Messages

101

TopoFusion Pro / Re: Garmin 310 + A.N.T. does it work with Topofusion?

« on: October 27, 2009, 10:46:28 AM »

... we definitely intend to support all Garmin devices.

On that note, I was looking at newer Garmin devices and was trying to piece together how some of the features work, like the heart rate and cadence display capabilities of the Foretrex 401 and the Dakotas via ANT+.

Will this optional data be stored in the device to become readable by TF? 
Thanks.
KF   

102

Feature Requests / Tweaks, Toolbar right clicks

« on: October 20, 2009, 08:45:18 AM »

OK,  minor tweaks to improve user friendliness, easy to implement (I assume)

Several toolbar items have settings that are accessible via "options."
That access could be streamlined by also utilizing a direct "right click" function on each respective toolbar icon.

The obvious examples:
Colors/Shading via Toggle Track Shading
Blending/Shaded Relief via Toggle Relief Shading
Internet settings via Toggle Map Downloading
3D settings via 2d/3d Toggle 

It would also seem that  "3D settings" and "Blending/Shaded Relief" would appropriately be tabs under "Options/Preferences" to maintain some consistency in accessing the various settings, and make other "preferences" accessible with a single click rather than the present two steps required when using the toolbar. (OK, call me lazy) 

The draw tool could also have the area measurement tool accessed via right click.
That tool would also benefit from a tool tip ("Draw track/Measure") or icon (Pencil/ruler) or additional key shortcut ("M") suggesting its measurement capability.

KF

103

Feature Requests / Re: Spacebar = switch to pan

« on: October 18, 2009, 08:18:29 PM »

TF has this feature, except it is tied to the CTRL key. 
I didn't know space does it in Adobe products.  Maybe we could make it both space and CTRL.

DAMN! You learn something new every day.
I wasn't aware of this very useful feature in either TF or PS.
Thanks for the tip!
KF   

104

Feature Requests / Shaded Relief controls

« on: October 03, 2009, 08:00:54 AM »

Shaded relief is a nice addition.
Is it my imagination or has the original shading method been tweaked?

I had noted that it seemed to create a noticeable reduction in contrast (haziness) on the non-shaded portions of a color view. Maybe that's inherent in the shading method. Seems to be better now than in the beta version.

In the controls for shaded relief "Darkness" seems to operate non-intuitively since the shading is lightened as the slider is moved to the right.

For the "lighting angle" control, instead of a 1-100 scale, it would to be preferable to have a 0-360 control so that a solar position could be easily simulated by number. For example, high noon lighting would be a setting of 180.   Since that's just a matter of the displayed scale it should be very easy to implement.  Along the same lines, a circular graphical control would be nice too.

Ken

105

Feature Requests / Re: Continue drawing (add to) a saved track

« on: August 15, 2009, 07:14:19 PM »

Drawing into an existing file is a good idea.  I'll think on it.

Someone else made essential the same request elsewhere. It's a feature I would still like to see, but the simple workaround is to use the draw track tool to create the desired addition as a new track and then use the merge tool to add it to the original track.

106

TopoFusion Pro / Re: UTM Zone Weirdness

« on: July 13, 2009, 04:09:02 PM »

I'm not finding an alternate CO server in my notes right now.  There is one that I'm thinking of, but I can't remember the source.  I'll make a note to look again.

Thanks

Yep, that's the 'span zones' topo mode.  Could be useful if the zone trickiness annoys you.

I DID try that and discovered that it is now a simple "check box" selection rather than the more tedious configuration routine described in the December post I referenced.
Alas, it doesn't seem to change anything when viewing topos spanning the location I referenced in this thread. I even shut down and restarted TF,  but no go.
Not a big deal as far as I am concerned, but it  doesn't seem to be working as promised. 

Another glitch that I seem to be encountering regularly is that when trackpoints are selected with the "bulk" selection tool, they are not showing as  highlighted, yet the selected group moves when the cursor is used again to try to reselect the apparently unmarked points.
Ken

107

TopoFusion Pro / Re: UTM Zone Weirdness

« on: July 13, 2009, 11:12:18 AM »

The mismatched tiles don't have to do with the zone boundary, actually.  It's just the way the server has stitched together maps from different sources.  That was the best collection of free color aerials we could find for Colorado.  You might try some other ones.  I knew of one or two others that did not cover the whole state but might possibly have better images/consistency in your area.

Any recommendations? I had merely been relying on the collections that TF linked to and have never looked at locating or connecting to any alternates.

BTW, have you tried the alternate topo server where the maps stitch cleanly across UTM zone boundaries?

I haven't.
I assume you are referring to the feature described here:
http://www.topofusion.com/forum/index.php?topic=3584.0

In fact I only became aware that there was such a capability when I did a Google search of the forums while trying to identify why I was seeing such a peculiar display.

I use topos only occasionally, mostly  to locate old trails, RR grades or 4wd roads, especially when they are not visible in aerial views.

Ken

108

TopoFusion Pro / UTM Zone Weirdness

« on: July 13, 2009, 01:25:42 AM »

I'm trying to get a handle on this UTM zone thing since I'm a user with a boundary crossing right in my local area.
For a clear example go to the following point and "color" view.
37.27080° N, 108.00391° W

Kinda FUBAR.

Can that be fixed with a change of server?
 

109

Feature Requests / Re: Add a note or comment to a file

« on: June 28, 2009, 06:06:52 PM »

Yep, open up the file properties dialog and there are a number of fields you can add text to.  These are all part of the GPX standard, so other software will (should) read them too.  They are under the 'file information tab.'

Thanks. I thought that might be the case but did not dig deep enough into the GPX info to find that. And I hate to think how many times I've looked at the "file information" box and ignored everything but the track and way points.

It would be nice to have a quick way (single click method) of bringing up just the file description (maybe name too) in a sizable, movable and editable box. Quicker procedure and less screen space.
For that matter a toggle for "display file description for highlighted track" would be a treat. 

KF
   

110

Feature Requests / Add a note or comment to a file

« on: June 28, 2009, 12:10:45 PM »

Can a note or comment be added and saved in a GPX file?
I know the log book feature allows this but I can envision a bunch of uses for saving the note within the gpx itself. 

KF

111

Feature Requests / Re: Google Maps: Terrain

« on: June 27, 2009, 12:08:58 PM »

Any way to integrate a new map, similar (or using the actual one) to Google Maps Terrain view?

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to do, but you can achieve a "terrain view" in Google maps if you have a spot where you can upload a .kml file created in TopoFusion.

Assuming the full link to your file is: http://...MyMapLink.kml

Then your map can be displayed using the link:
http://maps.google.com/?q=http://...MyMaplink.kml


"Terrain view" can be forced by adding &t=p  at the end of the link
http://maps.google.com/?q=http://...MyMapLink.kml&t=p

More details here:
http://mapki.com/wiki/Google_Map_Parameters
 

112

Feature Requests / Profile annoyance

« on: June 26, 2009, 10:23:08 AM »

Why are profiles shown with flat "plateaus" rather than "slopes" between adjacent trackpoints?
It's not a big issue when dealing with many track points, but creates an inappropriate visual effect when fewer trackpoints are being displayed.

KF

113

Feature Requests / Continue drawing (add to) a saved track

« on: May 31, 2009, 12:08:15 PM »

I would find it very useful to be able to use the Draw Track  tool to add on to an existing track.  Something along the lines of (1) Select draw track tool (2) Right click on a track (3) Message box asks for confirmation "Add to track  _trackname_?"  Or asks to pick one of several close by tracks, just like the right click on the pan map tool 

Or is there already a way to do this?

While the suggestion above would be useful in a number of ways, I specifically could have used it today when I ran into a scenario (that I have encountered before) while drawing a track where the draw tool seems to become stuck in "drag" mode, as if the left mouse button were being held down when it is not. I am not quite sure what steps are required to reproduce this behavior. It seems to happen when a drawn track reaches close to 300 points. But I have not found the magic sequence to force it to happen.

114

Feature Requests / Consistency and/or settings for Profile Scaling

« on: May 09, 2009, 08:02:00 PM »

In order to allow visual apples-to-apples comparisons I would like to see TF create exported (or even on-screen) profiles that are all scaled identically, perhaps based upon "option" settings.

Yes, I know I can manually  stretch the on screen version (and the resulting export), but I can't do that with any accuracy of without lots of tedium. In fact Photoshop is a much better alternative for that type of manipulation since I can specify scaling numbers.   

I regularly look at profiles of rides for myself and,  more importantly, create onlines images for the courses of a TT series that I run for the local club.
TF presently (I believe) spits out each exported profile in exactly the same  size box.  A 15 mile profile with 500 feet of elevation gain looks much like  a 60 mile profile with 2000 feet of gain.
Similarly the vertical size is fixed with each profile being stretched to fit the box,  rather than the other way around. Ie.  Let's allow stretching  the box instead.

In conjunction with this I would like to see elevation color coding consistent over a chosen range. For example we do local TT's on courses withe elevations as low as 5000 feet and as high as 11,000 feet though not necessarily on the same course.  It would be nice to have more consistency to provide a clear and distinct  visual comparison between the profiles of two courses to reflect a difference in elevation, even if the amount of elevation gain is similar.
(Going from 6800 to 8600 is NOT the same as going from 8800 to 10,600 even if the courses have identical lengths and grades.)

The box would be scaled to the length and net elevation difference over the course and the color coding would reflect actual elevation.  Let's say for example, 7100 feet would end up being always shown as an rgb value of (82,165,95) on ANY profile (that may already be in place).

So settings options could include minimums and maximums for elevation, profile length, display box height,  display box width.
KF

115

Beta Testing / v 3.76

« on: May 02, 2009, 12:14:19 PM »

I must say that elevation caching and the features that it enables are very cool.

Since I broke my arm on my last (duh!) ride 2 days ago I have been playing with TF a bit ("virtual riding") and have run into a few things.
For example, I created a track consisting of two points with the intention of filling it in by "adding" points using the spline function. The result was intended to provide a nice cross-section along the line between the start and end. However when I right click on the initial 2 point track, and select "simplify/split/spline track" TF crashes with the error message "Run time error '380' Invalid property value"

The crash is avoided if I add a single mid point using the "select point" / Insert key method.

So now I have a 3 point straight line track that I want to fill with a bunch of other points to be able to show a profile other than a single stair step. There seem to be no settings of the "interpolate" function which will add points to this simple linear track.

Also, twice now I have run into a scenario while drawing a track where the draw tool seems to become stuck in "drag" mode, as if the left mouse button were being held down when it is not. I am not quite sure what steps are required to reproduce this behavior, although I also note that the wonderful "e" key shortcut for removing the last segment was not working just before that happened. However when TF was closed and restarted the track drawing returned to normal. 
   
KF

116

Feature Requests / Quick Operations w/DrawTrack tool, high res profiles using cached data

« on: May 01, 2009, 08:13:28 AM »

Unless I am missing something a manually drawn track must first be saved to a file before it can be "selected" with the "pan map" tool to compute area.

How about adding "compute area" to the Draw Track menu (right click options) so that it can be accessd on the fly?

Hmmm ... for that matter now that elevation data is cached how about a similar  "on the fly" profile capability?
That could even include high resolution profile data along a track and not just limited to the defined track points.
Even single track segment could show a nice detailed cross section of terrain.

Previously,  in order to avoid blocky profiles (typically from manually drawn tracks) without having to do tedious (i.e. lots of track points) track drawing I have used the add points  (spline) function to add points to an existing track,  then added local DEM or Downloaded elevation data to the track so that even each new point has a complete set of data. So in essence it seems that all the functionality (at least one way of doing it) is already there and might be easily combined into a one click operation.

KF

117

Beta Testing / Re: v3.75 - Elevation Caching!

« on: April 30, 2009, 08:12:42 PM »

Sounds like your video card might not have enough memory to go above, what 1, on the "multiply texture size" setting.

You don't get an error if it is set at 1, correct?

What video card do you have?   Is this a laptop?

That could be it. It seems to skip the error message when set to 1.
Never saw the message in earlier versions unless Google Earth was running at the same time, but I just tried with 3.74 and it does the same thing. 
NVIDIA FX5200 w/128MB - not a laptop.
Would increasing AGP aperture (shared memory) on the main board help?
I don't know how it's set right now but it can be changed in BIOS.
 
BTW, having elevation data for the cursor position is a GREAT addition.
KF

118

Beta Testing / Re: v3.75 - Elevation Caching!

« on: April 30, 2009, 07:47:37 PM »

I'm seeing an apparent bug in 3.75 when (1) going into 3d mode (2) doing a 3d redraw or (3) trying to change texture size  The error message pops up "Couldn't create surfaces for increasing texture size ..."
After the message appears everything seems to work fine.
KF

119

Feature Requests / Re: Undo or Warning on Draw Track Tool (deletion)

« on: March 30, 2009, 07:01:46 PM »

Update to 3.74.  

Very useful because you can hold it down to delete multiple.  Much faster...

uch faster...
[/quote]

Update to 3.74.  

Very useful because you can hold it down to delete multiple.  Much faster...

Yup. Thanks for reading my mind and adding a feature which solves my concern just before I asked for it

120

Feature Requests / Re: Undo or Warning on Draw Track Tool (deletion)

« on: March 30, 2009, 02:09:23 PM »

BTW, try the new shortcut for removing the last drawn point.  Just hit the 'e' key and you won't need to go into the menu anymore.

That sounds useful but, alas, does not seem to be working in my 3.73 beta version.

121

Feature Requests / Undo or Warning on Draw Track Tool (deletion)

« on: March 29, 2009, 08:44:56 PM »

When using the "Draw Track" tool (pencil icon) it is WAY too easy to "clear all segments" when all that was desired was to "clear last segment."
And the "undo" feature does not retrieve the deleted segments. 

So how about (1) adding a warning popup - "Dumbass - you didn't really want to delete all those last 43,241 track points that you just placed so carefully by hand, did you?"

Or (2) allow undo to retrieve the erroneously deleted points.

Or both.
 

122

Feature Requests / Bulk File Conversion

« on: March 29, 2009, 08:38:54 AM »

Since TF supports a number of different file formats, it would be very useful to be able to select a group of files and convert them all to one of the other formats in a single operation.

123

Feature Requests / Re: Auto-naming GPX files

« on: January 30, 2009, 09:04:43 AM »

Or better yet, a user definable default using a combination of text and data formats to include data taken from the file such as start time or lat/lon, elevation, length, i.e. any of the fields already available in the file list.

Cryptic examples:
Bike_%StartYYYY_MM_dd_Bike_%StartHHMM.gpx
      to get Bike_2009_January_30_13-21.gpx
and so on

Hike_YYYY_MM_%StartHH:MM.gpx
Run_YY_M_%Start_HH:MM.gpx

I think you should get the idea.

[filling]

124

Feature Requests / 3D Display

« on: November 20, 2008, 09:17:00 PM »

I'll have to admit having resorted to Google Earth in the recent past for the truly amazing 3D detail and "flyover" capability offered there  (and even the free version allows importing GPX  files for display).

But now that TF has full color aerials ....

So I'll sugest that  TF might look into incorporating some of the 3D  functionality found in GE.
I like the TF 3D controls - much faster than GE.

But of GE features,  the most significant would be filling a screen with a 3D view rather than the "tile floating in  space" view that relies on the constraints of the 2D view converted to 3D. When the 3D view (from, for example, a wide screen view)  is rotated, there is a LOT of black space on the  screen, even after redrawing.

Another would be a linear travel or "flyover" capability without requiring interim "redraws." For that matter automatic redraws under any 3D change of view would be worthwhile if it could be accomplished without dramatic delays in display speed.

Whadyathink?

[Quote]

125

Feature Requests / More Minor Details

« on: November 20, 2008, 10:37:26 AM »

Quote (ScottMorris @ Nov. 20 2008,9:46)

Ken, thanks for the suggestions. A hotkey for going to 1:1 is a great idea. What software does the pan on zoom out right click?  I just looked at two of my mapping programs (MS mappoint and Mapsource) and neither did it.  Not opposed to it, but would like to see it in another program first. Re: power.  I have discussed this in some detail with Dr. Phil Skiba and in his opinion you just can't get anything reasonable from a GPS unit for bikes.  You may as well make up a number, he says.  He's talking about road biking -- for mountain biking it's even more pointless. That said, if there's something simple that could give something to look at and use as an estimate, I might consider adding it.  Should I look for Dr. Ferrari's work for the formula he suggests based on speed and grade?

Quote

What software does the pan on zoom out right click?

TF already does a zoom out on right click. What I was suggesting was  centering the "unzoomed" view on the clicked point.
Example here (using separate zoom-in, zoom-out functions):    
http://arcims.laplata.co.us/laplataWEBSITE/

re: power - I realize the limitations of a computed true power figure from GPS data, but an "index" reflecting rate of climb (vertical speed) on any given segment would be as accurate as the grade and speed calculations presently supplied in the profile window and would allow "something to look at" in the power/ cadence/heart rate blocks that are presently blank. There's noting exotic about the formula - it's just a calculation of vertical speed from horizontal speed (which is what the GPS shows) and grade.
In fact it's just grade x speed (although converting the speed units into feet or meters per minute or hour will provide a more meaningful value).
Adding weight into the mix would provide a very rough estimate of power.  1 hp = 550 ft-lbs/sec. =  745.699872 watts
 
Look here:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=21
or google for "ferrari" and "vam"

126

Feature Requests / More Minor Details

« on: November 19, 2008, 07:15:00 PM »

First, I must again say that the new color aerials are an absolutely fabulous additon to TF. They provide more recent, more detailed and just generally much better views than those from Terraserver. But you knew that.

OK, Let's add a "hot key" or other method of setting the zoom of the  the current tileset at 1:1 resolution, that is, 1 tile pixel per  monitor pixel. That way the resolution can be maxmized for any given view.

And while the "Zoom Box" has a  negative function (right click) lets add the feature that the right click causes  the "current view" to  zoom out AND center on the clicked point. This is pretty standard functionality on many mapping packages.  

For riding/training (and cheapskates).  
Add in a formula for "power" based on GPS climbing data alone.
While riding I have found that the Garmin "vertical speed" indicator is actually a pretty good measure of performance (as also recognized by a Dr. Ferrrari), if not accurate to the tenth decimal place. For any given track segment, if speed and grade are known (which they presumanbly are via TF calculations) , then a rough calculation of power requires only the additional input of weight (total of bike, rider and "stuff"). This wouldn't replace, nor be as accurate as,  a true power meter but would be a reasonable use of the available data for those who ride mostly hilly terrain and use only a GPS receiver and TF. Obviously this would be relatively meaningless for flat terrain.

Again, I expect this should all be very simple stuff.

[Quote]

127

Feature Requests / Feature/Interface  Consistency

« on: November 16, 2008, 07:58:50 PM »

Quote (KenF @ Nov. 16 2008,7:47)

Quote

I merely envisioned allowing a tool bar selection under which a "left click" would do what a right click does now. That would be consistent with the way the "profile/playback" tool presently works

As presently configured, the track simplify and related functions are hard-wired to the right mouse button
But the availability of this functionality is dependent on which
toobar selection is active.

For consistency and flexibility, move the present "right click" functions to be available via left click after choosing a "track tools" option from the toolbar just as other toolbar options are chosen.

Then  allow the "right click" operation to be a user preset ("favorite") chosen from the existing toolbar selections (chosen and set in "preferences"  as a semi-permanent option).  
This "right click function" could also be highlighted or shown in a box on the toolbar, maybe with a dropdown setting box.

Or perhaps  right and left mouse buttons fucntions could be defined by simply clicking on the toolbar with the button whose function is to be set (Which is exactly how the left button works now)  

In any case , a right click (presently limited) could be "3d" or  "Pan map" at the user's discretion. The default could still be the present track tools.

This would allow quick access to two different functions simply by using different mouse buttons without having to resort to the toolbar.    

I expect this would be pretty easy to implement without upsetting the basic functionality of the present interface.

It also seems that the "select point" tools might be combined into a single tool in which a click selects a point and a click and drag selects points within a window.

[Quote]

128

Feature Requests / Feature/Interface  Consistency

« on: November 16, 2008, 06:47:00 PM »

Quote (ScottMorris @ Nov. 16 2008,7:35)

These are some great thoughts, thanks.  We definitely need some outside input on how to improve the interface.                                                                                                                           I think one way is to make it easier to work with multiple tracks within a file (and make it more obvious when there are multiple tracks). . So, I hope to have a way to show multiple tracks, or choose them in dialogs, to make this stuff more obvious and easier to use. Good idea on the distance measure / pencil tool.

Quote

The problem with everything in the right click menu is that it operates on the "per track" level rather than the "per file" label.  Since you can't choose a single track in the "active file list" you can't access those functions (and they aren't in the main menu)

I merely envisioned allowing a tool bar selection under which a "left click" would do what a right click does now. That would be consistent with the way the "profile/playback" tool presently works.

129

Feature Requests / Feature/Interface  Consistency

« on: November 16, 2008, 06:04:27 PM »

Just a couple of suggestions regarding access to features that exist but are not always obvious.

How about offering a choice of toolbar icons for the pencil tool? A little tape measure would make the distance feature a bit more obvious. And/or change the pencil tooltip to  "Draw track/Measure distance."

And adding a toolbar icon (Track tools?) that would enable a left click to bring up the menu which corresponds to a "right-click" on a track would be a great step toward making the user interface a little more consistent (not that it's bad now).

[Quote]

130

Feature Requests / Upoad Network to track

« on: November 15, 2008, 06:50:14 PM »

Quote (KenF @ Nov. 14 2008,7:01)

Quote (ScottMorris @ Nov. 13 2008,3:19) This would be useful, and there's no clean way to do it in TF as of yet. If there are less than 20 tracks you can do this -- you'd just need to make sure each track is less than 500 points each.  (A mass simplify function as suggested by Wayne in another thread would work here). It should be possible to create a single track that traverses every link in the network at least once...  that track could then be simplified to 10,000 points (and split into 500 point tracks).  You could do this by hand right now -- click on each segment in succession, making sure no "jumps" happen.  I'll have to give it a try on one of my networks for local trails. Quote This would be useful, and there's no clean way to do it in TF as of yet. Thanks. That at least answers the question. The specific network that I created, for now, has 217(!) separate tracks although it was created from, perhaps, 8 or 10 files. I can certainly try some tinkering with the input files to tighten the whole thing up a bit.   Yes a mass simplify function would be a wonderful thing, although perhaps that needs to built into the network function itself so that individual tracks are simplified on-the- fly before being incorporated into a network. Maybe do one pass that determines how many resulting points there will be and another after simplifying each track to x%?   I'll also have to check, I think my Foretrex can only save 250 points in a saved track  but, of course, the owner's manual doesn't say.  That may be too few for reasonable display of any networks anyhow. But that suggests another option - save network to x tracks.

Quote

I'll also have to check, I think my Foretrex can only save 250 points in a saved track  but, of course, the owner's manual doesn't say

Well you learn something new every day. The Foretrex will, indeed, allow saving tracks of 500 points.

[Quote]

131

Feature Requests / Upoad Network to track

« on: November 14, 2008, 06:01:31 PM »

Quote (ScottMorris @ Nov. 13 2008,3:19)

This would be useful, and there's no clean way to do it in TF as of yet. If there are less than 20 tracks you can do this -- you'd just need to make sure each track is less than 500 points each.  (A mass simplify function as suggested by Wayne in another thread would work here). It should be possible to create a single track that traverses every link in the network at least once...  that track could then be simplified to 10,000 points (and split into 500 point tracks).  You could do this by hand right now -- click on each segment in succession, making sure no "jumps" happen.  I'll have to give it a try on one of my networks for local trails.

Quote

This would be useful, and there's no clean way to do it in TF as of yet.

Thanks. That at least answers the question. The specific network that I created, for now, has 217(!) separate tracks although it was created from, perhaps, 8 or 10 files. I can certainly try some tinkering with the input files to tighten the whole thing up a bit.  

Yes a mass simplify function would be a wonderful thing, although perhaps that needs to built into the network function itself so that individual tracks are simplified on-the- fly before being incorporated into a network. Maybe do one pass that determines how many resulting points there will be and another after simplifying each track to x%?  

I'll also have to check, I think my Foretrex can only save 250 points in a saved track  but, of course, the owner's manual doesn't say.  That may be too few for reasonable display of any networks anyhow. But that suggests another option - save network to x tracks.

132

Feature Requests / Upoad Network to track

« on: November 08, 2008, 03:51:57 PM »

I just recently started playing with the network feature and have a nice file for a group of trails that are basically out my back door.  But what I would like to do is load the compiled network into my (non-mapping) GPS receiver (Garmin Foretrex) as a single track so that I effectively have a map which will display on the GPS screen.

Maybe I have missed something but I cannot seem to do this, at least not as a single track. I do realize that there is probably an issue of continuity since the network is, for lack of a better term, a "spider web" made from the combined  tracks.

Anyhow is there a way to do this? Can there be?
Thanks
KF

[Quote]

133

Beta Testing / v3.55 Beta out

« on: November 08, 2008, 10:01:36 AM »

Quote (ScottMorris @ Nov. 07 2008,10:13)

Now TF can auto-download high resolution color aerials from Arizona, Utah, Oregon and New Mexico.  As many of you know, I live in Arizona, so I'm pretty psyched about the AZ images, which are stunningly beautiful and in many cases better than Google Earth:

Wow! The color aerials are absolutely great!
Now if they just included Colorado ....

[Quote]

134

Archived Support / UNloading Map Data

« on: November 14, 2007, 02:26:54 PM »

Quote (KenF @ Nov. 12 2007,10:20)

Thanks for pointing out the DXT1 compression option. I will give that a try since I sometimes get a bit frustrated with map display speed, especially when waiting for TF to catch up when I zoom in or out (using a mouse scroll wheel) and overshoot  the goal.

Wow! Using the compression option is great! It really tames the awkwardness of slow display when zooming.

KF

[Quote]

135

Archived Support / UNloading Map Data

« on: November 12, 2007, 09:20:36 AM »

Quote (Krein @ Nov. 11 2007,4:20)

There's no way (in the program) to delete downloaded maps.  You can't safely delete *some* of the .dat files either.  You can only start over fresh, which wouldn't be too bad idea since you could then use DXT1 compression for lower memory usage and faster map display.

Just as an observation of a way to avoid the situation I find myself in - I have occasionally changed the designated data path to a location that is only used temporarily.  After use,  the data path can be changed back to its original setting and the "temporary" data files deleted. Unfortunately, I have not been meticulous in doing that and have ended up with the excess data I now wish to remove (not really a huge amount).  

Oh well, reloading everything will not be that difficult, especially with the "load maps" function since I have some fairly well defined areas that I want to keep on hand.  

Thanks for pointing out the DXT1 compression option. I will give that a try since I sometimes get a bit frustrated with map display speed, especially when waiting for TF to catch up when I zoom in or out (using a mouse scroll wheel) and overshoot  the goal.


KF

136

Archived Support / UNloading Map Data

« on: November 11, 2007, 02:43:42 PM »

Having used TF for quite some time I have accumulated LOTS of map data and am running low on space on the disk where I have it stored. There is much of that map data that I only used briefly and could happily delete. Is there any way to downsize the data files by selectively deleting/unloading only data that is no longer useful?
If not,  can I simply delete some of my .DAT files?

KF