I don't mind the processing speed. In fact, some of the object functions
have sped up. But the speed is of no benefit if the topology is worthless.
The changes they have made in object processing are for the better. But they
need to fix the problem of how MapInfo 5.5 creates buffers into the cosmetic
layer. If you haven't tried it, MI creates anything from ovals to flat lines
when buffering points into the cosmetic layer.
Steve E. Wallace
GIS & Market Information Manager
Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Companies
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Elson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: MapInfo Discussion Group (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: MI trouble combining complex polygons
>
>
> Peter Walsh wrote:
> >
> > I was impressed with 5.5 when it overlayed 2 complex polygon sets that I
> > knew would have failed in previous versions, with the dreaded "regions
too
> > complex" message. I fairly quickly discovered however that it still has
its
> > limitations, beyond as certain point it still just fails. It doesn't
give
> > you an error message, it just doesn't do anything.
> >
> > You could try copying them both into a base table, and trying htere,
rather
> > than in the cosmetic layer. I don't know if this will work, but I have
> > noticed the buffering function sometimes seems to be more successful if
I
> > don't use the cosmetic layer, but rather save the results straight into
a
> > table.
> >
> > The only solution regarding complex datasets for me has been to work in
> > grids, and the speed at which Vertical Mapper can create grids,
maipulate
> > them, and contour them back into vectors is impressive. Inevitably, some
> > resolution is lost.
> >
> > If you want to work in vectors, it seems the only answer is to buy
something
> > better than a desktop GIS.
> >
>
>
>
> Personally, I have found MI's combine objects function to be a bit of a
> dog. Way to slow (which may have something to do with my underlying
> data structure).
>
> It was quicker for me to export the data set(s) via UT and do my
> processing in ArcView. The geo-processing tools in AV are far more
> advanced, easy to use and just that much faster.
>
> A personal opinion only, but I would be interested in reading some
> others' comments on MI's geo processing because my experience is
> admittedly limited, which could therefore cause my vision to be rose
> coloured.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Tony Elson
>
> GIS Analyst
>
> Geographic Technologies Limited
> PO Box 6015
> Wellesley Street,
> Auckland, New Zealand
>
> Ph: 64 9 379 2061 x107
> Fax: 64 9 379 2044
> Mobile: 025 278 4896
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
> "unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
"unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
