MAPSERVER-DEV Digest - 3 Jul 2007 to 4 Jul 2007 (#2007-137)

[Tom Beard]

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.

Cheers,
           Tom


> Date:    Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:47:42 -0400
> From:    Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at SWOODBRIDGE.COM>
> Subject: Re: Status of AGG support?
>
> Hi Zak,
>
> Thank you and the others for all the responses. I got it working this
> morning:
>
> http://imaptools.com/agg-test.html
>
> I have a few questions and observations:
>
> The OL app above has two base layers. Both use the same mapfile, except
> one supports AGG and is using 5.0 and the other is using 4.10.
>
> 1) Notice the white lines in the water boarding some of the polygons.
> What is causing that? How do you get rid of these?
>
> 2) If you switch between 4.10 and 5.0 AGG base layers notice that the
> road widths change. What is causing this? I assume this is the same
> issue as the polygons above.
>
> 3) If you zoom in to 15K scale of closer so street names are displayed
> the text looks really bad on text ALIGN FOLLOW labels. And the text is
> much bolder and blacker than the 4.10 example.
>
> more below ...
>
> Zak James wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > In our testing, the AGG renderer is about 10% faster than GD over a
> > variety of conditions. One caveat is that the sub-pixel positioning of
> > vertices (which greatly improves the appearance of features) can cause
> > far longer rendering times if suitable overview data aren't available
> > for a given scale. We discussed but did not implement strategies for
> > mitigating this problem.
>
> I think that discussion should get added to the RFC. If I wanted to
> provide my own overview data what are we talking about. Just having
> generalized data? Any rule of thumb on when you need to provide this?
>
> > Another issue is that the antialiasing tends
> > to cause larger image file sizes.
>
> There really is not much that you can do about this. It will impact on
> bandwidth and tile repository sizes.
>
> -Steve
>
> > zak
> >
> > On 7/3/07, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri at swoodbridge.com> wrote:
> >> Paul, Steve,
> >>
> >> A few questions:
> >>
> >> 1) could one of you do a short post on what if anything needs to be
> done
> >> to use AGG other than install the libs and select some ./configure
> >> options.
> >>
> >> 2) Any sense on how this compares speed wise to the GD implementation.
> >>
> >> 3) is what is in the trunk all that 5.0 will see or is there some
> >> additional work that is planed to be implemented.
> >>
> >> I would like to give it a try.
> >>
> >> -Steve W
> >>
> >> Paul Spencer wrote:
> >> > The other thing that I am very keen to have is text rendered/placed
> >> > using AGG.  Not sure if it will be done for 5.0 though.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20070706/dae75ae9/attachment.html