On Wed, 16 May 2007, Tom Russo wrote: > Aren't multipoint objects already in the standard?
Kind'a sort'a. I think Bob B. mentions the protocol in one of his addendums. > Or at rather, aren't > the multipoint objects supported by more than just Xastir? Yes. For weather uses only at present, but no real reason why that can't change. > Turning a cad object into the necessary string for multipoint objects > and stuffing it into an object's data shouldn't be *that* hard. Just need > someone with the time to do the coding (i.e. someone other than me). > Then again, I am not sure if the multipoint protocol allows enough vertices > with enough precision to do all that CAD objects can do. I think that's the main problem, sending enough vertice information along with the rest of the attributes across to the remote station in a manner such that the remote station has an exact copy of the info. Since we're calculating area enclosed and such, it'd be nice if the representation of the object at the remote end was identical to the original and not just a look-alike. -- Curt, WE7U. APRS Client Comparisons: http://www.eskimo.com/~archer "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U "The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!" _______________________________________________ Xastir mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
