Autor Thema: 2 IMC feature requests  (Gelesen 304 mal)

Offline SteeevO

  • Jungbrut im Schwarm
  • *
  • Beiträge: 34
  • My/Mein Echo Equipment: HDS-10 G2, HDS-7 G2T, HDS-7 G3, HDS-16 Carbon, HDS-9 Live. Software- QGIS, GDAL, Linux, WINE, Global Mapper,
2 IMC feature requests
« am: 12 September 2019, 02:07:54 »
I think a couple seemingly simple features should be added to the IMC for those of us working with large datasets and to keep from having to reprocess areas that overlap between projects.
1) I think there should be an option to retain Unbound AT5's and be able to use them as source files in a later project.
2) be able to set raster options with command line switches.

These 2 things would help me a lot. I'm sure others would benefit from it as well.

Offline gregory

  • Insight Map Creator
  • *
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #1 am: 12 September 2019, 16:29:43 »
1) On vector, this wouldn't work because features are serialized on the fly.  Additional runs incorporating new data or data in a new order would use different encoding names which would result in incongruities during the bind phase.  The base map functionality is the closest to an intermediate vector state as the IMC will go.

On raster, this is beyond the scope of the application.  The regular raster toolkit (Tier3) is intended for production environments.  IMC saving intermediate raster states would be impractical both from the practice being beyond the technical capabilities of many of its users and the toolkit being required to bind the intermediate files together.  Any functionality similar to this approach would be added into the regular toolkit (e.g - deconstruction into major blocks).

2) The IMC limits command line arguments by design.  The complexity of the many project settings make the usage of command line arguments impractical.  Adding command line arguments for project variables bloats the design, adds additional points of failure, and circumvents the designed methods of control.

Offline SteeevO

  • Jungbrut im Schwarm
  • *
  • Beiträge: 34
  • My/Mein Echo Equipment: HDS-10 G2, HDS-7 G2T, HDS-7 G3, HDS-16 Carbon, HDS-9 Live. Software- QGIS, GDAL, Linux, WINE, Global Mapper,
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #2 am: 27 September 2019, 01:44:51 »
1) on vector. that totally makes sense. Vector isn't a concern of mine with this approach.
   
   on Raster. I know this is beyond the scope of the application which is why I was asking for it to be expanded. It would seem that there is a simple approach to this.
   It seems to me that only the final version of unbound AT5's would need to be kept since they are generated by the IMC anyways. why not just not have the IMC not delete them after binding them, this way the user would
   have them for future use?

2) I totally understand the arguments becoming bloaty. Alternatively why does the SAP file need to be a closed source format? why cant an XML file format be used instead? It seems that it would keep the same functionality for the current users, but add flexibility for power users.

For Tier 3:
Have all of the IMC features and AT5 versions been also implemented in the latest version of the tier3 tools? if so, can you send me the latest version of tier 3?

Offline gregory

  • Insight Map Creator
  • *
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #3 am: 27 September 2019, 17:05:28 »
1) Not something that is going to change because it is functionality that would be used by less than 0.1% of the IMC users and would be file bloat for 99.9% of users.

2) Historically, this was a closed format and no recent discussion has occurred to make it open.  It has never been closed for toolkit partners and was opened to select 3rd parties.  Using an XML schema for specifying settings isn't a path that will be approached.

3) Most options within the IMC are available in Tier3.  Overzoom and Underzoom controls are not incorporated but it is something that should be added.  Alpha thresholds don't exist but it's always been a overly simplified and non-professional setting intended for users without the technical capability to use more advanced options (filter shapefiles, zoom controls).  Most functionality has been simplified within the IMC because the expectation of the application focuses on ease of use over control.

The option I suggested was an intermediate option that would allow usage of the IMC and deconstruct the files in such a way that they could be recombined by At5Binder.  Note that I do have priorities outside of expanding tools and some of those tasks supersede expansion of tools.

Offline SteeevO

  • Jungbrut im Schwarm
  • *
  • Beiträge: 34
  • My/Mein Echo Equipment: HDS-10 G2, HDS-7 G2T, HDS-7 G3, HDS-16 Carbon, HDS-9 Live. Software- QGIS, GDAL, Linux, WINE, Global Mapper,
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #4 am: 01 Oktober 2019, 03:17:23 »
1) I understand, Thank you

2) Where should we continue the conversation about the SAP format? 
[Moderator comment] Please stay on the safe side.
We do not support any actions that lead to a reverse engineering road, Thank You
.


3) I wasn't aware of a deconstruction option in the T3 toolkit, I'll look into it. However I'd like to have the latest copy of these tools.
Thank you



Offline gregory

  • Insight Map Creator
  • *
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #5 am: 01 Oktober 2019, 16:16:44 »
2) A public forum is not the place to interact on a closed to the public format.  Policy discussions are generally fine but any specifics of encoding are prohibited.

What was provided to you is the same documentation that was provided to others who were able to successfully integrate the format.

For reasons of not providing information for reverse engineering to the public, I'm intentionally being vague here.

3) The deconstruction tools are not currently available.  I suggested them as a viable work around.

Offline SteeevO

  • Jungbrut im Schwarm
  • *
  • Beiträge: 34
  • My/Mein Echo Equipment: HDS-10 G2, HDS-7 G2T, HDS-7 G3, HDS-16 Carbon, HDS-9 Live. Software- QGIS, GDAL, Linux, WINE, Global Mapper,
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #6 am: 05 Oktober 2019, 01:32:46 »
2) Although I don't understand why it's a closed format, I understand your concern with too much info on the open web. so I ask again. Where should we continue the conversation about the SAP format?


3) As as I understand it now, the viable workaround would be something to consider if i were you, but not viable from my chair due to limited resources. please correct me if I'm wrong.

Offline TACKLEFEVER

  • .
  • *
  • Beiträge: 945
  • Dieser Beitrag ist Werbung.
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #7 am: 05 Oktober 2019, 11:40:24 »
Due to repeated questions about a conversation that should take place in a other, non-public area,
we get more and more the impression, the goal of the conversation would be the exchange
of non-legal information, possibly in one or the other country ...
Therefore we ask you to refrain from doing so.
TACKLE FEVER Forum

Offline gregory

  • Insight Map Creator
  • *
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: 2 IMC feature requests
« Antwort #8 am: 07 Oktober 2019, 17:29:36 »
Moving this to private conversation