Kind of fun playing around, have not yet decided with type to use, Raster or Vector.

Some screenshots from my HDS 7 Gen1 Unit.
It always looks more beautyful on the computer, so it is more fair to dump screenshots from plotter.

Some Raster tryouts.....

Stainless wrote:
This one I like a lot actually, just presenting the essentials in a clean way!

Did you use any specif parameters, or limit amount of colors? transparency?

I see FÖG in your display, Swedish maybe? :)

Yeah Swedish....... :))
You could figure that out by the GPS coordinates....... :)))))

All screenshots are from the same chart.
The limit of depth is set to 1 to 18 meters, and the deepest area is 30-37 meters, thats why it is so dark.
But for my use its not necessary to see anything at those depths, i need to see the depths from 4-10 meters maybe 15 with the rigs.

awesome maps,

what is the main difference between using raster and vector?

cheers
jusin

fatjusto wrote:


Vector mode creates closed polygons for each depth range, as defined by the major contour interval. Each of these closed polygons (isobaths) can be filled in a particular colour, but for AT5 maps you are limited to the AT5 colour palette. Vector maps retain their quality very well as they are zoomed and, because each area is defined by just it's boundary and a colour, the on-disk size of vector maps can be very small. With a vector map, you can e.g. easily change the colour of certain depth ranges etc, which you cannot do as precisely with raster maps.

Raster mode shows depth colours as an image underneath the contour lines. The image is created by colouring each point (pixel) within the image according to the depth at that position. Raster mode may show changes in depth that are not apparent in a vector map - e.g. small changes within a contour interval, that would all be rendered in the same colour in vector mode. Because raster mode uses an image as background, any colours that you can see in RM can also be seen on your plotter - you are not limited to the AT5 colour set. Finished maps have a much larger file size than do vector maps, although this is not really much an issue in practice.

See this manual page for more.


in practical terms, these are the differences when using raster/vector in RM:

Raster

• Raster mode map projects generate more quickly than do vector, as isobath generation is an additional process that is not performed when generating raster maps.
• Raster mode maps can be displayed on (shaded relief supporting) Navico sounders more or less as you see them in RM.
• AT5 maps with raster backgrounds take a lot longer to generate in the IMC.
• Raster maps will not export with coloured backgrounds to Google Earth (although you can export a calibrated image file instead).

Vector

• Vector maps take longer to generate in RM. This can be significant, although will be much improved in the next release (currently in beta).
• Vector maps produce much smaller AT5 map files, and are much quicker to generate in the IMC.
• Vector maps can look better than raster maps at higher zoom levels.
• Vector maps can be exported to Google Earth with the full range of RM colours, and produce map files small enough to be used on mobile devices (image overlays do not, typically).
• Vector maps are much more configurable than raster maps. E.g. if you want to remove certain isobaths, or colour certain depth ranges to highlight them, this is easy.
• Vector layers have categories, which can be switched on or off in most Navico sounders. E.g. a hardness vector layer can be shown over the top of the depth layer and switched on or off as needed.

Matt

Hi Stainless and Ankfoot:

Can both of you upload a part of your map AT5 and the SHP file. I would like to see how it looks on my HDS10 Gen1 and see what your SHP Attributes are. I have made charts with 1 foot contours in Global Mapper of my lakes and export to shp files. My contours are not as nice on the HDS10 gen1 unit IMC must be removing lots of the data points.

Thanks
Basskiller