[Touch Diamond, MDA Compact IV General] low.flying.pigs:
Hello ElfKaa,

As I have exhaustively explained, the new maps implementation for myself in my circumstance work without issue with non of the delays or issues you experiance. There is no apparent significant difference in hardware in usage, hence my belief there exists a difference in the maps themselves. It turns out there is.

If you had the same results as me you would have no issues or frustrations at all. As I have exhaustively explained, I can only get a 250-500ms delay by deliberately not applying a moving finger to map, and then moving the previously stationary finger, as previously detailed, essentially needlessly creating 250-500ms delay myself while the context menu activates and cancels needlessly.

If I apply a slowly moving finger, the map near instantly starts moving slowly smoothly and fluidly.

If I apply a fast moving finger, the map near instantly starts moving fast smoothly and fluidly.

If I apply a slow moving finger and then without removing the finger speed up the movement of the finger, and vice versa, the map near instantly starts moving smoothly and fluidly and varies in speed accordingly.

And when I state the map near instantly starts moving, it does, and nothing like 250-500ms, more I would say 50-100ms, almost imperceptable.

With respect, in that case, quite simply you think wrong then. I have mapping of my prefered type for the whole region I require around my location, at the zoom levels I require. The map overall covers approximately 60 miles across and 40 miles top to bottom.

As maps are not special, you of course have nothing special from myself. The point however is that your non special maps are different to my non special maps, and my maps work without issue with the current implementation and yours do not.

With respect, if you wish to send a PM, I look forward to it and will read it, but I do not require it. To actually attempt to reproduce exactly what you are experiancing requires your map. Creating one similar will not produce one identical, only one that is somewhat similar, the extent of similarity being unknown. As it seems you will not now be providing as you originally stated you would, I will set about in due course creating my own approximation of a map similar to yours and take it from there. As stated, I was and remain interested to see how the HTC HD2 would handle the map you use, as it handles the map I use flawlessly without issue.

Here are a few of the reasons you don't see:

Because the classic implementation was fine for those that were satisfied with it, or it was all their hardware could support, or regard anything else as just eye-candy fancy stuff they have no interest in whatsoever.

Because the new implementation is perfectly capable of working without any issues whatsoever as I have established, and with some refinements can potentially be further improved to add currently unsupported features in the new implementation, present in the classic implementation, that seemingly become apparent by using in maps in the manner you do.

Because the classic implementation and new implementation already exist.

Because as they exist they can easily be retained and made selectable according to preference.

Because there exists no apparent reason whatsoever to force your idea for an implementation on others that are satisfied with what they already have, or had, and works for them, because you are not satisfied or it does not work for you, when both existing implementations have their place and their merits as does your suggested implementation. I have advocated throughout selectable options that enable satisfaction of everyone. Blaustein / Klaus has already stated he will attempt to satisfy everyone. Selectable implementations is clear method of how that is readily achievable.

I only stated 9x backbuffer because according to your own statement this what you initially wanted?

The speed of travel on the bicycle is not the relevent factor. One of the reasons for the new implmentaiton was to allow smooth fluid browsing of the map.

low.flying.pigs

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Hello Cheque,

As you regard the matter to be "just eye-candy fancy stuff" it is perhaps not surprising you "don't see the need of a three pages discussion". Perhaps you would see the need for discussion if it was a feature that interested you and served a useful purpose for you.

Perhaps there will be those that see no need for further feedback on the Track to Follow feature as they do not use it and have no interest in it, and consider it therefore fine as it is, or that it can be removed entirely regarding it as 'just unnecessary navigational fancy stuff'. The whole concept of GCC and using a smart phone or similar as a cycle computer could be written off as 'unnecessary fancy stuff'.

It is somewhat disappointing that as soon as there is any real discussion where users actually cared enough to discuss matters arising on what can, given the vast number of downloads, sadly only be described as a low activity thread that can go very long periods without contribution, someone within their contribution essentially includes a complaint about discussion taking place in the discussion forum. That will do little to encourage others to contribute which is a bad thing as GCC development may well cease if it is perceived there is little demand. I contribute only in attempt to keep the GCC project alive and well, to converse, not to argue, to advance the project positively and not score points or accumulate 'thanks'.

A check of recent versions will show much of the innovation, enhancement and improvement originated from pages of discussion from myself. I take no pride in that whatsoever, claim no credit and expect no thanks. Instead I despair at the situation. I think it is a sad reflection of how little contribution from others there has been.

Personally I look forward to any and all discussions, observations, bug reports, suggestions for new features and improvements and everything else. I believe this can only be good for the future of GCC and have advocated encouraging such with a prompt once in a while when closing GCC to encourage interaction and motivate some to be forthcoming with feedback for the benefit of all. This can be taken a step further by also encouraging the user to check at the same time if there is a new release version or beta.

GCC is already excellent and up there in my opinion with the best of them, however, that is not a reason it cannot be further developed and enhanced whilst retaining legacy features and legacy device compatibility.

I look forward with sincere interest to your feedback on Track to Follow along with anything else you may provide.

low.flying.pigs