[BBPandy]

BlackBerry 10 Maps Will Only Support 2D Viewing





Research In Motion announced this year their partnership with TomTom for building the new maps app in BlackBerry 10. Many have wondered how BlackBerry 10′s maps would differ from iOS 6 maps, given that they both use TomTom for the travel information.

Apple seems to have tried to make their iOS 6 maps app have 3D viewing, similar to what Google has already offered. However, it seems Apple has failed miserably at proper implementing the data.

RIM seems to feel 3D viewing isn�t necessary, as the BlackBerry 10 maps app will only support 2D view. This is according to a slide that was shown at BlackBerry Jam Americas. Does it matter that BlackBerry maps will only be in 2D and not trying to render cities in 3D?

Personally I would rather RIM provide accurate navigation that gets me where I want / need to go compared to fancy inaccurate navigation. Maybe RIM can make a great Navigation App & then improve it's looks in future versions. After all their BlackBerry Traffic already rocks, my only complaints with it is that it doesn't have maps built in.



Though I do like how Apple made their road signs.....





BlackBerry 10 Maps Will Only Support 2D Viewing - N4BB

[llllBULLSEYE]

Blackberry Traffic was my most accurate turn by turn navigation.
nothing fancy, but works. The 3D is def a gimmick. More like a nice
visual effect to look at nothing more nothing less.

[dbmalloy]

Well it will hopefully be better than the maps in IOS6.... Almost whissed myself when using it... one map would have run me directly into the lake if I did not alreadyknow where I was going. As much as 3D is great eye candy I would much prefer a solid 2D mapping on BB10 and not have them repeat the Apple fiasco....

[kbz1960]

Good I don't want 3D images eating up my data.

[TRlPPlN]

function over fashion please.

[Bobcat665]

For crying out loud, I avoid 3D movies! 3D mapping? Just another gimmick, IMO. A lot of people are not going to be happy if it eats an excess of data. There had better be an option to turn it off...

[antiRIM]

I don't care if its 3D as long as it doesn't come out like Apple's map app.

[greatwiseone]

Frankly don't care about fancy maps. I just need maps to navigate me to the right place. 2D/2.5D will suffice, thank you very much.

[Thunderbuck]

Frankly don't care about fancy maps. I just need maps to navigate me to the right place. 2D/2.5D will suffice, thank you very much.

People like eye candy, even if they don't want to admit it. If the 3D map thing actually WORKED the way it's supposed to, yes, people would have been impressed.

In the wake of this fiasco, though, I think it looks good on RIM to just politely send the message of "we're not going there yet".

[BBPandy]

Maps 2.5 with lane assist is all I need. 3D is gimmicky...especially fly over

....but yea, though not needed, Gimics are fun to play with

[stackberry369]

Want 3D?buy a tv with it.

[mikeo007]

Good I don't want 3D images eating up my data.

That's a pretty silly reason...if they even needed to be downloaded, those 3D buildings (like the ones pictured above) would use a virtually unnoticeable amount of data. You'd probably drop more data in packets downloading the basic map data than you would actually use downloading the 3D data.

[TRlPPlN]

i say, launch a fully functional mapping app then start adding to it. i dont care much for 3d but if other consumers do, RIM should implement and push it out as an option down the road. seriously..i used the apple one over the weekend in San Francisco and that thing couldnt even get the streets right.

[JPMorgan_]

Will this work outside the US, Canada, etc??? Countries like Mexico, that are keeping RIM alive need to have released this kind of app.

[mrfreetruth]

That's a pretty silly reason...if they even needed to be downloaded, those 3D buildings (like the ones pictured above) would use a virtually unnoticeable amount of data. You'd probably drop more data in packets downloading the basic map data than you would actually use downloading the 3D data.

No it's not a silly reason and I like to see you back up your

"those 3D buildings (like the ones pictured above) would use a virtually unnoticeable amount of data"

With some numbers. Why are you here mike007? You come to complain about everything RIM does? negative nellies love to complain.

[mikeo007]

No it's not a silly reason and I like to see you back up your

"those 3D buildings (like the ones pictured above) would use a virtually unnoticeable amount of data"

With some numbers. Why are you here mike007? You come to complain about everything RIM does? negative nellies love to complain.

And ignorant fools like to spread false information. It must get tiring being proven wrong all the time, no?

To satiate your ignorance...a vast oversimplification...

A 3D rectangular prism would have 8 vertices.
Assuming none of the vertices are already defined in the mapping data.
Assuming relative points, (let's say on an 16-bit grid), a single building would take up 128 bits plus an extra few bits for the relative start (0,0) location for the shape.
Heck, let's give it a full 128 bits for location information, so 256bits per building.

With no compression of any type, you're looking at about 32 buildings per K/Byte in this scenario.

[Majestic Lion]

Release 2D maps with turn-by-turn nav that works, and release 3D as a separate option that can interface with the first where necessary; for architects, urban planners, students, etc.

3D mapping is a gimmick for the general public, if you don't need it then there's no point in having it.

[kfh227]

I'm in the boat of who cares.

3D is a gimic. It is cool to look at once or twice but beyond that it is pointless.

I use map software to get from point A to point B. And frankly, my Droid 3 sucks at it. It doesn't have voice or voice is not intuitive to turn on/off. Either way, it is 2012 and simple things like turning voice on/off should be easy.

So, give me a headsup 2.5D view and voice commands and I am happy. I don't need more and could care less to have more.

[kfh227]

And ignorant fools like to spread false information. It must get tiring being proven wrong all the time, no?

To satiate your ignorance...a vast oversimplification...

A 3D rectangular prism would have 8 vertices.
Assuming none of the vertices are already defined in the mapping data.
Assuming relative points, (let's say on an 16-bit grid), a single building would take up 128 bits plus an extra few bits for the relative start (0,0) location for the shape.
Heck, let's give it a full 128 bits for location information, so 256bits per building.

With no compression of any type, you're looking at about 32 buildings per K/Byte in this scenario.

You forgot the typical 40% overhead for header information in data packets. Smaller payloads are even less efficient ;-)

Toss in the fact that going cross country, your service(ie: bandwidth) will vary. Point is, in everday use, 3D is pointless.

[kfh227]

Maps 2.5 with lane assist is all I need. 3D is gimmicky...especially fly over

....but yea, though not needed, Gimics are fun to play with

Forgot about that. Lane assist is an absolute MUST!

[Rello]

Give me offline maps and it's instantly more useful than any 3D maps in my opinion. The eye candy would be nice, but it's definitely not a feature I need

[mikeo007]

You forgot the typical 40% overhead for header information in data packets. Smaller payloads are even less efficient ;-)

Toss in the fact that going cross country, your service(ie: bandwidth) will vary. Point is, in everday use, 3D is pointless.

You're right. Obviously the 3D data isn't transmitted separately from the 2D mapping data. I was just showing exactly how small the size of a 3D object is in data terms.

I also never said 3D was useful for mapping I tend to think that isometric (2.5) is just fine for navigation.

[Balti43]

i use google, 2D maps that came preloaded to my android (1 out of 4 map apps preloaded onto my android) and it works flawlessly. turn by turn voice activated. i dont want to deal with the 3D taking forever to load if im in a low coverage location. used the 3D mapping on my way to san diego a while ago, and it was fun for the first 10 minutes then i got annoying cause it started blocking everything.

i just preferred the 2D.


but yes i agree, dont release an map app like apple. please

[GTiLeo]

Well it will hopefully be better than the maps in IOS6.... Almost whissed myself when using it... one map would have run me directly into the lake if I did not alreadyknow where I was going. As much as 3D is great eye candy I would much prefer a solid 2D mapping on BB10 and not have them repeat the Apple fiasco....

i think this is where apple went wrong with theirs, 3D mapping is nice to look at but i don't think it has the accuracy of the 2D and if it does its just to much for a phone to do

[cbvinh]

And ignorant fools like to spread false information. It must get tiring being proven wrong all the time, no?

To satiate your ignorance...a vast oversimplification...

A 3D rectangular prism would have 8 vertices.
Assuming none of the vertices are already defined in the mapping data.
Assuming relative points, (let's say on an 16-bit grid), a single building would take up 128 bits plus an extra few bits for the relative start (0,0) location for the shape.
Heck, let's give it a full 128 bits for location information, so 256bits per building.

With no compression of any type, you're looking at about 32 buildings per K/Byte in this scenario.

Why are you storing so much information? You just need location information along with length, width and height of the building. The building would be centered on the location point.

More complex shapes would require more information, of course, like vertex data, but for a simple box building, no.

The expense isn't in sending the above; it's in sending the images to accurately texture the buildings.

Regardless, it's more data for what gain? Street View makes more sense since most of the time, you're looking from the street vantage point. Bird's eye is good for whom? Pilots, balloonists, couch travelers, ???