Memory Map 2004 3D View

(BJ) said:

I am trying MM on 2 PC's both with apparently 3D video
cards. I cannot get 3D to react at all to my clicking the
3D icon. No error message, just the same map with no 3D!
Admittedly I've never tried either card with a 3D image
before, if anyone can point me to a sample 3D view, map or
no map, then I might narrow it down. The cards are:

<snip>

There's a picture in the help file under *3D Terrain View*.
I have it running on a Shuttle machine with low-spec onboard
graphics no problem. According to the help file you need
Windows 2000 or XP, but it seems to run fine on 98.

Are you sure you have the prog installed properly? You need
the elevation data to be able to display 3D.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Chris <proteus1@gmxDOTnet.?> writes

Quoted message said:

(BJ) said:

I am trying MM on 2 PC's both with apparently 3D video
cards. I cannot get 3D to react at all to my clicking the
3D icon. No error message, just the same map with no 3D!
Admittedly I've never tried either card with a 3D image
before, if anyone can point me to a sample 3D view, map or
no map, then I might narrow it down. The cards are:

<snip>

There's a picture in the help file under *3D Terrain View*.
I have it running on a Shuttle machine with low-spec
onboard graphics no problem. According to the help file you
need Windows 2000 or XP, but it seems to run fine on 98.

Are you sure you have the prog installed properly? You need
the elevation data to be able to display 3D.

I've just installed the evaluation on an XP Home machine.
Worked fine.

I installed on my W98 (first edition) machine, nothing
happens when 3D clicked. I wasn't surprised.

However, after the message above I downloaded the DirectX 9
from the MS web site and now it works fine under W98 too
after I had set to Software Rasterisation (in Mode>3d
settings).

So Try installing DirectX 9.

Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher
system Music Software written by musicians for musicians
braeburn.co.ukbraeburn.co.ukOpen ↗ Selkirk, Scotland

Bernard Hill said:

I installed on my W98 (first edition) machine, nothing
happens when 3D clicked. I wasn't surprised.

However, after the message above I downloaded the DirectX
9 from the MS web site and now it works fine under W98 too
after I had set to Software Rasterisation (in Mode>3d
settings).

So Try installing DirectX 9.

MM 3D works on my Win98SE machine in hardware mode using
DirectX 8.1 using an ATI Rage 128Xpert card with 32 meg of
graphics memory.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

You have to register the software to use the advanced
features. You also need DirectX 9.0 or later.

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill said:

I installed on my W98 (first edition) machine, nothing
happens when 3D clicked. I wasn't surprised.

However, after the message above I downloaded the DirectX
9 from the MS web site and now it works fine under W98
too after I had set to Software Rasterisation (in Mode>3d
settings).

So Try installing DirectX 9.

MM 3D works on my Win98SE machine in hardware mode using
DirectX 8.1 using an ATI Rage 128Xpert card with 32 meg of
graphics memory.

And what do you think of the 3D?

I've had fun... but the question is whether it's seriously
useful. Especially with no aerial view of Scotland.

Have you used 3D for any serious purpose?

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

Bernard Hill said:

And what do you think of the 3D?

The demo has stopped working now but I recall being very
impressed by the realistic visuals. Bear in mind that the
demo covers the Swansea area so I'm only too familiar with
what the place really looks like.

Quoted message said:

I've had fun... but the question is whether it's
seriously useful.

It is to me.

Quoted message said:

Especially with no aerial view of Scotland.

That might be a problem, but the 3D still works with the
maps doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

Have you used 3D for any serious purpose?

Well I don't have MM but I have been using the Anquet 3D for
serious purposes, specifically to locate good photo
viewpoints and plan compositions. The lighting controls are
overly simplistic but they do give a rough idea of either
early morning or late afternoon lighting. It's possible to
place yourself almost at ground level and I've compared
viewpoints with actual photographs I've taken and apart from
hovering slightly above the ground the results are extremely
similar. This will save me a lot of time and legwork when
planning photos for areas I haven't yet visited.

The MM aerial photos would be even better, but the 3D maps
are almost as functional.

One serious purpose that I would like to use it for would be
to put 3D screengrabs on my site to illustrate different
areas, but I seriously doubt that would be allowed by the
map police.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

In article
<[email hidden]>, Tony
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

You have to register the software to use the advanced
features. You also need DirectX 9.0 or later.

What advanced features?

On the demo I've got, lighting, recordings.... what
else is there?

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bernard Hill said:

And what do you think of the 3D?

The demo has stopped working now but I recall being very
impressed by the realistic visuals. Bear in mind that the
demo covers the Swansea area so I'm only too familiar with
what the place really looks like.

Yes, I've tried it with areas I'm familiar with too: home,
the Munros I've climbed etc.

Seems accurate so far.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've had fun... but the question is whether it's
seriously useful.

It is to me.

Quoted message said:

Especially with no aerial view of Scotland.

That might be a problem, but the 3D still works with the
maps doesn't it?

It works with whatever map you had loaded when you press the
button, eg 50K or 250K road map.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you used 3D for any serious purpose?

Well I don't have MM but I have been using the Anquet 3D
for serious purposes, specifically to locate good photo
viewpoints and plan compositions. The lighting controls
are overly simplistic but they do give a rough idea of
either early morning or late afternoon lighting. It's
possible to place yourself almost at ground level and
I've compared viewpoints with actual photographs I've
taken and apart from hovering slightly above the ground
the results are extremely similar. This will save me a
lot of time and legwork when planning photos for areas I
haven't yet visited.

Ah, photographs. Could be.

Quoted message said:

The MM aerial photos would be even better, but the 3D maps
are almost as functional.

One serious purpose that I would like to use it for would
be to put 3D screengrabs on my site to illustrate different
areas, but I seriously doubt that would be allowed by the
map police.

You could ask.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

"Bernard Hill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And what do you think of the 3D?

I've had fun... but the question is whether it's seriously
useful. Especially with no aerial view of Scotland.

Have you used 3D for any serious purpose?

No, it's not *useful*, I can read contours, the
visualisation is okay, but when you see the top of a hill
somewhat lower that the sides, you do wonder. It's a
gimmick, and yes it's fun, my favourite so far has been
looking at the Lairigh Ghru (sp) in x4 exxagerated mode.....

KRO

Sorry - "Lairig Ghru".And you only need x2!

KRO

KRO said:

Quoted message said:

Have you used 3D for any serious purpose?

No, it's not *useful*,

Yes it is. You may have no personal use for it but that
doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else. Besides, it
also looks cool.

Quoted message said:

I can read contours,

So can I, but neither of us can actually *see* the shape of
the terrain when we look at contours. And no matter how good
you think your mental visualisation is, there's is no way
you can visualise exactly how a particular scene would look
as a photographic composition. You may have a rough idea,
but not an exact one. An exact visualisation is extremely
helpful for me.

I'm talking about Anquet 3D here by the way.

Quoted message said:

the visualisation is okay,

The visualisation is excellent, I've only found one
error so far.

Quoted message said:

but when you see the top of a hill somewhat lower that the
sides, you do wonder.

I haven't seen that, which makes me wonder what you are
looking at. I have roamed around the landscape at ground
level looking at various features, and have sometimes tried
to determine where the highest point of a hill is, and found
that different points look higher from different viewpoints.
This is not a problem with the software, this is a problem
often encountered in real life, I've often stood on a summit
and been convinced that another bump is higher, yet when I
go and stand on it the summit looks higher. Conversely, I
once set up camp looking at the end of a ridge with a trig
point on it. The ridge seemed to slope down to the trig
point, yet the map insisted that it should slope up. I
looked at it for ages but I couldn't force my mind to see it
sloping up as it should. I took a photograph that I thought
I held perfectly level, but when I looked at the photograph
later, it seemed to have been taken on a tilt. Very wierd.

Also, any 3D representation has to use some kind of lens
perspective, and lenses, as all photographers know, have a
habit of distorting the perspective, often introducing
curved horizons, depending on the amount of tilt. Thus if
panning a tilted camera, the height of summits may vary as
you pan. I've noticed this in Anquet and again, it's not
faulty software, it's a normal phenomenon of lens
perspective.

On the other hand, maybe the bit you've looking at has got
duff height data. Somewhere in Scotland? Perhaps the height
data is not so accurate up there?

Quoted message said:

It's a gimmick,

No it's not. A very useful feature that you have no personal
use for is not the correct definition of the word gimmick.

Quoted message said:

and yes it's fun, my favourite so far has been looking at
the Lairigh Ghru (sp) in x4 exxagerated mode.....

That's just silly. I only use Anquet 3D in x1 mode, although
exaggerating the height may be useful for visualising the
shape of terrain in very flat areas.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Bernard Hill said:

Quoted message said:

One serious purpose that I would like to use it for would
be to put 3D screengrabs on my site to illustrate
different areas, but I seriously doubt that would be
allowed by the map police.

You could ask.

That had crossed my mind, but I doubt it would be allowed
for Anquet since it shows actual OS maps. As for the aerial
photos, I don't have those yet, but I'd need them for the
whole of Wales.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

KRO said:

I'm talking about Anquet 3D here by the way.

Quoted message said:

the visualisation is okay,

snip

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen that, which makes me wonder what you are
looking at. I have roamed around the landscape at ground
level looking at various features, and have sometimes
tried to determine where the highest point of a hill is,
and found that different points look higher from different
viewpoints. This is not a problem with the software, this
is a problem often encountered in real life, I've often
stood on a summit and been convinced that another bump is
higher, yet when I go and stand on it the summit looks
higher. Conversely, I once set up camp looking at the end
of a ridge with a trig point on it. The ridge seemed to
slope down to the trig point, yet the map insisted that it
should slope up. I looked at it for ages but I couldn't
force my mind to see it sloping up as it should. I took a
photograph that I thought I held perfectly level, but when
I looked at the photograph later, it seemed to have been
taken on a tilt. Very wierd.

Also, any 3D representation has to use some kind of lens
perspective, and lenses, as all photographers know, have a
habit of distorting the perspective, often introducing
curved horizons, depending on the amount of tilt. Thus if
panning a tilted camera, the height of summits may vary as
you pan. I've noticed this in Anquet and again, it's not
faulty software, it's a normal phenomenon of lens
perspective.

On the other hand, maybe the bit you've looking at has got
duff height data. Somewhere in Scotland? Perhaps the
height data is not so accurate up there? Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Hi Paul and other URW readers,

I will be in the Lakedistrict in the third week of April and
do six days of hillwalking and I'm planning to buy the new
Anquet releases (April 2) afterwards. I want to buy the
Northwest Scotland CD and the Central Scotland CD, both 50k.
Back home I will run them on my computer and tell you all
what I think off them. I haven't got a GPS yet but that
won't bother me.

Theo

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

KRO said:

Quoted message said:

Have you used 3D for any serious purpose?

No, it's not *useful*,

Yes it is. You may have no personal use for it but that
doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else. Besides, it
also looks cool.

Quoted message said:

I can read contours,

So can I, but neither of us can actually *see* the shape
of the terrain when we look at contours. And no matter how
good you think your mental visualisation is, there's is no
way you can visualise exactly how a particular scene would
look as a photographic composition. You may have a rough
idea, but not an exact one. An exact visualisation is
extremely helpful for me.

I'm talking about Anquet 3D here by the way.

Quoted message said:

the visualisation is okay,

The visualisation is excellent, I've only found one
error so far.

Quoted message said:

but when you see the top of a hill somewhat lower that
the sides, you do wonder.

I haven't seen that, which makes me wonder what you are
looking at.

Geal Charn to the SSE of Loch Laggan, the trig point is
noticeably off to the side of the top and lower than the 3D
"top". Not a lot, the 3D "top" is about 75m away from the
trig point. That's the first hill I looked at to give you a
suggestion. I'm using Memory Map, the error is not a problem
to me, it's reasonably accurate for *my* purposes. I

Quoted message said:

have roamed around the landscape at ground level looking
at various features, and have sometimes tried to determine
where the highest point of a hill is, and found that
different points look higher from different viewpoints.
This is not a problem with the software, this is a problem
often encountered in real life, I've often stood on a
summit and been convinced that another bump is higher, yet
when I go and stand on it the summit looks higher.
Conversely, I once set up camp looking at the end of a
ridge with a trig point on it. The ridge seemed to slope
down to the trig point, yet the map insisted that it
should slope up. I looked at it for ages but I couldn't
force my mind to see it sloping up as it should. I took a
photograph that I thought I held perfectly level, but when
I looked at the photograph later, it seemed to have been
taken on a tilt. Very wierd.

Also, any 3D representation has to use some kind of lens
perspective, and lenses, as all photographers know, have a
habit of distorting the perspective, often introducing
curved horizons, depending on the amount of tilt. Thus if
panning a tilted camera, the height of summits may vary as
you pan. I've noticed this in Anquet and again, it's not
faulty software, it's a normal phenomenon of lens
perspective.

On the other hand, maybe the bit you've looking at has got
duff height data. Somewhere in Scotland? Perhaps the
height data is not so accurate up there?

Quoted message said:

It's a gimmick,

No it's not. A very useful feature that you have no
personal use for is not the correct definition of the word
gimmick.

No you're right, I'm now modelling a papier-mache 3D image
to lug up the hills next week.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and yes it's fun, my favourite so far has been looking
at the Lairigh Ghru (sp) in x4 exxagerated mode.....

That's just silly. I only use Anquet 3D in x1 mode,
although exaggerating the height may be useful for
visualising the shape of terrain in very flat areas.

Paul

Paul, I was giving my opinion which I still stick by. I'm
glad you find it so useful, I don't. And if I want to look
at the Lairig Ghru in x7 mode that's up to me. It's not
until x8 that it looks "silly". ......

KRO

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, it's not *useful*,

Quoted message said:

Yes it is.

that seems to sum it up. two opinions. some people opinion
is it isnt useful some peoples is that it is useful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but when you see the top of a hill somewhat lower that
the sides, you do wonder.

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen that, which makes me wonder what you are
looking at.

I was on Whernside on Sunday, got home and opened up MM, and
the map summit ridge seemed to be a little to the east of
the 3D summit ridge, just a tad, but still lower than the
top. Funny how some lakes are not flat too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the Lairigh Ghru (sp) in x4 exxagerated

Quoted message said:

That's just silly. I only use Anquet 3D in x1 mode,

no its not silly, its fun, MM maps are fun to play with, as
well as use.

I agree, for me, anyway, with what Pauls says about
visualisation, with the 3D view, you see it wham! straight
away, no studying contours; maybe its just how my mind works
(or refuses to work) but I find it difficult to get an
overview of everything when studying a flat map (ho, ho, do
you remember when people used to use flat maps on paper, how
primitive we were 🙂). I can see individual bits, and
compare small areas, but I think in my head the terrain
would (is) very diffrent to the reality. I might know that
there is a big hill to the west of a planned route and a big
hill to the east, but I probably havent compared the two
height to each other, or remembered the height statistics,
so the picture isnt accurate. I am not going to specificaly
try and remember every bit of detail from the map. With the
3D view, I look at it and so much more is remembered of the
overall structure and how the bits fit together. I think
this will speed up route planing for me.

Quoted message said:

Are you sure you have the prog installed properly? You
need the elevation data to be able to display 3D.

Elevation data is showing up fine

Quoted message said:

However, after the message above I downloaded the DirectX
9 from the MS web site and now it works fine under W98 too
after I had set to Software Rasterisation (in Mode>3d
settings).

So Try installing DirectX 9.

Installed Directx9 and MM gave me a message on clicking 3D
to install latest ActiveX! I don't want to go through all
that if no-one else had to? Now I'm back to square One: with
DX9 clicking on 3D is doing nothing, wierd.

Still FlatEarthing

Quoted message said:

However, after the message above I downloaded the DirectX
9 from the MS web site and now it works fine under W98 too
after I had set to Software Rasterisation (in Mode>3d
settings).

All I can see in the Mode pulldown is:

Full Screen Continuous Scroll Units Position Format

(BJ) said:

All I can see in the Mode pulldown is:

Full Screen Continuous Scroll Units Position Format

If you get the latest MM update from their site you get the
extra 3D options in the Mode menu. From the helpfile in the
latest version:

Troubleshooting If you get an error message, or if the 3D
model fails to appear, try the following (in this order):

Ensure you have installed the driver for your graphics card.
Check that you have the latest version.

Ensure you have the latest version of Microsoft DirectX
installed (click here).

In the Memory-Map Navigator application, click the Mode / 3D
Options menu command. Select the minimum Map tile size and
Terrain model points.

In the Memory-Map Navigator application, click the Mode / 3D
Options menu command. Select software rasterization (note,
this will make drawing the model extremely slow).

Resize the 3D View window to occupy a smaller area of
the screen.