Natmap Raster 2005 & Ozi.

Submitted: Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 13:33
ThreadID: 22450 Views:1623 Replies:4 FollowUps:17
This Thread has been Archived
I just received my NatMap Premium 2005 (thanks Juliana!) and am wondering how I import it into Ozi? The old calibration files are still on Ozi's site with no sight of any for this new one.

Anyone done it yet?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: pjchris - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 13:36

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 13:36
Just ugo to "File Menu>ImportMaps>ECW Maps". ecw files have the reference info built in. Ozi will then create the required map files for you.

Simple as....

Peter
AnswerID: 108593

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:25

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:25
Yeah that's what I thought/did?? But when I go to load my Waypoints it says there is a Map Calibration error.?
0
FollowupID: 365355

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:28

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:28
Oh yeah and I'm using WGS84 if that makes any difference.
0
FollowupID: 365359

Follow Up By: pjchris - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:53

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:53
I use WGS84 as well, and I can display waypoints from a loaded file with no problems...

What version of Ozi are you running?

Peter
0
FollowupID: 365367

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:57

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:57
V3.95.3f

Strangley enough I just copied the calibration details out of my old map into the new one and it's come up good now... ?
It has northings and eastings in the calibration of 2005 and yet it was using UDM for the older one. Anyway, I just deleted the northing/easting and copied the UDM details off the old map. I've checked my waypoints, looks like it might be a few meters out but it's pretty good. Will do for now.
0
FollowupID: 365370

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:58

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:58
Actually after zooming in, it looks pretty much spot on. Cool bananas! ;-)
0
FollowupID: 365371

Reply By: Member - Smocky (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 13:53

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 13:53
After you've done that Jeff, would you mind reporting back how much better the Premium maps are over the normal?

I know they are both 1:250000 but I'm hoping that with the better detail and less compression, you may be able to zoom a little better and still make stuff out.

Before everyone jumps on me, I know it makes no difference to the magnification, but if the detail when zoomed up is better, then it is practically more useful.

Cheers,

Jason.
AnswerID: 108596

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:26

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:26
Well I've actually had the maps up, they are just not calibrated properly for some reason...
They look almost the same (almost dissapointed) but you can make out all of those little fine red tracks at 200% zoom than you could never see properly before. It deffinatally is better, even at 100% it looks alot clearer, the town names etc are sharp at clear.
0
FollowupID: 365357

Follow Up By: Member - Smocky (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:30

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:30
Thanks Jeff, are they actually good enough to use for a rough idea of where you are and how to get out of the Park? I intend having a proper map with us as well.
0
FollowupID: 365360

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:35

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:35
Well I've only had a 10 minute rough play with it so far, but it looks basically identicle to the older version as far as the amount of tracks etc, the thing is you could actually use them to navigate now as they are clear and not blury. As far as little off the beaten track tracks go you would still probally be better off with a 50k map. But the 99% of what I do I think this will be fine.
I spose if you are well an truly lost on some bleep ant little track you could always use the 250k to find a track on the map and follow it out.
0
FollowupID: 365362

Follow Up By: pjchris - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:45

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:45
Actually to my mind they are a little softer than the old set.. I find them more blurry rather than less...

Peter
0
FollowupID: 365365

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:47

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 15:47
Hmmm, I'm not sure why? I was just switching from one to the other. Deffintally a vast improvment IMHO. Peter, which Datum are you using?
0
FollowupID: 365366

Follow Up By: pjchris - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:07

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:07
Jeff,

Using GDA94 as the display datum in Ozi.

As far as soft/sharp....

The images are softer...particularly around the edges of objects...But there are less compression artifacts than there were and the image when zoomed in is easier to look at than before as the number of colours is higher and the compression artifacts lower.

See here: http://www.pjchris.myqth.com/NatMap/index.htm for a comparison of the melbourne area with waypoints from the 2003 and 2005 maps.

Peter
0
FollowupID: 365374

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:19

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:19
Arrrrrhh, I see the problem now. You live in Melborne! ;-)
There's way to much crap on that map, you need to come over to the west, they are much easier to read! LOL

Here: http://www.members.westnet.com.au/themeads/pictures/host/mapdemo.jpg
0
FollowupID: 365379

Follow Up By: pjchris - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 17:04

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 17:04
btw... My screen snapshots as posted above are at 175% zoom...

Peter
0
FollowupID: 365391

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 17:10

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 17:10
Mine was 200%.
0
FollowupID: 365393

Reply By: Member - Craig M (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:15

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:15
Hi,
Just a bit of a queery?
You say the new version you could actually use it for navigating as it isnt blurry.
I have the old NatMap 2003 files and I cant say I ever noticed them being blurry.
Maybe it depends on the type of gear that is being used to display the maps.
I am using a good quality laptop with a decent screen.
I recently did a 7000km trip and used it for moving map navigation with no probs at all.

Cheers
AnswerID: 108615

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:22

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 16:22
Craig, I'm using a P4 NEC M300 with a 15" LCD screen. But that has nothing to do with it, we are talking about zooming in to 200% (maximum zoom) for following those little off the beaten track tracks. Obviously for those we "should" be using 50k maps, but I find the 50k maps so out of date somtimes that the 250k is better. With the higher resolution and less compression those little tracks (which you can barley see on the older version) are much clearer now.
0
FollowupID: 365380

Follow Up By: Member - Smocky (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 17:48

Thursday, Apr 28, 2005 at 17:48
Thanks Jeff, that post actually made the most sense to me of everything that has been said today.

You use the 250k maps generally, but you SHOULD use 50k maps for the National Park off the main path maps, but you CAN get away with the 250k maps, and now they are better than they used to be, so get the DVD version. How simple was that !!!!

I'm online ordering mine from the EO Shop now. Keep your eyes open for my order Juliana.

Thanks Jeff, and everyone else of course. The penny was bound to drop eventually.
0
FollowupID: 365398

Reply By: Pluto - Friday, Apr 29, 2005 at 19:35

Friday, Apr 29, 2005 at 19:35
Jeff,

Have another look on the OziExplorer site. The calibration Files for both versions of Raster 250K have been posted to the Australian Page.

That will save you any import calibration errors.
AnswerID: 108839

Follow Up By: pjchris - Friday, Apr 29, 2005 at 23:03

Friday, Apr 29, 2005 at 23:03
This link should work....

Peter
0
FollowupID: 365630

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)