Hi Robert,

The accuracy (or better: resolution) of any (feature) object in MapInfo is 
dependent on the relevant projection bounds. The wider
the bounds, the poorer the accuracy/resolution.

The worst accuracy is using a straight lat/long table, since it needs to 
accomodate 40000 km inside a 32 bit integer, resulting in a
coordinate accurracy/resolution of  > 1 centimeter/? inch.

It's possible to control the bounds in a table, rendering higher accuracy, but 
I suspect the cosmetic "layers" to always use the
general lat/long projection, rendering them as the poorer choice.

So I'd go for a (temporary) table anytime if accuracy is a concern.

Best regards/Med venlig hilsen
Lars V. Nielsen
GisPro, Denmark
http://www.gispro.dk/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Crossley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MapInfo List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:33 AM
Subject: MI-L Accuracy of an object variable?



Hi list,

While on a few occasions there has been some discussion on the accuracy of
putting an object into the cosmetic layer vs a table in terms of accuracy,
any comment on loss of accuracy taking an object from a table, processing
it as an object variable in memory and inserting it into another table
 from the object variable?


r


-- 
________________________________________________

Robert Crossley

Agtrix P/L
9 Short St
PO Box 63
New Brighton 2483
Far Southern Queensland
AUSTRALIA

153.549004 E 28.517344 S

P: 02 6680 1309
F: New Connection
M: 0419 718 642
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: www.agtrix.com
W: www.wotzhere.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com |
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message number: 14223



---------------------------------------------------------------------
List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com |
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message number: 14227

Reply via email to