Hi Andrzej, thanks for the infos and the data. When you see the 50 % faster operations whith the 29483018.img, is that in a rather low populated area ? Gerd > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:19:13 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Optimizing MapSplitter > > Hi Gerd, > > I have prepared a tile in a way you have suggested. See files here: > http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/224/test.7z > > Archive include following maps: > 29483019.img - map compiled by mkgmap with mkgm-test.bat > 29483018.img - map recompiled by cGPSmapper with TreSize=511 > 29483017.img - map recompiled by cGPSmapper with default TreSize > > I have included OSM data and mp source too. You can create img for > device using included mk_device.bat. > > My observations are following: > > All maps are work quite good in device, it is not easy to tell which is > the fastest. > > I can measure differences in redraw time between both version of > cgpsmapper maps, the one with TreSize=511 can be up to 50% faster in > some operations (measured in nuvi 1440). > > Map compiled with mkgmap is fast, as good as faster version of cgpsmapper. > > Since mkgmap creates fast maps, I'm not sure now, if subdivision size is > so important. Maybe not, or maybe there is still some room for > improvement in mkgmap? > > -- > Best regards, > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
