Now that pisses me off. It is now working irrespective of map size. Guess it
had to get used to the idea of landcover.
Thanks.
From: castarritt .
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 2:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question
I also use maps a lot larger than my display resolution. I bet your RM didn't
incorporate the land cover data until it drew a new map. I would try drawing
it again at the size you want.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything like
that.
Don't forget to set your heights and densities.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question
Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your display,
the land cover data will not show.
I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible. Once I hit
1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of colors.
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question
OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/
All the other links seem to not work.
I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them. Perhaps because they were zip
files not the native file.
In any event, nothing looks different. If I do a path profile it shows
some little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they should
be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed. Should the map look different?
Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I don’t
trust?
