25 replies to this topic

[David Medeiros]

Good luck with your quest Patrick. This is something of a recurring theme and it would be peachy keen if there were options out there for people that want more than the default Arcmap export functionality and less than Mapub's deluxe GIS-within-Illustrator style of functionality. Someone should build a basic georeferencing kind of Illy tool that offers only the ability to import new map layers into an Illustrator document and adapt to existing georeferencing entry level customers such as yourself. Then those of us on the corporate budgets could keep buying the expensive tools and those just entering the market would have a legal option.

In the meantime, the ESRI mapping center is a great place to look for tips! Some it might still be applicable even if you exporting files from a different software suite.

This is something we were just talking about earlier this week at work. A "MAPublisher lite" would be a great tool. Something that reads .shp files directly (bypassing the Arc .ai process) allowing full access to the layer line work, not just whats on screen. It would only need to retain enough info about the reference system to allow for proper placement and scaling of new layers. It would require the user to prepare all layers for AI in Arc before hand, mostly setting a uniform refernce system. No need for transformations or advanced styling options, basically just a .shp importer. I would guess that a tool like that, at a reasonable price ($150 or less maybe) or even as shareware could drive more sales to full MAPub then the demo does.

[Patrick Sewell]

It would require the user to prepare all layers for AI in Arc before hand, mostly setting a uniform refernce system. No need for transformations or advanced styling options, basically just a .shp importer.

I think converting the SHP files to AI would be fairly simple, but it would be better if it could deal with different projections. But that would be the hard part, requiring lots of math and knowledge of different projections. It wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be difficult.

If we worked up an open source project, it might be easy to find the right people to work this out.

[Ted Florence]

We used to offer a MAPublisher Lite version.
In fact we did for many years, from version 1.0 all the way to v5.0
But sales were very very small and 99% of those who bought it upgraded to the full version within 30 or 60 days.
So we stopped offering it.

[David Medeiros]

It would require the user to prepare all layers for AI in Arc before hand, mostly setting a uniform refernce system. No need for transformations or advanced styling options, basically just a .shp importer.

I think converting the SHP files to AI would be fairly simple, but it would be better if it could deal with different projections. But that would be the hard part, requiring lots of math and knowledge of different projections. It wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be difficult.

If we worked up an open source project, it might be easy to find the right people to work this out.

I agree, live transformation would be ideal. My guess is this is a major component to MAPub and probably a significant programming hurdle. A simple extension that reads the .shp file directly would probably handle a majority of new user requests I see for GIS to Illy functionality. The Arc .ai or .pdf export works but is inelegant at best.

[Michael Schmeling]

A simple extension that reads the .shp file directly would probably handle a majority of new user requests I see for GIS to Illy functionality.

Technically I could do something like this. I have already written Illustrator plugins and APIs for reading shapefiles are available. But I wonder if there would be enough interest for such a plugin.

[ELeFevre]

A simple extension that reads the .shp file directly would probably handle a majority of new user requests I see for GIS to Illy functionality.

Technically I could do something like this. I have already written Illustrator plugins and APIs for reading shapefiles are available. But I wonder if there would be enough interest for such a plugin.

I'm interested.

[David Medeiros]

We used to offer a MAPublisher Lite version.
In fact we did for many years, from version 1.0 all the way to v5.0
But sales were very very small and 99% of those who bought it upgraded to the full version within 30 or 60 days.
So we stopped offering it.

I'm curious, what was the functionality? and how much did it cost?

[Dennis McClendon]

Isn't SHP to AI the basic aim of IndieMapper?

[David Medeiros]

Isn't SHP to AI the basic aim of IndieMapper?

I haven't used it, but from the website it seems that it does .shp, KML & GPX to SVG, JPG and PNG. I know SVG can be brought into AI but a direct output to .ai would probably be better.

The real issue is that IndieMapper is an online mapping service with a monthly fee ($30). That service fee will add up pretty quick if all your doing is converting to SVG.

[dsl]

This conversation seemed to turn harsh quickly. I do not intend to misuse any software

Sorry Patrick. I didn't mean to imply that you were attempting to misuse the software. I posted the question for my own edification.

Cheers,
David

[Andrew Patterson]

I'm curious, what was the functionality? and how much did it cost?

Ted left for a conference on the west coast -- so it may be a while before he answers

From what I recall (I was a co-op student on 3.5, so its been a long time!) MAPublisher Lite let you import a subset of formats (I think, it might have been all available at the time) and I believe the Attribute Viewer was available in read-only mode. I don't think it had anything else, but there might been one or two minor things. No re-projection, exporting or attribute editing though, that much I'm sure.

I remember the discussion when we dropped Lite. Its everything Ted said -- Sales was telling us few people ever bought it, and when they did, they almost universally upgraded to the full version. Since it was a pain in the rear to QA a full & Lite version, we opted to spend the time developing the full version instead.

As for cost, I can't remember. I've always been a developer, I rarely pay attention to the sales side. It was less, obviously, but I have no idea what the ratio was.