google poor mans 3-d mapping

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

Quoted message said:

http://earth.google.com/

Now that really satisfies the Yorkshireman in me. Find my house then nipped
down for a quick trip round Snowdon and wandered up the South ridge.

Now I'm looking up the Western Cwm. Brilliant.

I remember years ago seeing a demo by IBM of a "proper" digital mapping
system which started with the entire planet and zoomed in almost seamlessly
to anywhere. It was running on mainframes via a dedicated landline. We've
come a long way.

Roy.

Google for NASA Worldwind - much better than the Google effort for
viewing terrain.

druidh

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

Quoted message said:

Google for NASA Worldwind - much better than the Google effort for
viewing terrain.

druidh

Er yes, tried that but couldn't get it to run with my cheepo NVidia
graphics. I know it's a cheap upgrade but I am from Yorkshire.

I know this Google offering is pretty basic but for something that's up and
running in less than 5 mins, I'm impressed.

Roy.

In article <[email hidden]>,
carl said...

Quoted message said:

http://earth.google.com/

Huh.

"Welcome, frustrated would-be planet surfer.

We appreciate your interest in accessing 3D geospatial information,
but due to the technical limitations of this beta launch, Google Earth
has been forced to take a brief breather. Please check back with us
soon."

Frustrated is about right.
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

"Fran" wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Huh.

Quoted message said:

"Welcome, frustrated would-be planet surfer.

We appreciate your interest in accessing 3D geospatial information,
but due to the technical limitations of this beta launch, Google Earth
has been forced to take a brief breather. Please check back with us
soon."

Frustrated is about right.
--
/
Fran O(<|={

I'm with the frustrated one on this

:o(

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

Quoted message said:

"Fran" wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Huh.

Quoted message said:

"Welcome, frustrated would-be planet surfer.

We appreciate your interest in accessing 3D geospatial information,
but due to the technical limitations of this beta launch, Google Earth
has been forced to take a brief breather. Please check back with us
soon."

Frustrated is about right.
--
/
Fran O(<|={

I'm with the frustrated one on this

Still running here.

Roy.

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

Quoted message said:

http://earth.google.com/

It's amazing. Just checked my house, my school and Chamonix. Mont Blanc has
not melted
phew.

The whole earth for free. Can't believe people are complaing about free
software.

Once the school bell went it went much faster.

Nick

Fran said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
carl said...

Quoted message said:

http://earth.google.com/

Huh.

"Welcome, frustrated would-be planet surfer.

We appreciate your interest in accessing 3D geospatial information,
but due to the technical limitations of this beta launch, Google Earth
has been forced to take a brief breather. Please check back with us
soon."

Frustrated is about right.

Still working for me. I'd guess that you get that page if too many
people are currently accessing it, or in case of any unexpected error.

S.

--
Oppose ID cards and the database state - sign the pledge at
http://www.pledgebank.com/refuse

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Caldwell said...

Quoted message said:

Fran said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
carl said...

Quoted message said:

http://earth.google.com/

Huh.

"Welcome, frustrated would-be planet surfer.

We appreciate your interest in accessing 3D geospatial information,
but due to the technical limitations of this beta launch, Google Earth
has been forced to take a brief breather. Please check back with us
soon."

Frustrated is about right.

Still working for me. I'd guess that you get that page if too many
people are currently accessing it, or in case of any unexpected error.

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

Fran said:

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.

To be honest you're not missing much - it's all very clever and that,
but the resolution is abysmal!

--
Oppose ID cards and the database state - sign the pledge at
http://www.pledgebank.com/refuse

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Caldwell said...

Quoted message said:

Fran said:

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.

To be honest you're not missing much - it's all very clever and that,
but the resolution is abysmal!

Fair enough - I shall fret no more.

--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

Fran said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Caldwell said...

Quoted message said:

Fran said:

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.

To be honest you're not missing much - it's all very clever and that,
but the resolution is abysmal!

Fair enough - I shall fret no more.

It all depends on where you look. Some places in the States have quite
good views - certainly good enough to identify individual buildings and
even cars on the road. For example, try looking at Santa Barbara,
California, or Washington D.C.
The CN tower can easily be seen in Toronto, and the London Eye is easily
seen too.

--
Dave McLaughlin

[censored] Sapiens Non Urinat In Ventum

Dave McLaughlin said:

It all depends on where you look. Some places in the States have quite
good views - certainly good enough to identify individual buildings and
even cars on the road. For example, try looking at Santa Barbara,
California, or Washington D.C.
The CN tower can easily be seen in Toronto, and the London Eye is easily
seen too.

There are some oddities too. For example, Sydney City centre is nice
and clear, but the "touristy" bit with the Opera House and Harbour
Bridge is low res.

Then again, if you look at Washington, there are some curious fuzzy
effects around the Capitol building, and no detail at all on the roof of
the White House...

Andy

Fran said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon
Caldwell said...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:25:21 +0100, Fran <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frustrated is about right.

Still working for me. I'd guess that you get that page if too many
people are currently accessing it, or in case of any unexpected error.

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.

win 2000 or XP only. So since you are on Win 9x like me (Win Me counts
as 9x) it won't run. Reading the min requirements you'd need a pretty
whizzz machine too.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.

win 2000 or XP only. So since you are on Win 9x like me (Win Me counts
as 9x) it won't run. Reading the min requirements you'd need a pretty
whizzz machine too.

Until recently I've been quite happy with Win98 and Win98SE; however
I'm getting increasingly teed off with applications that refuse to run
on Win9x. Is /everybody/ 'upgrading' these days? No, I don't think
they are. So what's with the failure to make things backwardly
compatible? 'S not fair.
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

I'm afraid that it really is time to move on.

In the case of Google World, this is being provided free. To do this,
they have to assume a certain minimum standard of technology. Backward
compatibility costs money - both for development and testing.

druidh

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Fran <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I tried downloading it, but something's amiss. My system won't play.
Boohoo.

win 2000 or XP only. So since you are on Win 9x like me (Win Me counts
as 9x) it won't run. Reading the min requirements you'd need a pretty
whizzz machine too.

Until recently I've been quite happy with Win98 and Win98SE; however
I'm getting increasingly teed off with applications that refuse to run
on Win9x. Is /everybody/ 'upgrading' these days? No, I don't think
they are. So what's with the failure to make things backwardly
compatible? 'S not fair.

That's life. 8>. The problem is that a whole range of Operating System
facilities are not available in Win9X (because MS chose to not go
through all the agony of porting them back to an antique OS for which
they now get no money) so the software developers would have to produce
a whole separate (and more complicated) version for Win9x, to handle all
the stuff themselves which Win2k/XP have 'built in'.

Not a problem for simple programs, like 'hello world' but when you get
into graphics for instance it's just so much easier to tell DX9 to do
something clever than it is to try to talk to 100001 bits of graphics
hardware the hard way. And the registry is a neater place (for programs)
to store options than a DIY '.ini file'. Except the Win9x registry was
barely workable. USB under WIn9x sucked rather badly too. Etc. etc. and
likewise.

Besides, most computers built in the Win9x era flat won't run =some= of
the modern applications anyway. Guess it's time for forgo the next
Paramo jacket and buy a PC instead!!

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Andy Champ <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are some oddities too. For example, Sydney City centre is nice
and clear, but the "touristy" bit with the Opera House and Harbour
Bridge is low res.

Then again, if you look at Washington, there are some curious fuzzy
effects around the Capitol building, and no detail at all on the roof
of the White House...

Andy

They never did give exact details of where the fourth aircraft came
down.....
--
Gordon Harris

Andy Champ said:

Dave McLaughlin said:

It all depends on where you look. Some places in the States have
quite good views - certainly good enough to identify individual
buildings and even cars on the road. For example, try looking at
Santa Barbara, California, or Washington D.C.
The CN tower can easily be seen in Toronto, and the London Eye is
easily seen too.

There are some oddities too. For example, Sydney City centre is nice
and clear, but the "touristy" bit with the Opera House and Harbour
Bridge is low res.

Then again, if you look at Washington, there are some curious fuzzy
effects around the Capitol building, and no detail at all on the roof of
the White House...

Andy

I must start looking for Area 51. Nevada somewhere, I think....!!

--
Dave McLaughlin

[censored] Sapiens Non Urinat In Ventum