ARCView 2 vs. GRASS -- opinions?
Jim Klein
lkla at netcom.com
Fri Nov 10 07:00:00 EST 1995
9??95?10?02?18?am at bnr.ca>
content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: grassu-list at max.cecer.army.mil
newsgroups: info.grass.user
originator: daemon at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
We use Grass4.1 ArcCAD and ArcView2 which accomplishes most of what we
need to do. However, I was originally informed by ESRI that ArcView
would be a good way to pull all these things together (vector and
raster). Unfortunately, it is pretty difficult to export a grass raster
image into arcview (basically you can't.) -- you have export the grass
raster file as an image file that is readible by ArcView and then
register it with your arcview data. --
If you do a lot of raster type analyses, then Grass is a fine way to go.
If you are looking to make pretty maps for reports, then you need
something different, such as ArcView 2.1
>
> > > I heard recently from a colleague about ARCView 2. From her
> description, it seems like a viable option as a low-cost (approx $400
> US per seat) GIS. I don't know a whole lot about it, though. Does
> anyone have any feelings about this package, especially how its
> capabilities compare to GRASS? Are they competitors or do they
> complement each other?
>
> Thanks....
>
> Tim G.
>
Jim Klein
lkla at netcom.com
More information about the grass-user
mailing list