Phone performance problem during Locus Navigation

0709 shared this idea 4 years ago
In Progress

Hi Menion,

See observations here:

Phone performance problems during Navigation, using direct generated Locus Navigation.

http://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php?topic=3372.msg33435#msg33435

Turnpoints are determined by looking over a certain track distance and NOT by one individual point angle of the original track. An new artificial track with a lot of extra trackpoints is created to help for the aritmics.


However it also seems that this same artificial track inclusive the turnindications is in use during real Navigation instead of using the original much smaller track. Is it not possible to "plant" the generated turnindications onto that original (small) track, to the nearest original trackpoints ? Keeping the unchanged original track, only add the turnpoints information (Coursepoints/ .tcx). Delete that artificial track when the turnindications aritmics job is done and finished. This should result in a much more responsive smooth phone Navigation experience. Without a phone continuously struggling with that very BIG artificial track with a lot (too many) trackpoints during real track driving.

0709 – Willy.

Comments (13)

photo
1

Maybe Turnpoint is a routepoint, not waypoint. It is part of route.

Trackpoint is part of track.

Maybe Coursepoint in .tcx is a similar to waypoint, not turnpoint

photo
1

Hi wkdl,

I observed phone performance problems during Navigation/Guiding using tracks with high density trackpoints. As those generated by the internal Navigation generator. (Maybe this also happen using recorded tracks and high density trackpoint results but not tested) .

That same traject....as in the example .tcx files using less trackpoints is no problem.

http://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php?topic=4178.msg32826#msg32826 in reply nr 10.


Noticed: No perfect Gesture control response or perfect return to track messages.

photo
1

Points: Menion was very clear, for him only excist: trackpoints and waypoints. Stop.

photo
1

I started to write Locus in that way ... and personally, I see no huge reason, why to change it. I of course see a difference, but has it any sense to separate tracks and routes, waypoints and routepoints etc? I don't thing so.


Btw. nice idea and I agree that handling of generated track should be optimised. You have my vote! :)

photo
1

fetch


above is a track


below is a route


Track and Route are not same , They are defferent each other

fetch

photo
photo
1

In GPX Schema,


Route is an ordered list of routepoints leading to a destination.

Track is an ordered list of trackpoints describing a path.


In GPS Unit(Locus)


Track is the connecting line of trackpoints. It is the past.

Route is the connecting line of routepoints leading to a destination. It is the future.


Navigation is run via route.

Itinerary is an ordered list of Turnpoints, that is a part of routepoint.

fetch

photo
1

Hi,


may you explain me please, why all these posts?? We do not discuss here differences between track/route etc. So please, leave this discussion to other topics as it has nothing to do here. Thanks.

photo
photo
1

Willy,

I'm testing this issue as Saturday morning excersise ... seems that I was already thinking about it and optimization of points is already done.


Example:

One of my bike rides - 2141 points recorded.

After generating (track required for compute of directions: 8404 points

After generating is done and track is optimized: remains 3140 points

I'm increased strength of optimization: now remains 1499 points


So you'll see in next version if this help. There is need to find some compromise between correct (same as original) shape of new "route" and optimization. I believe this in new version it will be ok.

photo
1

Hi Menion,


Thank's . Sounds promising and probably also good news for idea by Ingo ;-)

http://help.locusmap.eu/topic/track-simplification

In my own language: "Twee vliegen in één klap."

photo
1

Willy, thanx for making the connection - I would've missed this thread.


Menion, do you plan on making this optimization available "on-demand" for any track or just automatically for generated one. Because being able to do it with any track would probably make my idea mostly solved :)

photo
1

This is little bit different situation Ingo, so no. This simplification apply only for temporary track created for this special kind of navigation.


Your idea about simplification sound interesting for me and I think it may be really useful, mainly for increasing performance, anyway I needs to see a bigger interest (votes), so we will see later ;).

photo
1

Thanx, Menion.

So get voting, guys ;)

photo
photo
1

So back to topic ...


What Willy wrote is exact ... "Navigation generator" generates aritificial track that is used for final guidance/navigation. I was testing amount of these generated points on a few testing tracks and result was, that generated track has usually less trackpoints, then original track. It is mainly thanks to optimizing step, which trackpoints that lay on single line, eliminate to just start-end trackpoint.


So if you have any track, where you feel that map during guidance/navigation is a lot slower (maybe because of generated artificial track), please share this track with me so I may check it also.


Maybe one more information. I've tested it with "medium" amount of commands. Settings "high" should also increase amount of trackpoints because distance between them will be shorter.