Thanks for the heads up, I'm looking into it. I'm not married to KMZ or KML, I have full control over the data on both the client and server, so I can output the data (polylines and markers) in any format needed (JSON, XML, proprietary, etc) and process it on the client side.
I just want it to be smooth and predictable, and so far I haven't been able to get KmlLayer to be predictable (it's smooth when it works and when Google's servers are fast). Thanks, Brian On Feb 9, 9:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 9, 7:49 am, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've just launched a site that makes requests to my server for > > dynamically generated KMZ files. > > > Based on the viewport bounds, zoom level, and other options passed in > > the URL of the KMZ file, a KML file is dynamically built and zipped > > into a KMZ file that is then output. > > > I also cache the KMZ file so any identical requests in the next 6 > > hours are served from the cache (to spare the database). > > >http://www.freeatvmaps.com/atv-trails/straight-canyon-crawford-pass-l... > > > The problem is the KMZ file is parsed and tiles generated on Google's > > servers, which tiles are then sent back to the client. But often only > > a fraction of the tiles are processed, so only a portion of the trails > > show up. And the process is slow. > > > I can watch my logs and see that the KMZ file is generated and output > > almost instantly, but it still takes 3 or 4 seconds for the tiles to > > appear, making the whole interface feel sluggish and clunky. > > > You can see one of the generated KMZ files > > here:http://www.freeatvmaps.com/sample.kmz > > > The KMZ files range from 1K up to 120K in size. The paths are stored > > in multiple levels of simplification in the database, so the further > > you zoom in the more detail you get. > > > What client side alternatives are there to KmlLayer? > > The only client side parser for kml in v3 that I know of is > geoxml3http://code.google.com/p/geoxml3/ > > Doesn't do kmz though, only kml. > > GeoXml for v2 is much more mature if you are not locked into v3. > > -- Larry > > > Or is something > > wrong with my implementation? > > > I would much prefer the rendering be done in the client (if the > > performance is good) and the Google servers be left out of the loop. > > I want this to be a smooth, seamless interface, so as people drag > > around they can quickly have the new data loaded for that viewport. > > > Thanks! > > Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
