Thanks to everyone for their help. From the demo, I can see that the streets are looking really good, but I think Steve's right about the ALIGN FOLLOW labels: they're too bold and very aliased. Is this because these are still being rendered in GD, or some other problem? With the current appearance, it could be a showstopper for the project I'm working on right now, but everything else is looking fantastic, and once I've downloaded all the dependencies and compiled the SVN version, I hope to give some more useful feedback.
<br><br>Cheers,<br> Tom<br><br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:47:42 -0400<br>
From: Stephen Woodbridge <<a href="mailto:woodbri@SWOODBRIDGE.COM">woodbri@SWOODBRIDGE.COM</a>><br>Subject: Re: Status of AGG support?<br><br>Hi Zak,<br><br>Thank you and the others for all the responses. I got it working this
<br>morning:<br><br><a href="http://imaptools.com/agg-test.html">http://imaptools.com/agg-test.html</a><br><br>I have a few questions and observations:<br><br>The OL app above has two base layers. Both use the same mapfile, except
<br>one supports AGG and is using 5.0 and the other is using 4.10.<br><br>1) Notice the white lines in the water boarding some of the polygons.<br>What is causing that? How do you get rid of these?<br><br>2) If you switch between
4.10 and 5.0 AGG base layers notice that the<br>road widths change. What is causing this? I assume this is the same<br>issue as the polygons above.<br><br>3) If you zoom in to 15K scale of closer so street names are displayed
<br>the text looks really bad on text ALIGN FOLLOW labels. And the text is<br>much bolder and blacker than the 4.10 example.<br><br>more below ...<br><br>Zak James wrote:<br>> Steve,<br>><br>> In our testing, the AGG renderer is about 10% faster than GD over a
<br>> variety of conditions. One caveat is that the sub-pixel positioning of<br>> vertices (which greatly improves the appearance of features) can cause<br>> far longer rendering times if suitable overview data aren't available
<br>> for a given scale. We discussed but did not implement strategies for<br>> mitigating this problem.<br><br>I think that discussion should get added to the RFC. If I wanted to<br>provide my own overview data what are we talking about. Just having
<br>generalized data? Any rule of thumb on when you need to provide this?<br><br>> Another issue is that the antialiasing tends<br>> to cause larger image file sizes.<br><br>There really is not much that you can do about this. It will impact on
<br>bandwidth and tile repository sizes.<br><br>-Steve<br><br>> zak<br>><br>> On 7/3/07, Stephen Woodbridge <<a href="mailto:woodbri@swoodbridge.com">woodbri@swoodbridge.com</a>> wrote:<br>>> Paul, Steve,
<br>>><br>>> A few questions:<br>>><br>>> 1) could one of you do a short post on what if anything needs to be done<br>>> to use AGG other than install the libs and select some ./configure<br>
>> options.<br>>><br>>> 2) Any sense on how this compares speed wise to the GD implementation.<br>>><br>>> 3) is what is in the trunk all that 5.0 will see or is there some<br>>> additional work that is planed to be implemented.
<br>>><br>>> I would like to give it a try.<br>>><br>>> -Steve W<br>>><br>>> Paul Spencer wrote:<br>>> > The other thing that I am very keen to have is text rendered/placed<br>
>> > using AGG. Not sure if it will be done for 5.0 though.<br>>> ><br>>> > Cheers<br>>> ><br>>> > Paul<br>>> ></blockquote></div>