|
|
2007-11-13
, 15:04
|
|
|
Posts: 341 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Aug 2007
|
#271
|
|
|
2007-11-13
, 16:04
|
|
|
Posts: 641 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#272
|
|
|
2007-11-13
, 16:07
|
|
Posts: 130 |
Thanked: 13 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
|
#273
|
|
|
2007-11-13
, 16:16
|
|
Posts: 98 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Knightdale, NC
|
#274
|
|
|
2007-11-13
, 17:28
|
|
|
Posts: 1,245 |
Thanked: 421 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#275
|
Is it just me, or are the maps taking up more space than before? In the past I've predownloaded the maps for Fairbanks and North Pole. It used to take around 800Mb. Now the same area says it's going to take around 4Gb! Same zoom levels for both.
|
|
2007-11-13
, 17:31
|
|
|
Posts: 1,245 |
Thanked: 421 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#276
|
Yeah, they do seem to take up more space. I have a couple problems though... When I zoom with any map (street/satellite) into a zoom level of 0 or 1, the download doesn't work. It says something like 49 maps failed to download. What's going on with this?
|
|
2007-11-13
, 17:32
|
|
|
Posts: 1,245 |
Thanked: 421 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#277
|
|
|
2007-11-13
, 17:32
|
|
|
Posts: 1,245 |
Thanked: 421 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#278
|
I'm also having a bit of trouble with this. My 3G/EDGE connection is extremely lousy (lots of packet losses etc.) and the 'processing maps' takes many minutes every time there are maps to be updated (or fail to update). Maybe the download area margin could be made configurable?
|
|
2007-11-13
, 17:35
|
|
|
Posts: 1,245 |
Thanked: 421 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#279
|
|
|
2007-11-13
, 17:40
|
|
|
Posts: 1,245 |
Thanked: 421 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
|
#280
|
I think there may be a bug with the distance calculations. Last night i checked the track distance from my home to the Beacon Theater in Manhattan and it said that I traveled over 3,000 miles. Could this be due to the new more detailed zoom levels?