Thread: City Navigator® North America NT 2012.20

Originally Posted by Frustated XT user

I dont mind uploading to a premium server filesonic account for those like me who use filesonic. Some comments are MOST of the links work....not acceptable. Let's not do a half ass job. The captcha requirement though from the multiupload and fileserve sights are a PIA. However, nobody is able to verify this all works. Most of the discussion so far, 4 pages is how the links or files are corrupt. I think it'll be wise to wait for a verified working and fast torrent from the usual devil site and skip the single one by one file download nonesense. BTW, jcv is not a big deal. For those who have a unit that is a few years old like the 7x5 it's really bloated. Use the original OEM .jcv that you wouldve backed up, use the 2012.10 version or get the archived .jcv from official gps sites.

A 7x5 user updating to 2012.20, regardless of how much memory the device may have internally, will get a 51MB Junction View file, which means the 7X5 owners are going to get one-tenth the junction views that users of the 37xx series get. They cannot simply replace the JCV file with one from 2012.10 or the OEM backup that they may have made because the junction view file is paired with the map image. Please do not spread misleading information simply because you do not like how the map update is being distributed.


Compared to 2011.40, the current JCV file for the 37xx series is huge. A (roughly) 340MB difference from 2011.40 to 2012.20, and a 90MB difference from 2012.10 to 2012.20. Is it bloated? Garmin could have continued to use its diagrams, but instead chose a photorealistic option for all its junction views, so yes it is bloated. However, I have personally found the photoreal views useful, and thus this is bloat I cannot complain about.

What are you talking about??? What misleading info? Your're providing misleading info. Copying a 340 mb file onto your 7x5 will consumer 340 mb. It doesnt matter how much the device sees or use, it still sucks up storage space, your GPS does not have unlimited storage. duh! Each device is different in storage capacity. This is why if you download the map through Garmin, the downloader updates how much it needs on your device. If your're suggesting the .jcv files are not backwards compatible, that is correct. If that's what you're trying to say, then please do so.

The fact I dont like how the downloads are setup and how the moderator is handling things is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Frustated XT user

What are you talking about??? What misleading info? Your're providing misleading info. Copying a 340 mb file onto your 7x5 will consumer 340 mb. It doesnt matter how much the device sees or use, it still sucks up storage space, your GPS does not have unlimited storage. duh! Each device is different in storage capacity. This is why if you download the map through Garmin, the downloader updates how much it needs on your device. If your're suggesting the .jcv files are not backwards compatible, that is correct. If that's what you're trying to say, then please do so.

The fact I dont like how the downloads are setup and how the moderator is handling things is irrelevant.

Misleading info? You telling people that they can take their old JCV files from 2012.10 and use them in 2012.20 is misleading. It's hyperbole on your part, and it is flat out wrong information. At this point, no one should take you seriously, because you have proven yourself to not be credible.

Your discontent with the downloads and how Catymag chooses to run the site has bearing upon your credibility because it shows to all who look that you have an axe to grind. It is said that the guilty often are the first ones to jump to the defensive whenever their point of view is questioned. I'd say you've condemned yourself.

EDIT: I had to read your post a second time. In your arrogance you completely missed the point. Garmin is pushing a 51MB file to users of its nüvi receivers who upgrade their units to 2012.20 and that have small amounts of memory. 51MB is approximately 10% (actual number: 11.4%) of the full file. Which means there is no possible way that the small file can contain every junction view present in the large file. Please explain to me just how that is misleading, because numbers do not lie.

Originally Posted by smokefree

Just to look at things from a different perspective... is the 51 MB JCV file so much smaller than the 446 MB file because it contains less images of junctions? Or could it be the file size is smaller because the images have a lower resolution...??

I downloaded the smaller file linked in the first post and installed it just to see what would happen. The test route I ran was from the intersection of Route 81 and Rodman Street in Fall River, Massachusetts to a friend's house in Moncton, NB. The large file had 15 Junction Views along the route. The same route with the smaller file had zero.

The smaller file has fewer images.

Originally Posted by Strephon Alkhalikoi

...Compared to 2011.40, the current JCV file for the 37xx series is huge. A (roughly) 340MB difference from 2011.40 to 2012.20, and a 90MB difference from 2012.10 to 2012.20.

Tested on a TWN2465 (mod to US2360) and a TWN1370, SF bay area. Works well. Junction views display on both devices as split-screens.

Previous versions: full-screen images. Junction views show up only at interchanges of freeways or complex junctions. JCVs show in full-screen on the 2465 undistorted and as split-screens on the 1370, but squished horizontally.

Current version: half-screen images, look photo-real and a lot more junction views too. Just about all the freeway exits that I drive by have junction views. Very imprecise rough guesstimate: 5-10 times more junction views in the SF Bay Area .