior?

I thought that perhaps I could use the sliders in the profile window to show me just the area of interest, but although I get the right profile visually, the statistics are still for the entire ride, which is not useful for this particular purpose.

As an aside, I'd like to put in my vote for improving the profile (get rid of jaggies) for hand drawn tracks.  

Thanks,
Tom Clark

11

Archived Support / Shapefile Questions...

« on: November 10, 2007, 03:12:58 PM »

Yes, DXT1 compression is turned on.  A friend of mine (who introduced me to TF) tried the same shapefile on his three computers.  One 512M, one with 1G and one with 2G.  The 512 machine choked horribly, the 1G did better and the 2Gig machine operated just as fast as with a small file.

So, I guess that there are just too many nodes/vectors/whatever for my machine.  It is covering a few hundered square miles, after all.  

Here's a link to the shapefile in question in the event that you want to look at it:

ftp://co.fairbanks.ak.us/GIS/parcels_WGS84.zip  (22M zip)

12

Archived Support / Shapefile Questions...

« on: November 06, 2007, 02:51:20 PM »

My mistake, I'm running TF 3.18.  I don't even know where 3.12 came from.  Fertile imagination, I guess.

13

Archived Support / Shapefile Questions...

« on: November 05, 2007, 06:41:51 PM »

I've downloaded the "parcels" shapefile for the Fairbanks, Alaska borough (county to most folks).  I don't have much of a frame of reference, but it seems like a big file, about 22MB for the .SHP file.  The data is WGS 84.

I'm running TF Pro 3.12 on Win XP SP2 on a 1.4GHz AMD Athlon, 512MB RAM.  

With this shapefile loaded, overlaid on a 16M topo,  TopoFusion uses over 300MB of RAM.  The system is swapping madly at this point, and is acting really sluggish.

TF appears to load the whole thing, regardless of what extents are being displayed.  In any case, it seems like a lot of memory usage for what I think is a vector file.  Should I be approaching this in a different way?  

Ideally, I'd like to see the shapefile be a true vector overlay, which doesn't take much memory to display, but perhaps that's an idea for the "Feature Suggestions" area.

I suppose that I could save the shapefile as a .GPX file and devise a means of chopping it into managable chunks, except that the resulting .GPX file is almost 100MB, and fairly unmanagable in its own right...

TF seems to try to display the whole mess as a single track, or as a singular collection of tracks.  I suppose I could try making a JPEG of the thing and apply it as a user calibrated map, but I'd prefer to retain the data in vector format if possible, without the performance hit.

Finally, is there a preferred datum to import to TF?  My first attempt used NAD 27 data, supposedly in Zone 3, but that put the borough about a thousand miles off the coast of California.  Ironically, that's about where Alaska and Hawaii usually show up on national weather maps...  

If all this seems like I'm ragging on TF, let me say that it is a fine product, worth more than what you charge for it!

Thanks,
Tom