Jason,
I can redo the .xbm's to allow for the dithering and proper stacking.
The ones that I created were built to fill in the gaps.
I can go through them and make sure that they will properly stack and
not obliterate.
Something to do while in my lazyboy listening to classical music
enjoyi
On Aug 6, 2007, at 6:24 AM, Eric H Christensen wrote:
Shouldn't there be a way to prioritize them? For example, the
Thunderstorm Warning should be trumped by the Tornado Warning.
The current xbm's that I put together would "stack" - the text was
placed so that text from one wouldn't go on
Time of issue. A SVR will invariably be issued for an area prior to a
TOR. A TOR and SVR are both short-term and short-fuse warnings.
Service messages can screw with this logic, however.
In the new scheme of warnings, the smaller polygon-based Storm Based
Warnings should show up as smaller d
Eric,
The code, from what I see, can be prioritized. Last night, I had two up
at once over Chicago - Svr Tstorm and Tornado. If they can be
consistently layered, the need for priority goes out the window. The
layering would allow for showing all warnings that are active for the area.
73 from 80
Shouldn't there be a way to prioritize them? For example, the Thunderstorm
Warning should be trumped by the Tornado Warning. I think UIV had a
prioritization scheme that showed the color for the highest alert and then on
mouse over would show all of the alerts for that particular county.
73s,
