Memory Map 2004 3D View

KRO said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Are you sure that the trig point is on the summit? They
often aren't. May be a daft question, I don't know, I don't
have a map of that area to check.

Quoted message said:

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.

Well if it is genuinely an error, 75m doesn't sound too bad,
but I haven't noticed anything like that in Wales using
Anquet. Maybe the height data is less accurate further
north? (I presume that Anquet and MM will be using the same
data.) Or is there an offset between the height data and the
map? Is it slightly out of sync? Is the error consistent?

Quoted message said:

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". ......

I'm guessing that Lairig Ghru is a steep area? Maybe it's
not.

To be fair, when I first tried the demo of MM, x2 did look
better than x1 (can't remember what the default was set to),
but x1 looks better in Anquet, which was the default. Maybe
it's something to do with the fact that you can look at the
view from very low down in Anquet, so that you can see
pretty much what you would see, but MM was stuck up in the
sky, you couldn't get any ground views. But maybe they've
changed this?

For "serious" use, i.e. planning photo compositions,
checking ground viewpoints at x1 is obviously necessary,
otherwise you wouldn't see what it really looks like, but
for higher views where you want to get a good idea of the
shape of the area, a bit of vertical exaggeration can be a
good thing, especially with less hilly terrain.

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

carl said:

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.

Is this error consistent? Maybe MM's height data is slightly
out of synce with the map.

Quoted message said:

Funny how some lakes are not flat too.

Not when you realise that the height data was collected
before some lakes (i.e. reservoirs) were built.

Quoted message said:

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.

It's very difficult to visualise a large complex area in
your head, that's why 50k maps are better for visualising
contours and the 250k OS road maps with shaded contours even
better still (for visualising a very large area) - have you
tried using the 3D with the 250k mapping? Good for seeing
the shape of a very large area. The data is out of sync but
it's the map data, not the height data, the contours and
height data were always inaccurate, but fine for a road map.

Quoted message said:

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.

3D is particularly useful for determining if you can see a
distant feature from a particular viewpoint, to determine if
it's blocked or visible. For example, there could be an
intervening hill which may or may not block line of sight.
Even if you know the heights of the viewpoint, the target
and the intervening hill, it may still not be obvious
whether it blocks it or not without having to do some
trigonometry.

Quoted message said:

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.

Definitely, especially if you want to plan a contoured route
so as to not gain or lose too much height. I prefer to plan
routes which are quite flat initially (so as to give the leg
muscles and joints a chance to warm up) then a steep uphill
(to get to the top quickly, provide some exercise and
possibly an enjoyable scramble), a ridge walk if possible
(to enjoy staying up high) and finally a gentle ascent (to
save on the knees). Much easier to plan if you have the
whole area laid out in 3D.

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:

It's very difficult to visualise a large complex area in
your head, that's why 50k maps are better for visualising
contours and the 250k OS road maps with shaded contours
even better still (for visualising a very large area) -
have you tried using the 3D with the 250k mapping? Good
for seeing the shape of a very large area. The data is out
of sync but it's the map data, not the height data, the
contours and height data were always inaccurate, but fine
for a road map.

snip

Quoted message said:

3D is particularly useful for determining if you can see a
distant feature from a particular viewpoint, to determine
if it's blocked or visible. For example, there could be an
intervening hill which may or may not block line of sight.
Even if you know the heights of the viewpoint, the target
and the intervening hill, it may still not be obvious
whether it blocks it or not without having to do some
trigonometry.

snip

Quoted message said:

Definitely, especially if you want to plan a contoured
route so as to not gain or lose too much height. I prefer
to plan routes which are quite flat initially (so as to
give the leg muscles and joints a chance to warm up) then
a steep uphill (to get to the top quickly, provide some
exercise and possibly an enjoyable scramble), a ridge walk
if possible (to enjoy staying up high) and finally a
gentle ascent (to save on the knees). Much easier to plan
if you have the whole area laid out in 3D.

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

I personnally would like to use the 3D to visualise the area
where I will be hillwalking and use the contour lines to
create a cloudbase on a certain level. A sort of blindfolded
firedrill in a building filled with smoke. The most pics you
see on the internet are fairly good weather pics and the
actual area looks so much different with a cloud base on,
let's say, 1500 ft. I like to come prepared.

Theo

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

Quoted message said:

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.

I have no opinion either way on Memory Map, but if it is
useful to someone then it *is* "useful". This is to do with
logic, not Memory Map.

For example, I don't use a derrick crane, so they are not
useful to me, but they are useful to people who put up
buildings. I cannot state "derrick cranes are not useful",
but I can say that "derrick cranes are not useful to me".

The two opinions are not equally valid.

See the difference?
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

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

Quoted message said:

KRO said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Are you sure that the trig point is on the summit? They
often aren't. May be a daft question, I don't know, I don't
have a map of that area to check.

Quoted message said:

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.

Well if it is genuinely an error, 75m doesn't sound too
bad, but I haven't noticed anything like that in Wales
using Anquet. Maybe the height data is less accurate
further north? (I presume that Anquet and MM will be using
the same data.) Or is there an offset between the height
data and the map? Is it slightly out of sync? Is the error
consistent?

Quoted message said:

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". ......

I'm guessing that Lairig Ghru is a steep area? Maybe
it's not.

To be fair, when I first tried the demo of MM, x2 did look
better than x1 (can't remember what the default was set
to), but x1 looks better in Anquet, which was the default.
Maybe it's something to do with the fact that you can look
at the view from very low down in Anquet, so that you can
see pretty much what you would see, but MM was stuck up in
the sky, you couldn't get any ground views. But maybe
they've changed this?

Yes they have. I can see outlines of the horizon and that's
quite good.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

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

Quoted message said:

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

It's under those.

Make sure you have version 4.2.1 on Help>About.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Just had a look at this one with Anquet. Assuming that
you're talking about GR NN 5044 8118, then it looks fine to
me. The Blue triangle of the Trig point actually surrounds
the highest point, though the dot in the middle must be a
few metres (less than 10?) off. However, I have seen other
anomalies. Have a look at the summit of Conival in
Sutherland - GR NC 3032 1994. I don't recall it looking
quite so, well, "pointy" when I was last there!

druidh

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

Quoted message said:

KRO said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Are you sure that the trig point is on the summit? They
often aren't. May be a daft question, I don't know, I
don't have a map of that area to check.

Yes, I've checked, and indeed always have since Ben Vorlich
(Loch Lomond) on a misty day!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Well if it is genuinely an error, 75m doesn't sound too
bad, but I haven't noticed anything like that in Wales
using Anquet. Maybe the height data is less accurate
further north? (I presume that Anquet and MM will be using
the same data.) Or is there an offset between the height
data and the map? Is it slightly out of sync? Is the error
consistent?

There's no consistent error, some are spot on. There
sometimes appears to be a *small* mismatch between the
height data and the map - limitations of software code?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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". ......

I'm guessing that Lairig Ghru is a steep area? Maybe
it's not.

The sides are steep. There's two 4000' + mountains on
each side, although the pass itself is high, it's still
quite dramatic.

Quoted message said:

To be fair, when I first tried the demo of MM, x2 did look
better than x1 (can't remember what the default was set
to), but x1 looks better in Anquet, which was the default.
Maybe it's something to do with the fact that you can look
at the view from very low down in Anquet, so that you can
see pretty much what you would see, but MM was stuck up in
the sky, you couldn't get any ground views. But maybe
they've changed this?

For "serious" use, i.e. planning photo compositions,
checking ground viewpoints at x1 is obviously necessary,
otherwise you wouldn't see what it really looks like, but
for higher views where you want to get a good idea of the
shape of the area, a bit of vertical exaggeration can be a
good thing, especially with less hilly terrain.

Paul

Obviously Paul, you're using it for photo use and getting
more use out of it than I am. Fair play.

KRO

Thanks Chris, newer version gave me the full options and
the good news is I have 3D on one PC, albeit using
software rasterization and the other settings at minimum.
The bad news?

PC1: ATI Rage Fury Maxx showing as ATI 128 RagePro with 3D
Accelerator video RAM 32Meg CPU 2GigHz

PC2: S3 Savage4 Number Nine SR9 with 3D Acclerator video RAM
8 Meg CPU 400 MHz

As I said both PC's are running Win2000 with DX9, but the PC
that has woken up to the joys of 3D is the "underspecd" one
PC2. This ATI card on PC1 runs fine with apps like Photoshop
and any other screen redraws. It was a struggle getting it
running in Win2K and I got customized drivers from an ATI
forum. It'll take a lot to get me to invest in a newer card
since I'm fed up with hardware "upgrades" that become
obsolete with each new OS. The Rage is a great name for a
card that was over £100 around the time Win2000 came out!

FlatEarther

BJ said:

PC1: ATI Rage Fury Maxx showing as ATI 128 RagePro with 3D
Accelerator video RAM 32Meg

Quoted message said:

As I said both PC's are running Win2000 with DX9, but the
PC that has woken up to the joys of 3D is the "underspecd"
one PC2. This ATI card on PC1 runs fine with apps like
Photoshop and any other screen redraws. It was a struggle
getting it running in Win2K and I got customized drivers
from an ATI forum. It'll take a lot to get me to invest in
a newer card since I'm fed up with hardware "upgrades"
that become obsolete with each new OS. The Rage is a great
name for a card that was over £100 around the time Win2000
came out!

I don't see the problem. My old graphics card is listed as
an ATI Rage 128XPERT with 32 meg of memory and I think that
was called a Rage Fury when I bought it, so it sounds like
more or less the same card. There's no way that a 32 meg
graphics card like that won't do 3D. What do you think all
that memory is for? It's not for displaying 2D images in
Photoshop. You've got a 3D card.

Have you checked your DirectX settings?

Run c:\Program Files\DirextX\Setup\DxDiag.lnk and take a
look at the Display tab. Are your DirectX Features enabled?
They should be. If enabling them doesn't work, have you
updated your graphics card drivers lately?

And it won't cost much to invest in a newer card, not unless
you want the latest and greatest, which you only need for
the latest high powered games. I'm still using a GeForce2 on
my main PC which is more than good enough for most things
(including the latest games) and you can buy those dirt
cheap now.

In fact, you can pick up a GeForce4 with 64 meg of memory
for just £35 nowadays. I'd recommend the GeForce cards, they
are widely supported and don't seem to suffer from the
problems that some other makes of card
do. I've got loads of 3D software and the GeForce works
great with all of it. computing.kelkoo.co.ukcomputing.kelkoo.co.ukOpen ↗
a/o_100796548_Graphics_Cards_Under_%C2%A
349.html

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Just had a look at this one with Anquet. Assuming that
you're talking about GR NN 5044 8118, then it looks fine to
me. The Blue triangle of the Trig point actually surrounds
the highest point, though the dot in the middle must be a
few metres (less than 10?) off. However, I have seen other
anomalies. Have a look at the summit of Conival in
Sutherland - GR NC 3032 1994. I don't recall it looking
quite so, well, "pointy" when I was last there!

The height data is wrong. According to that there's a 1100m
height at 3035 1994 which is wrong since Conival is 987
according to the OS map.

Does Anquet get this one right?

I would expect that the height data (produced by the OS) is
in error so would be the same on both products.

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

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

Quoted message said:

Thanks Chris, newer version gave me the full options and
the good news is I have 3D on one PC, albeit using
software rasterization and the other settings at minimum.
The bad news?

PC1: ATI Rage Fury Maxx showing as ATI 128 RagePro with 3D
Accelerator video RAM 32Meg CPU 2GigHz

PC2: S3 Savage4 Number Nine SR9 with 3D Acclerator video
RAM 8 Meg CPU 400 MHz

As I said both PC's are running Win2000 with DX9, but the
PC that has woken up to the joys of 3D is the "underspecd"
one PC2. This ATI card on PC1 runs fine with apps like
Photoshop and any other screen redraws. It was a struggle
getting it running in Win2K and I got customized drivers
from an ATI forum. It'll take a lot to get me to invest in
a newer card since I'm fed up with hardware "upgrades"
that become obsolete with each new OS. The Rage is a great
name for a card that was over £100 around the time Win2000
came out!

FlatEarther

You might like to reduce the hardware acceleration of the
Rage. The driver has some bugs in it which affect my own
(written) software. Not sure where the setting is in W2000
but right-clicking the background and working through
properties, advanced, troubleshooting etc should give a
slider which you can leave at full acceleration or reduce.

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

DXDiag (9.0b) tells me:

?Direct3D functionality not available. You should verify
that the driver is a final version from the hardware
manufacturer?

As I said in my previous post: re this RageFuryMaxx card it
was a struggle getting it running in Win2K and I got
customized drivers via www.rage3d.com. Beware an ATI user
saying their card ?sounds like more or less the same card?.
I lost count of how many ATI drivers I tried to get this dual-
chip card running in Win2000!

FlatEarther in a Rage

BJ said:

Beware an ATI user saying their card ?sounds like more or
less the same card?. I lost count of how many ATI drivers
I tried to get this dual-chip card running in Win2000!

Whether it is the same card or not I don't know, but I'm
pretty sure mine was called a Fury when I first bought it,
was later called something else when I installed updated
drivers and later got called something else again when I
updated the drivers once more. I always had problems trying
to find the right drivers because of the name confusion, but
I must have found the right ones in the end because I always
got it working.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that with 32
meg on board it's obviously a 3D card, so it should be
capable of using the 3D features in Anquet.

Having said that, I would strongly recommend GeForce or
newer Nvidia graphics cards. They are widely supported and
I've had no problems with mine, unlike all the other
graphics cards I've owned over the years.

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Just had a look at this one with Anquet. Assuming that
you're talking

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GR NN 5044 8118, then it looks fine to me. The Blue
triangle of the Trig point actually surrounds the highest
point, though the dot in the middle must be a few metres
(less than 10?) off. However, I have seen other
anomalies. Have a look at the summit of Conival in
Sutherland - GR NC

3032

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1994. I don't recall it looking quite so, well, "pointy"
when I was last there!

The height data is wrong. According to that there's a
1100m height at 3035 1994 which is wrong since Conival is
987 according to the OS map.

Does Anquet get this one right?

I would expect that the height data (produced by the OS)
is in error so would be the same on both products.

Nah - Anquet gets it wrong too. A look at the actual (i.e.
.paper) map show the problem - the top 5 contours are ALL
thicker, indicating 50M steps. An OS "anti-copying" hidden
watermark??

druidh

I found the answer, a big NO, on the rage3d.com site:

"This dual chip card has a `serial` rendering method - by
this i mean one chip renders one frame and the other renders
the next. so this works in win98 - the agp bus can do this
in the 98 kernal - in NT its different , and as such can`t
control what is effectivley 2 gfx cards on the same bus."

By NT kernel we can assume they mean Win2000 too. Looks like
a new card, or watch my 3D crawl onto the screen with the
8Meg job on my other PC, or move the Maxx to other PC and
hope it works in XP which isnt even loaded.......oh well

FlatEarther

BJ said:

I found the answer, a big NO, on the rage3d.com site:

Oh well, at least you found out the reason. I knew that it
"should" have been able to do 3D.

Quoted message said:

Looks like a new card, or watch my 3D crawl onto the
screen with the 8Meg job on my other PC,

Treat yourself to a new card, but check it will work with
Win2000 first, I gather a few people have problems getting
graphics cards to work on Win2000.

google.co.uksearchOpen ↗
+2000+graphic s+card+problems

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

Since the update has been installed it has been making my pc
lock up for some reason. I run windows ME with a Nvidia
Geforce2 MX/MX graphics card. I will update the drive and
perhaps direct x tonight to see if that helps?