Messages

1

Beta Testing / Re: Very slow 3D startup

« on: June 28, 2011, 08:05:13 AM »

Mine is somewhat different.

It will take 6-10 seconds to load up and the program is unresponsive. The progress bar doesn't show much and is only on the screen a bit if it does.

After it's loaded it delays again with hourglass for 2-3 seconds.

If you move off the end of the map it's the same as starting 3D up.

Even tried low monitor resolutions like 1280x1024 and although delays were shorter, still on the order of 4-8 seconds.

But you have identified the culprit. If I turn the texture detail to 1 problem solved. Instantly displays at all the settings I can through it at. I tried to see what difference this setting makes and I'm have a hard time seeing it. Maybe it's because I usually have the Tileset Preference at around 25% of full scale bar.

Steve

2

Beta Testing / Very slow 3D startup

« on: June 26, 2011, 08:19:39 PM »

Hi Scott,

Haven't used this feature much recently so I don't know when it started happening, but the current beta is extremely slow displaying the 3D view, even when it is showing a small area with regular 3D settings. It used to pop up instantly (though don't remember what TF version that was). It has been slow for some number of versions now. Any ideas?

Nvidia 9600 GT
275.33 drivers (June 2011)
XP 32 bit SP3
AMD 5050e, about 50% cpu load while waiting

TF 4.21 beta
~92,000 vertices
2.0 texture detail
bilinear
download/cache

Thanks,

Steve

3

Beta Testing / Re: Beta 4.21 - Land Ownership back!

« on: June 25, 2011, 09:58:57 AM »

Scott,

Is there a way to prevent a particular scale within a tile set from displaying?

Detail isn't that important in the land owner tile set and the high res tiles aren't needed. So I'd like to remove the 0.003 scale (and probably the 0.015) so when I zoom into MyTopo-Land Owner combo it keeps the 0.06 set displayed.

I doubt the land owner alternative server will last that long and I don't really want to spend the time/disk space getting tiles that aren't really needed.

Thanks,

Steve

4

Beta Testing / Re: Beta 4.21 - Land Ownership back!

« on: June 25, 2011, 07:59:51 AM »

If you replaced the old Land Ownership layer with the new string you'll get a mix of old and new ones.  

But I went through and clicked on tiles individually to replace them, so I should just have one set of tiles, right?

You can start a fresh tileset by creating a new WMS server and going from there.

Ok. I thought of that but I didn't think I could use them with the combo feature. I see now that the new WMS does show up in the combo settings. I hope that server stays up. I spent a lot of time getting the whole state (albeit not at the highest res, the highest 2 aren't really needed).

Your added comment is very strange though, yes!  

Hmmmm.... clicking the reload maps tool on a tile will only invalidate that exact tile

Although in this case the invalidated tiles are being brought back to life by exiting the program. It may have something to do with this. I used the batch download function to grab the 0.06 tiles around the state. I then went through all of them and clicked individually on the previous BLM only tiles to download the all lands tiles to make what looked like and I thought was a complete set of all public land ownership 0.06 tiles only.

But when I restarted many of the tiles reverted to BLM only. So I started clicking on them (a second time) and the all land tiles would instantly reappear (downloading not required). But this whole process happened again when exiting and restarting. What's really bizarre is the tiles that revert seem to be picked randomly and are not the same with each restart.

Steve

5

Beta Testing / Re: Beta 4.21 - Land Ownership back!

« on: June 23, 2011, 08:24:21 AM »

Hi Scott,

Thanks for looking through the links and quickly updating TF. Like you, I don't think this will last too long but nice to have it for now. The tiles don't take up much disk space so I wonder if TF can provide at least the large scale sets once it goes down, particularly out west where so much of the land is federal.

Ok so now I've downloaded some landowner tiles and went around the map using the Load Maps Tool to replace the new tiles (BLM lands only) by clicking on them.

But when I restart TF it shows the old tiles. Apparently both sets are there because I can click on them again with the tool and the correct tile instantly appears (also appears with downloading option turned off).

So how do I get TF to display the desired tiles by default?

Thanks,

Steve

Added: This is very bizarre. If I use the load map tool to click on tiles to show the desired one (downloading turned off), close the program and reopen without doing anything else, it changes the state (reverting to BLM only tiles) of other tiles that were not clicked and it's different every time. Sort of like wack-a-mole. If TF is only opened and closed there is no change in tile state.

6

TopoFusion Anouncements / Re: Land Ownership Layer Chopped

« on: June 14, 2011, 03:22:06 AM »

Hi Scott,

It seems like this Google Earth overlay (attached) is pulling down the old land status files with all the fed agencies. Maybe it contains some info you can use to restore the tiles to TF. Or maybe it's just pulling them down from cached servers.

Steve

7

TopoFusion Anouncements / Re: Land Ownership Layer Chopped

« on: June 12, 2011, 09:17:55 AM »

In looking for more info on the Surface Management Agency I came across this GPS file

http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/403/

Scott, I don't know if it would be useful for TF, but if it could be turned into user overlay map(s) that would be a work around (though we'd be stuck in 2009).

Steve

8

TopoFusion Anouncements / Re: Land Ownership Layer Chopped

« on: June 12, 2011, 08:57:11 AM »

I could swear this was working just a few days ago, but I guess it was pulling up tiles off my harddrive.

I would write them as owner of a small business asking them for more information about this change in policy. The overall explanation in their notice says concern for data quality. But that's a red herring because this is a prominent link on every page of their site (data disclaimer).

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/GC_disclaimer.htm

They also state "Data that is not managed by the BLM was also removed from the map viewers" without giving reason.

I would emphasize that the concerns of a few (BLM claims parties, private land owners, etc) should not outweigh the benefits to the whole (all public land users, mostly people just looking for where they can and cannot go). If all agencies took their position it would not be possible to create a single map layer showing who owns what. And the idea that data in a digital database updated as changes take place is less accurate than printed maps that were updated perhaps once a decade is nonsense.

This is just my speculation, but some special interest is upset at how this public information is being used and wants its availibility and ease of access limited. Sort of like, the info is available, but you have to go to each county courthouse to look at it. In my opinion there's no excuse for our government to limit and actually spend money reducing access to public information, to become less transparent. It does not look like this change was planned or well thought through because they still label the layer as Surface Management Agency on their interactive web viewer. In fact, this agency is run in the DOI BLM branch for the purpose of showing the ownership of all federal lands, not just BLM.

http://www.blm.gov/nils/GeoComm/Metadata/sma/fedland_metadata.htm

I'll write them myself, but I think a small business owner depending on public information has a better chance of getting results. Anyone else upset by this reduction in service should write as well.

Steve

9

Beta Testing / Load Maps Tool and Arizona Tiles from azmap.org

« on: April 01, 2011, 03:14:22 PM »

Scott,

I've seen some pretty bizarre behavior with the load maps tool and tiles from azmap.org using a custom WMS server setup.

With the latest version I've seen

1. stuck at the 98% completion
2. spends 40+ minutes downloading 4,000 tiles and then there's nothing but the highest res tiles

First one doesn't bother me much but the second makes the tool useless for this tile set. Accessing the 2007 data, only using 2 persistent connections, texture compression off.

Try this. Turn off downloading. Select 0.06 degree tile set. Draw box around a single square with load maps tool and download. Should say it's getting around 270 tiles. Mine gets up to 98% and the longer it stays there the more cpu usage.

None of that really bothers me, but go to the map and zoom the designated square and you won't see any tiles downloaded at all. At least that's what I see.

Thanks for looking into it.

Steve

Addition: I think I've figured out what is happening with #2. Apparently the square that's drawn with the tool isn't the square downloaded from the server (and the offset is present with the urban tile set, probably all of them).

10

Beta Testing / Export Bug in 4.x versions

« on: March 11, 2011, 07:07:34 AM »

This is an odd bug. When exporting an image to a file, if the total tile memory size is high enough (presumably depending on the video card) then the trail line and grid lines (if checked) will not be drawn to the image file. This is easiest to see when the view is of a large area and Shrink Lower Maps radio is selected. When the bug happens it doesn't matter if a smaller Width and Height are entered.

Probably related to this problem, sometimes when the Use current radio is selected the exported file will contain higher resolution tiles than what's on the screen.

I run a high resolution screen (2048x1536) at 32 bits and this might contribute to the frequency that I see this bug. It's quite annoying because once it happens you don't know what smaller view is necessary to get rid of it and there are a number of iterations of exporting and opening the files. Not good when running out the door! ; )

Steve

11

Feature Requests / Re: Alternating Colors on Tracks to show Distance

« on: January 09, 2011, 01:39:05 AM »

Ken,

Thanks for your suggestion. Your method would work but you still have to count the waypoints (and ignore the labels) to use it they way I would. The purpose is to estimate the distance between any two points along the track with one of the points usually being your current location. So as you follow your progress on the map it's easy to estimate how far it is to any given point ahead. That could be your planned camping spot for the night, or the head (crossing) of the upcoming side canyon, or a known water source. You could use the labels but that requires a subtraction which I think is more prone to errors, particularly if you're half way between two. And the waypoint labels can overlap existing waypoints on the track.

It's not as elegant but is a functional work around. Thanks for pointing it out.

Steve

12

Feature Requests / Alternating Colors on Tracks to show Distance

« on: January 07, 2011, 07:33:18 AM »

I see there is no shortage of suggestions!

I've always thought it would be nice if a track could alternate between red and white (or any two colors, doesn't matter) to indicate distance. Some printed maps use this technique, and it's when a TF map is printed for the field where it comes in handy. All a user has to do is count the number of segments to get a quick ESTIMATE of the distance to the next map feature. (I know track distances, particularly user drawn ones, are not precise).

Although there are potentially a lot of options that could be included (colors, distance interval, thickness, etc) I'd aim for the simplest implementation to see if the feature is useful to users. For example, a special track option that draws a red and white line with 1/2 mile (or kilometer) alternating color segments. If useful, more work could be done to integrate it into the regular track drawing routine.

Steve

13

Beta Testing / GPS Transfer is buggy with Garmin Geko 201 attached to Serial port

« on: January 07, 2011, 07:21:24 AM »

This has actually been a problem for some time (many TF versions, well over a year). Might just be my setup, but I can only download one track at a time to the Geko. When I try downloading a second one, nothing happens. No blue bar progressing. Thankfully all I have to do is cancel the GPS Transfer box and reopen it for the next track. Oddly, this doesn't happen while downloading waypoints. The GPS Transfer track download worked fine for this setup from the beginning (XP, serial, Gecko 201) and broke at some time in the past. I'm sorry I can't remember what TF version that was, but I think it was more than 2 years ago.

No rush (but annoying when headed out on week long trips).

Steve

14

Beta Testing / 4.06b Options/Preferences/Tile Sets scroll bar vanishes when moved

« on: January 07, 2011, 07:13:05 AM »

Subject pretty much states the problem. I was trying to scroll over to additional tile sets to download and the scroll bar disappeared and left the box unscrollable (you're stuck with what whatever was displayed when the tab was opened). Sometimes the box is redrawn with scroll bars (but still vanishing when moved) after returning to TF from using a different program, sometimes not.

Steve

15

Beta Testing / Re: Arizona Color WMS always gives error

« on: January 07, 2011, 06:56:44 AM »

Scott,

Sorry for the very late reply. Your answer was the solution and if I had been reading
everything in front of me I would have been able to do it myself. It involved removing the
&BBox.... segment from the WMS request string on the azmap.org site.

This route to the imagery.azmap.org server (or maybe only the 2007 data set) is fairly slow
and often turns off TF's downloading function, but I find the 2007 data better than the
2005, particularly the 0.003 tile set in some of the areas I'm interested in. So far the request
string has stayed the same since the last reply. Their website states they had plans to do
a 2009 run, but so far that set hasn't shown up on their server. Hopefully it's only delayed
a bit due to current budget constraints.

Thanks for your help.

Steve

16

Beta Testing / Arizona Color WMS always gives error

« on: October 17, 2010, 07:49:29 AM »

Hi Scott,

I guess this is probably specific to my setup but thought I'd post it here in case it happens to someone else in the future. I cannot get any tiles from the Arizona WMS server and always get the message below. I can't find any reference in these archives that the Arizona server is closed (their webpage still comes up with WMS instructions).

I've tried just about everything I can think of. Set internet connections to 1. Copy and pasted the WMS code from their site. Did a totally new install (Beta 4.05) with erased Topofusion.ini (should have made everything default, right?) and nada. One thing that caught my eye was Arizona isn't included in the fresh install WMS list.

What am I missing?

Steve

http://home.comcast.net/~steve_newcomb/AZColorTileError.gif

17

Beta Testing / Re: v3.83 released

« on: August 24, 2009, 09:37:11 PM »

Using the Color tileset around Tucson the real time panning seems to work better. I can pan around more without triggering the error and turning off the tile download.

But, the download function seems pretty much the same. The retry is triggered pretty quickly, and it only grabs 800 to 6000 tiles at a time before the download function ends and shows 100% downloaded, 0 left on server. This takes about 1 hr. At that rate it would take at least 10 hrs to grab the color tiles for the Catalina Mts and 10 clicks of the Start Download button, probably more.

There is one difference. Now after a couple iterations of Start Download it reports only a few tiles (18) to get and almost instantaneously stops, reporting 100%, 0 downloaded, 0 not present on server. BUT, there are still plenty of tiles missing. Previous routine worked better in that it would continue to get the missing tiles until all were retrieved even though the stats were reported wrong. Thanks for looking into this. Steve

18

Beta Testing / Re: v3.83 released

« on: August 24, 2009, 07:39:58 AM »

Giving 3.86b a try now. BTW, the Color and AZ tile sets seem identical to me. For the Downloading dialog box, would it make more sense to include one or the other, but not both? Seems users not knowing better will just download both, twice the tiles needed.

Steve

19

Beta Testing / Re: v3.83 released

« on: August 23, 2009, 08:30:37 AM »

I've noticed you can just hit the Start Download button over and over again without redrawing the box. I guess that's a work around. Keep doing that until it reports 100% and 0 tiles downloaded during that attempt.

20

Beta Testing / Re: v3.83 released

« on: August 23, 2009, 08:20:25 AM »

Can you post or email what your TF internet settings are?  (i.e. Preferences->Internet).

No Proxy Server
25 Connections
Restart Connections after 20 Sec (though download dialog always shows 60 s)
Use Persistent Connections checked

I've noticed a few things about the download function. Although it claims it has downloaded 100%, there are missing tiles in Topo, Aerial and color (many) tilesets. It's probably pretty difficult to figure out the actual tiles brought down given TF stops after some time if the server doesn't send it. Redoing the download over the same area seems to work well picking up the missing tiles and doesn't repeat the downloads. Would be nice to be able to upload the GPX box to repeat downloads for missing files. Also a pause function would be nice, but neither high priority.

I just started a 3rd round, after a 2nd round to pick up missing tiles went pretty fast and only adding the Tiger set. The Tiger tiles should be small, but it triggered a lot of retries and is taking a lot longer than I would think. Could just be a transient Tiger server hickup.

It finished. It reports 100%, 0 tiles not present on server, but after 2 iterations there are still many missing Tiger tiles. It's probably just that server right now, but the stats reported by the dialog box aren't very useful. Is there any way that TF can actually see if there are missing tiles? It is a royal pain to manually scroll across the screen, each time for each tile set, to see if all the tiles are actually there.

Hopefully there is some sort of problem with my setup. This download toggling and missing tiles are affecting the usability of the program for me. Mostly, though, just using it in real time to scan areas.

Thanks,

Steve

21

Beta Testing / Re: v3.83 released

« on: August 21, 2009, 11:59:51 AM »

Hi Scott,

I'm using 3.85, but this has been a problem for some time going back 6 months or more, and it's getting worse. TF cannot work for more than 10-30 seconds without triggering the tile downloading toggle, shutting it off. At first I thought it was just a slow server, particularly the color tile servers, but it now happens on a regular basis with Terraserver. It's not that much of a bother with Terraserver yet, though annoying since it hasn't behaved like this ever in many years of using TF. But on the AZ color server it makes it practically useless. It shuts it off after loading 8 or 9 tiles, and it takes some time just to get those tiles.

I thought the batch download might help, but the behavior is just mimicked because I guess the batch procedure just runs TF through its paces. I can see the tile downloading toggle go on and off as it runs. So if I wanted to get a complete map record of the Catalina Mts it looks like it will take many days or weeks for just this small area. Is this how it's suppose to work? Are the servers set to just spit out 8 tiles at a time? Or is there something going on in my setup that is triggering this behavior? It seems like others are getting better results, although I don't know how many are using the color tiles or batches. I have not been using the batch tool at all for several years and only started using it today to check out the upgrades in 3.85

I do enjoy the color tile set for AZ, but when I want to look at an area, or research a few areas for an upcoming hike for the weekend, the time and effort waiting for the tiles to come across is very frustrating. What should take 10-20 minutes ends up taking several hours due to the waiting. And I really can't use the download tool to speed it up because it takes much longer to download a square block of all the tiles then move the map around in real time reacting to what you see in the aerial images.

Thanks for any help,

Steve

P.S. Do the AZ color servers specify limits or speeds for serving up tiles? Could a few TF users be using up all the quota within a time period, making them work at a reduced level for all other users (TF or otherwise)?

22

Beta Testing / Re: Vista x64 3D View Loading Local DEM very slow

« on: January 29, 2009, 01:16:54 PM »

Scott,

Don't spend too much time on it for now. At some point the bugs with x64 architecture will have to be worked out, but not much demand yet and I'm certainly not wedded to Vista x64. Mostly just playing around with it on a new machine and next up is Win 7 beta.

My guess is it has to do with how memory is allocated (or something related to memory functions) for DEM files and what happens when a lot of data is loaded.

Thanks for the quick reply,

Steve

P.S. Auto load works fine as well as loading standard DEM files. I removed the larger DEMs and put in the 10M versions and it worked as expected.

23

Beta Testing / Vista x64 3D View Loading Local DEM very slow

« on: January 29, 2009, 06:07:14 AM »

Hi Scott,

Getting some hours in using TF with new hardware and 64bit OS and have found a potential problem.

I have two custom local DEM files that cover the entire GCNP, broken into two files east and west. These load fine in my old system with XP. When doing the same thing in the new rig I get the brown bar, and eventually see a blue progress indicator, but it is very slow and have not yet had enough time to wait for it to complete. Very slow whether large area or small. Have tried to make sure all the 3D parameters are set the same or similar in the two systems.

These DEM files are about 77MB each.

Steve

24

Beta Testing / v3.56 - Color aerials for most of the USA

« on: January 05, 2009, 01:41:25 PM »

Scott,

I'm not getting the error message anymore, but the downloads are extremely slow. Seems like the more that is downloaded, the slower it is. I have set the internet connections to 1.

It may be a function of the use of the site, and ip restricted based on amount. I've been moving around the state to areas I visit often. So far the maps.dat files amount to 880 MB, plus another 1 GB or so before I changed the DXT1 setting. If you've only downloaded a few screens the past few days, that might account for the difference between our experiences.

Thanks for checking,

Steve

25

Beta Testing / v3.56 - Color aerials for most of the USA

« on: January 05, 2009, 07:03:39 AM »

After noticing no new tiles being downloaded from the AZ WMS server, I lowered the # of internet connections, exited and restarted.

After loading a few tiles I get this error message

"Custom WMS server returned response that was not jpeg or gif. Disabling internet downloading (renable on toolbar) First 1000 byes:

yU

Continue showing this message?....."

Maybe just a temp glitch, but may have to do with their servers as well. It is repeatable on my machine.

Steve

[Quote]

26

Feature Requests / Specific Zoom Setting

« on: January 03, 2009, 04:13:24 PM »

Quote (ScottMorris @ Jan. 02 2009,11:21)

Steve-- 1) You can make small adjustments to the zoom by holding down CTRL and hitting either + or -.  Very useful.

Scott,

Thanks for this tip. I had tried different toggle keys with the mouse with no luck. This will probably do the trick. Based on how the values change, I'm guessing the parameter being changed is a percent, like percent zoom, because the increments are not fixed.

Now I'll just do some printouts to find out what ratio to use to print for the screen size I use to get a 1:1 printout of the map.

Steve

27

Beta Testing / v3.56 - Color aerials for most of the USA

« on: January 02, 2009, 02:26:52 PM »

Well, on my computer/internet connection the color tiles come down very slowly. Often less than 1 tile per second, sometimes less than 1 every 30 seconds. Comcast. Otherwise pretty good internet transfers. It is night and day compared to the topo tiles coming off of Terraserver.

I support either path. Maybe someday your company will grow large enough to add proxy servers for the tile sets.  : )

Steve

P.S.  I was thinking that maybe the Google sets could be used as long as they weren't cached on the user's computer. Or is there some other restriction preventing using them in other software (other than a browser)? Seems like a number of websites use the tiles generously, but they may not all be following the license rules.

28

Feature Requests / Specific Zoom Setting

« on: January 02, 2009, 08:59:22 AM »

Is there a way to enter a specific zoom level in TF Pro? This comes up primarily when saving screens for print out later. I use the mouse wheel to change zoom levels and I find the steps too big sometimes.

This feature would also simplify printing out maps in their original scale/size (of printed USGS Topos).

Cheers,

Steve
Tucson, AZ

29

Beta Testing / v3.56 - Color aerials for most of the USA

« on: December 29, 2008, 08:52:51 PM »

The hi-res "color" tiles are a nice addition. Agreed the red states are hard to look at, but AZ isn't really that colorful or true to color either. Looks pretty browned out to me and dark. The hi-res color urban tiles around the Tucson area are some of the best I've seen, but I believe they were commissioned by the city or county and were not done over wide areas. Not sure how they ended up on Terraserver, but glad they did.

I don't know if this would be simple to add or not, but it would be nice to have the new color tiles available in the Show/Download tiles table. Although if you think this might tax the server too much and risk not being able to use it in the future, I'd leave it for manual downloads. (BTW, it looks to me that after downloading tiles, the rectangle of the download remains on the screen, even when a different tool is selected.)

On a related note, it would be nice to be able to adjust the brightness/contrast for this tile set in a way similar to how it is down with the combo tiles, or maybe just add it as an option in that feature.

I am enjoying the new set of images. Always fun to go to your favorite places to see what new views there are.

Cheers,

Steve
Tucson, AZ

30

Beta Testing / Topo across zone boundaries

« on: December 27, 2008, 05:39:56 AM »

I'm enjoying some of the new features to TF. Thank you for continuing to improve the software in numerous ways.

After an initial trial of the WMS server I have a few questions.

The images appear to be stretched horizontally. I know it is a different projection, but I thought that would primarily shift and/or rotate the image. The stretching is quite noticeable. Is the x axis, scale wise, equal to the y axis? Is TF stretching it or is the projection inherently distorted, at least in our area?

I also noticed the UTM grid feature is disabled for the WMS tileset. This is good if it does not give accurate results. I can certainly see a problem with displaying the grid(s) at the zone boundaries. I personally will not be quick to change tilesets if the grid feature will not be updated in the near future.

The WMS tilesets are not really seamless. The border or USGS map collars, approx 200 ft wide with UTM numbering, is shown along the zone boundaries. I wonder if that was added as a safety feature to give some indication that a zone change has occurred.

Also just noticed the USGS logo stamped on every tile. It is somewhat annoying, though rather small on the 2M tiles at the printing resolution I use.

After writing out this post I will probably not be using the WMS tileset in its current form. I think there is a real issue in "taping" together the USGS topographic maps across zones. Most people (who use GPSs to navigate) probably use UTM coordinates to navigate, and it would potentially be very confusing if they printed out a map across zones and tried to use a UTM overlay grid to figure out where they were. I would print out two different maps on either side of the zone boundary.

The WMS aerial tilesets are a different matter. It is very nice to see the photographic images merged over the zone boundaries. These aren't really used to navigate so I have less of an issue with "taping" over zone boundaries with these.

Thanks again for adding new features to the program.

Steve
Tucson, AZ

P.S. Oh, to answer your question I would say no as a default due to the potential confusion in using printed maps that would contain two different coordinate systems.

31

TopoFusion Pro / Windows Vista 64bit

« on: December 27, 2008, 04:01:57 AM »

Are there any issues in using Topofusion Pro with the 64bit version of Vista? I'm considering putting together a new computer and I've heard about problems running older 32bit software. Not that TF is old, but I think it has a fair bit of legacy 32bit code in it in several different APIs.

Only considering the 64bit version looking forward. If any of my major 32bit programs don't run on it, the 32bit version would be fine for me. For that matter, if XP is still working better I would stay with that.

Thanks for any advice,

Steve

P.S. Scott and Alan, Happy holidays!

32

Beta Testing / Sprite File Doesn't Work

« on: January 01, 2008, 12:58:22 AM »

I saved the sprites.bmp file in my tracks directory, which is not the default directory name. None of the sprites show up in the Profile function. When no icon is selected, a light blue dot is displayed. Using 3.20. Have not modified the sprites.bmp file.

Steve

33

Feature Requests / More colored tiles?

« on: September 21, 2007, 11:58:33 AM »

I doubt the 1 meter color images are from the USGS. I think Microsoft just uses that as a default credit line.

The high res color images of the Tucson area were commissioned by the county to monitor development and have nothing to do with the USGS even though it says that at the bottom.

The site maps.live.com isn't the same as terraserver.microsoft.com, the server Topofusion uses for the aerial tiles. However, it appears they may allow 3rd party use as terraserver does.

Steve

34

Feature Requests / Grid Line Thickness

« on: June 04, 2007, 03:37:05 PM »

The thickness of the grid lines and tick marks is too narrow, particularly the tick marks. When printed out it is very difficult to read values off a map. In addition, it looks like it is anti-aliased now, which makes it even harder to see. I had a workaround, which was to choose a wild color, select it in Photoshop, make several copies and offset it on either side. This doesn't work with anti-aliased lines.

Steve
Tucson, AZ

35

Beta Testing / V3.03 - Texture compression

« on: April 06, 2007, 05:26:45 PM »

Is the compression lossy? I think the quality of the Terraserver tiles are already too low, so I would give up speed for image quality. Nice to have a way to turn it off.

Steve

36

Feature Requests / Contour Shading in 2D

« on: February 15, 2007, 07:47:31 PM »

No reason to. The combo tiles do this very well, even better than simple shading. I should say where aerial tiles exist, this pseudo shading is pretty cool. Though at times the shading direction changes because the position of the sun is different. Play around with the contrast and brightness controls under the Window menu|Image Processing. I've always liked this view. Works great in 3D too.

BTW Scott, as it was pointed out in a different thread, the way contrast and brightness changes the entire desktop and other apps is very naughty behavior. On my machine it makes it difficult to switch to other apps and use them due to blown out whites and contrast. Also, the sliders on the dialog box on the contrast/brightness go up and down by 2s. It's kind of annoying if you're trying to hit a specific number, like returning it to 50. (update- never mind, I see you've added arrow support so the sliders can be nudged 1 unit at a time. Wouldn't hurt to have the slider's value shown all the time and incremented as the arrows are  pressed. Purely user friendly issue though.

Checking out ver 3.0 for the first time. Will submit any bugs I find.

Will also send some more moola. Well worth the cash and always like supporting the little guys.

Steve
Tucson, AZ

37

Beta Testing / UTM Grid Feature

« on: August 17, 2006, 08:01:59 AM »

2. Grid labels now come out fine and look good. The user will be able to see the grid labels if he sets the waypoint font size large enough to see for any given export dimension.

4. I see the ticks on the top and left margins. But to aid the eye in determining values they really need to be on every grid line. So when you are looking at any given grid box, you can estimate by seeing how close it is to a tick mark. Ticks only on the edge of the paper won't help much. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, check out the way Maptech or Delorme do grids. That works well in the field.

I printed out a map and I'm not sure the width of the tick marks is wide enough. But it's hard to tell from just the top and left margins. The grid line width is fine. This is using a HP720 printer. There are areas where I can't really tell what tick I'm looking at, but if there were ticks on all four edges of the boxes, that might be enough. The labels also get in the way on the edges, making it hard to tell.

The way you implemented the ability to only use grids for exporting is quirky (by temporarily turning on the grids on the screen, then exporting, then turning them off), but I understand why it was done that way. If you can save the state of that checkbox in between export calls, it would reduce potential confusion. But this is a minor issue.

Thanks for the quick responses Scott. I think you are close to a useful grid feature for TF - Steve

38

Beta Testing / UTM Grid Feature

« on: August 16, 2006, 01:45:36 PM »

Everything you said you had implemented sounds good. But I don't see it happening in the output.

2. Good way to preserve both aims. But the size of the grid label is the same as previous versions on my exported image file, even though the waypoint font size was doubled.

4. Don't see any tick marks on screen or in export image. I do see the new option pulldown menu with Off, AUTO grid spacing, 1000m etc, so I'm sure I have the new beta. In addition, even when 1000m selected, grids are still spaced at 500m.

An additional item that would be useful, but feel free to put onto TODO list.

5. It always irks me when I come across maps/coordinates that do not state the datam that was used. Although it is possible while still at home to determine what datam was used, it would be useful if Topofusion automatically printed the datam on exported images (could use the waypoint feature somehow). This is not critical, as it can be added by users using waypoints. Just something that would be nice and a bit more safe for users, present and future.

Steve

39

Beta Testing / UTM Grid Feature

« on: August 15, 2006, 12:30:26 PM »

2. I think making the text size of the grid labels the same as the waypoint text size would be a quick solution that will work, though not the prettiest solution. As it is now, I need to oversize the waypoint text (wrt to looking at it on the computer monitor) so it is readable when exported at 2500x1875. Not sure if it will work for the entire range of waypoint text sizes of users. If someone is using a very large size for waypoints, it might make the labels overlap and unuseable. But probably a low chance of this happening to anyone.

4. User selectable grid spacing would be an improvement, but not worth too much (for my purposes) without the grid ticks. It all comes down to being able to quickly and accurately read or place an UTM coordinate on a printed map. Ticks on a decimal spaced grid provide that, and making the half way tick longer allows the eye to quickly figure out what value the tick corresponds to.

Thanks again. - Steve

40

Beta Testing / UTM Grid Feature

« on: August 14, 2006, 11:29:19 AM »

Thank you for adding the UTM Grid feature. A few comments.

1. I like the ability to just click on a checkbox to add the grid to the export for printing. I don't find much use for the grid on screen. The mouse shows the coordinates anywhere on the screen and I only use the grids while out in the field.

2. There needs to be some way to control the font size, either automatically sizing depending on export size or user selected. Being able to export higher resolution images for printing is a great feature, but the way it's implemented makes the grid labels too small to read. I've been using the 2500x1875 export size with the screen scale set to around 1:7 (scale marker about 4000 ft) for printed maps that work well in the field.

3. BUG: When the preferences are set to Lat/Long and NAD 27 United States, the grid becomes fixed (does not move with moving the map) and displays wrong values.

4. Something to think about. While reading a position using a printed map, I find it easier to have the grids set 1000 meters apart, with grid ticks showing 1/10th divisions (with a bigger tick at 1/2 grid box). It's easier to eyeball and do the math since the UTM is a decimal system. Half a 500 meter grid box is 250, a fourth is 125 and so on... Plus it would reduce the clutter of grid labels. These preferences are based on using printed maps with grids out in the field.

It's true that I've been waiting for this for several years and thanks for adding it.

Cheers,

Steve
Tucson, AZ

41

Feature Requests / request - elevation information

« on: July 31, 2006, 11:31:12 AM »

There is an easy way to read the elevation from the screen. Press the 3D button at the top, then move the screen around until the blue ball or center is where you want the elevation. The elevation is shown in the lower left hand corner, and is updated as you move the map.

This would allow you to get the beginning and ending elevations easily, but would not compute the total elevation change between points.

Steve

P.S. Scott, the vertical elevation control exhibits a very unusual (to me anyway) behavior. Once it is selected the bar can be moved left or right with arrow keys, but the value doesn't change. It changes only when the mouse is moved. Quite odd don't you think? Using 2.91

[Quote]

42

Archived Support / Grid Lines

« on: March 10, 2006, 06:07:35 PM »

Quote (Kuren @ Aug. 19 2005,4:16)

after some research, it seems like Grid Lines are usually done in the UTM system, not Lat/Long

Yes, the UTM coordinate system is much easier to use out in the field because it is a decimal system, and it's easier to do the math in your head when eyeballing a position on the printed map.

I finally got around to throwing together an app that produces a 9x9 UTM grid centered around a user provided point, spaced 1000 meters apart, and labeled in the units of hundreds. I wrote it for my own use to produce a grid for 1:24000 scale maps for hiking. It is not generalized and will only produce a grid to that dimension. It produces a pretty good looking printed map if the 2500 x 1875 export size is used, and the fonts are at least 20pt (it looks pretty bad on screen, but the printed map looks good).

Knowing your location in the wilderness is an important and potentially life threatening thing. The writer of this app takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the output. The user must verify the accuracy of the grids before heading out and depending on it for determining a location.

If you can accept that, feel free to try it out. It's a 16 bit Windows console program that requires manually entering the UTM coordinates and parameters (sorry 'bout that).

http://home.comcast.net/~steve_newcomb/gridutm.exe

Steve
Tucson, AZ

[Quote]

43

Beta Testing / v2.76 - Export images LARGER than the screen!

« 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

44

Beta Testing / v2.76 - Export images LARGER than the screen!

« on: December 31, 2005, 09:10:56 AM »

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

[Quote]

45

Archived Support / Datum Sets

« on: November 04, 2005, 04:48:44 AM »

Quote (Alan @ Oct. 24 2005,12:14)

I'm not aware of any BLM maps

AZ has a Land Management website that has some maps showing who owns it (BLM, State Trust, Feds, etc)

http://www.land.state.az.us/maps/server_help_swsmr/online_maps.htm

There is an interactive map (may be possible to get data from this server) and a pretty cool statewide pdf file at the bottom of the page.

46

Archived Support / Joining Tracks

« on: June 11, 2005, 09:35:48 AM »

Found an answer to my own question. Just reload the waypoints from the GPS after the joined tracks are saved.

Steve

47

Archived Support / Joining Tracks

« on: June 10, 2005, 01:12:27 PM »

Thanks Scott. This worked out pretty well and thanks for the quick reply. I tried to look for a merge or join command in the help files, but didn't think about the profile tool.

It looks like you lose the waypoints. Not a bid deal, since these can be manually added without too much work after the tracks are joined. Thanks for pointing out the reversing thing as well, very useful.

Steve

48

Archived Support / Joining Tracks

« on: June 10, 2005, 02:15:07 AM »

I've been trying for some time to figure out if TF can join tracks. I thought Make Network would do the trick, but the 3 sections I am trying to join remain 3 sections. When you right click on them with the hand, only the section highlights. This causes problems when I go to export the file. Is there any way to join segments so that you end up with one sequential list of track points?

I often get back to find a mess of points, particularly on an out and back hike. I like making multiple copies of the "raw" file, deleting the unwanted points in each segment, then want to rejoin these into a single contiguous track.

TIA

Steve

49

Archived - Feedback and Comments / Google Maps

« on: April 06, 2005, 01:56:07 PM »

There are hi res color images of many outdoor, mountain regions as well. The Grand Canyon, Lake Powell and Paria are well covered, and I've never seen these areas in color before at high res. The service is definitely beta, and I often get time outs.

Interestingly enough, they are not available (yet) on Keyhole, their paid service. Kind of makes me wonder what direction they are headed.

Regardless, you should inquire about access to their map data. At the very least, they will see what you're up to and you might even get a job offer with a cool company.

Steve

50

Archived Support / No Maui ?

« on: March 05, 2005, 03:34:52 PM »

That's a bug in Terraserver, not Topofusion. I suppose you could complain to Microsoft, but it's been like that since day one. There are a number of other areas around the country that are messed up. Take a look around Yosemite if you want to see more.

Steve