RouteBuddy

Hi Luke,


I think you have a valid point in that RouteBuddy doesn't yet have the features of TomTom's.

Currently RouteBuddy certainly has wider-use-range than a TomTom, however once all of the PND navigation features are in place similar to TomTom's, Garmin and other PND devices then we'll be moving the software forward to build in the specific features over and above PNDs. The like of which are requested on this forum.

Of course you'll still be able to use RouteBuddy to connect to your hiking devices, look at Topo maps as well as Road ones, source maps for anywhere you travel and so on. In other words RouteBuddy has added value and this we'll be advancing with each and every build.

I'm not so sure about the dash room being an issue? After all I suspect that most CarPuter users wish to run something like a Xenarc/Lilliput screen off their Mac mini / MB(P) which is installed elsewhere in the car. Stacked up against a larger, and more useable, slim 7" screen - retractable or fixed, then IMHO I feel that the in-car installation is preferable. It's not only the larger navigation screen that gives an advantage but the power of the Mac with its own software and enormous library of media, let alone processing power and configurability.

TomTom's do not have 3D maps, nor do any other PNDs on the market. This is pure marketing hype. What PNDs do have is a best described as 2.5D, where essentially the camera is raised above the flat plain.

RouteBuddy will in time have 3D maps as well as 2.5D, because we have the processing power of the Mac to make it so. I can't comment on the processing power of the average PND but think we'd all agree it would be very minor compared to that of a real computer. ;-)




Hacking would be a huge and costly task to undertake, anyway the software is Linux. IMHO the very limited processing power would cripple getting video out to a screen, along with many other issues. The main one being the resolution giving fuzzy images from reduced map data size. To explain: The raw data set for North America is 14GB (from Tele Atlas or Navteq) and for this we developed our own proprietary compression engine which reduces the 14GB to 7GB (installed), this data decompresses and compresses on-the-fly. Currently, amongst other things, we are working on Stage II of this compression engine and plan to make greater reductions in installed map sizes but-without-loss-of-any-fidelity.

Loss of fidelity is a critical issue in any map software because if a developer extracts data to get a smaller installation size then the accuracy (detail) is lost at the same time. The average non-compressed size we see is 1 to 2 GB in map apps and right down to 1400MB for maps on SD cards for PNDs. (Yes that's right 1400MB, not GB.)
So:
100% data = 100% fidelity = 100% accuracy
10% data = 10% fidelity = 10% accuracy
ergo RouteBuddy with 100% data is best suited to render high definition, high quality and high accuracy maps on your screen.




For a very good reason, there is no point.
- To use Googles maps you would have to cover the whole map and render at all levels and then save the rendered images to a cache on your disk, so think of the storage problems involved.
- Then how would you build routes on rendered images? The routing information in any application like RouteBuddy is performed on another layer but with reference to many many levels of road data in other layers.

Google are in the advertising business, not the road mapping business. Google Maps and Google Earth are a very useful adjunct to bring advertisers and consumers together. Nothing more and nothing less.

Luke I hope I haven't dampened your enthusiasm for other avenues but we have a wealth of carefully researched data here from over five years over R&D on the subject and are happy to share some of it with others.


Check out our TomTom Beta support in RouteBuddy 1.4


Neil
www.routebuddy.com