Thread: Garmin City Navigator Europe NT 2014.40

Originally Posted by monterra

D2504160A.JCV High Resolution For 1XXX/Zumo/7X5
D3084130A.JCV for other models

IMHO both of these JCVs have the same resolution and format.
Just D3084130A.JCV file contains much less junction views than the file D2504160A.JCV.

For example, D3084130A.JCV file does not contain junction views for the following maps:

Code:

Please Login or Register to see the links

Originally Posted by Cnfhbr

IMHO both of these JCVs have the same resolution and format.
Just D3084130A.JCV file contains much less junction views than the file D2504160A.JCV.

How are not bored to discuss about it from version to version???
No difference in picture (JCV image). D2504XXXA.JCV was smaller for placement into 4Gb memory of LMT device. Less JCV image is less size in Gb. Now in any case we need SD for whole coverage but Garmin is very conservative and marketing subordinate company. Maybe in body of JCV image present any difference but I catch only difference in lack of some JCV in small files for all gone years.

Originally Posted by Giomen

How are not bored to discuss about it from version to version???
.............

Because the terms 'Resolution' and 'Picture Size' do get constantly confused and although interrelated to some degree [Picture Size determines total pixels so affects Resolution] clearly Resolution is comparative and can only be either High or Low when comparing one image to another, or the one image to itself on different size screens, i.e. more or less ppi means higher or lower resolution.

I honestly don't think it's really worth comment in any case because the inference caused by the incorrect interchangeablity of the two terms is so widespread as to make it almost acceptable. Confusing Resolution with overall file size however is not acceptable although it sometime happens. In this case as Caty points out to me in a Visitor Message, she believes that monterra simply means that the two files are for different models with which opinion i agree. However if one file is labeled 'High Resolution' it must be higher compared to something else, hence the possible implication the first is higher res. than the second.

Best we roll with it imo, and simply accept the quirky usage just as we accept VendorID.

Originally Posted by Neil

Because the terms 'Resolution' and 'Picture Size' do get constantly confused and although interrelated to some degree [Picture Size determines total pixels so affects Resolution] clearly Resolution is comparative and can only be either High or Low when comparing one image to another, or the one image to itself on different size screens, i.e. more or less ppi means higher or lower resolution.

I honestly don't think it's really worth comment in any case because the inference caused by the incorrect interchangeablity of the two terms is so widespread as to make it almost acceptable. Confusing Resolution with overall file size however is not acceptable although it sometime happens. In this case as Caty points out to me in a Visitor Message, she believes that monterra simply means that the two files are for different models with which opinion i agree. However if one file is label 'High Resolution' it must be higher compared to something else, hence the possible implication the first is higher res. than the second.

Best we roll with it imo, and simply accept the quirky usage just as we accept VendorID.

Neil, I hope you had the well thought than quoted me.
I remember what Nuvi 1xxx had LaneAssist upto nuvi13xxand14xxseries_regionfileonly__490.gcd. After Garmin hammered a nail in attempt to pack the map and additional files into 4GB of internal memory the nuvi13xxand14xxseries_regionfileonly__500.gcd gave me new from MapUpdater a file with new identifier - LaneAssistFull. But for Nuvi 765 it stayed the same - LaneAssist. I was younger than old maid age limit and made classic test with two navis (765 and 1390) on windscreen. Only one difference was noticed it was less number of JCV pictures on route. On back route I put LaneAssistFull in 765 and score became equal. After this I remember about LaneAssist (smaller by size) file if I do not have sufficient place in memory for any devices only.
Now I am legal old maid and de jure I do not must have good brains in my head. It is easier for me to write off this fact to Garmin marketing quirks. I think that only syzygy can analyze both file and make an objective judgment.

I agree that it's a misnomer, and maybe it first arose because of the when different JCV picture sizes started to be used e.g. 212*234 v. 480*270, but has then later been 'hijacked' to differentiate between different file sizes. In the case of D3084130A.JCV and D2504160A.JCV they are both 480*270 so stating that one is High Resolution which suggests that the other is 'Low Resolution' is clearly an incorrect implication when they are simply different file sizes due to the number of images. Of course, what really matters is the inference that the reader makes from the description [however right or wrong the implication is] and most readers would know what monterra meant simply because of regular [mis]use of the term.

We probably should discourage the usage of that reference when it doesn't refer to resolution at all. Then again, are we going to be able to resist the ongoing use of VendorID [FID, PID, RID, VID] when with hind-sight it's clearly nothing of the sort and is really a Sub-RegionID? The obvious answer is no, but then it's a 'uniquely Garmin' misdescription. Some things you just have to live with i suppose.

Originally Posted by Neil

I agree that it's a misnomer, and maybe it first arose because of the when different JCV picture sizes started to be used e.g. 212*234 v. 480*270, but has then later been 'hijacked' to differentiate between different file sizes. In the case of D3084130A.JCV and D2504160A.JCV they are both 480*270 so stating that one is High Resolution which suggests that the other is 'Low Resolution' is clearly an incorrect implication when they are simply different file sizes due to the number of images. Of course, what really matters is the inference that the reader makes from the description [however right or wrong the implication is] and most readers would know what monterra meant simply because of regular [mis]use of the term.

We probably should discourage the usage of that reference when it doesn't refer to resolution at all. Then again, are we going to be able to resist the ongoing use of VendorID [FID, PID, RID, VID] when with hind-sight it's clearly nothing of the sort and is really a Sub-RegionID? The obvious answer is no, but then it's a 'uniquely Garmin' misdescription. Some things you just have to live with i suppose.

I agree with Neil and consider this a meaningfully discuss! Don’t agree? So, let me tell what I think:
The Garmin don’t have any interest in correctly specify their products because you must contact a vendor or do the update automatic by Garmin Express; but we have to entirely identify any file to share because the downloader don’t have many ways to do this… To software experts as you, this may be a foolish; however, to me and others that don`t has all this knowledge, the difficult is huge, and the result is many posts asking what file to download…
This concern I have when I post in [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and; to me, “for high res devices” means that the file has origin in an 800 X 480 pixels screen device and can be used by any device with the same resolution of screen (I suppose), the “max res” for garmin nuvis today. Of course I cannot discuss with Neil (and the dictionary)! The picture size is, in pixels, 800 X 480; and the resolution must consider the inches or size of the screen and the effect is in the appearance…; a important matter if you want to be clear.

Best regards to all!

PC install NT 2014.40 problem

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Reading just the first page [posts #3,4,7 & 8] would have enlightened you.

@ lacika640301
See Post #3 and #4.